By Mak Banguot Gok (Makjohnson),
Aug 28, 2021 — Simply by looking into the bond between Dr. Riek Machar Teny and his followers as the Chairman and Commander-in-Chief of the revolutionary movement (SPLM/A-IO), you can see how plainly that, many are coming to realizes the theoretical and practical weaknesses of Dr. Riek Machar as revolutionary leader. Nothing else prevented the SPLM/A-IO-led revolution from early success. Patriotism was undeniable amongst the freedom fighters; massive support by the civil population provided all the necessary resources for the movement’s military operations and its political business. But, Dr. Riek Machar’s lack of revolutionary leadership skill served as the fault circuit…………!
To begin with, we look first at the meaning of the revolution according to its holistic definition in the words of Karl Marx, I quoted! “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles”. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes. Revolutions pragmatically ebb and flow, and revolutions seldom are single events; they are processes and need time to fulfill their goals. In fact, a revolution can be an internal war, the revolutionary coup, the reform coup, and/or the palace revolution. The Dr. The Riek Machar-led revolution may have fallen under one of the above categories.
When we take an example of the latest revolutionary movements, SPLM/A-IO movement under Riek Machar can be weighed against; you realize that ours doesn’t match with the styles of their revolutionary conducts. For example, the Kurdistan Workers Party; the Movement of Central African Liberators for Justice; the Coordinators Aauco-Malleco of Chile’ the National Liberation Army of Colombia; the Democratic Force for the Liberation of Rwanda, plus many others contemporary rebellions around the world that can teaches us with a comparative outlooks.
And, to know what it is when taking part in the revolutions, we can refer to an Anarchist Sergey Nechayev who argued in Catechism of Revolutionary, and, I quoted! The revolutionary is a doomed man. He has no private interests, no affairs, sentiments, ties, property nor even a name of his own. His entire being is devoured by one purpose, one thought, and one passion – the revolution. Heart and soul, not merely by word but by deed, he has severed every link with the social order and with the entire civilized world; with the laws, good manners, conventions, and morality of that world. He is its merciless enemy and continues to inhabit it with only one purpose – to destroy it.
Dr. Riek Machar since he began his revolutionary endeavor in the 1980s, he was for proper reason regarded to be the only political personality who had the benefit of gargantuan support from his own people (the Nuer people). And indeed, sixty-three tribes with the exception of only the Dinka ethnic community, have followed the example of the Nuer, and they too, stood firm with Dr Riek Machar for such a long duration. However, we can’t discuss in detail the type and magnitude of the support which Dr Riek Machar has taken pleasure in throughout his historical political journey. Simply, we believe there are realistic grounds that, he (Dr. Riek) ought to appreciate his people ‘unlimited patronage. The dead, the disabled, the missed, and the other categories of the Nuer men and women who have served for Dr Riek Machar’s political wimpy were the best witnesses.
Giving a particular regard to the current SPLM/A-IO-led revolution, and with the same Dr. Riek Machar leading the movement, one can certify only by observing quietly. And, if someone with an intuitive conscience, he/she can easily identify the whole mess within the movement’s political leadership. Meanwhile, with Dr. Riek Machar’s best knowledge, the SPLM-IO ‘political culture has been so confused to the point that, lack of a sound leaderships have fostered the deadly nepotism, corruption, violence and a chronic lack of transparency associated with Dr. Riek Machar’s political leadership of the revolution. This is because, beyond any reasonable doubt, the SPLM-IO ‘political powers are more or less being concentrated in the hands of political families. And, with that, it promoted and encouraged those opportunists to advance their Self-serving political and economic interests. That means, Dr. Riek Machar’s politicians are only succeeding in trading jobs and other services in exchange for favors or support for their political family. Wife and husband’s style of political representation has been undisputed with many examples in Dr Riek Machar’s best knowledge.
At the inception of the conflict in the year 2013, the SPLM/A-IO-led revolution had been embraced enthusiastically by many to the point that, many people, including an overseas spectators, they realized that, SPLM-IO movement indeed maximized a huge acceptance within amongst the people of South Sudan. To be somehow specific, it has been on a variety of raison d’être that let South Sudanese to joined the SPLM/A-IO movement in a significant numbers.
One of the prime objectives that forced many to join up the SPLM-IO at its earlier stage was that, people of South Sudan widely thought of the tribalized political system (regime) that ruled the country with brutal violence and impunity can only be stopped by another more powerful violent force. And, toppling the rogue regime once and for all, moral and determination were obvious.
The revolution in 2013 was well timed because, it occurred whence South Sudanese population were in a political systemic crisis. And therefore, the conclusion as to many people was that their general socio-political situation was so undesirable, and that people should stand it no more in order to alleviate that unfolded situation. And for that, a good numbers have rose up and took arms to destroys the oppressors.
As in any of the revolutions, the objectives involve an alteration of values or the myth of the political system in Juba. More importantly, an alteration of the social structure; a change in the political institutions; a change in what was in the eyes of the ruling tribal clique a legal and illegal in Juba (I.e. legality or illegality of the change). Meanwhile, by considering the SPLM-IO movement’s political objective as somewhat steadfast for a rapid, basic transformation of the South Sudan’s state and class structures, many South Sudanese of different social spectrum have become SPLM/A-IO members at the beginning.
Unfortunately, lack of guiding political principles such as, “political ideology” and “political directive/doctrine” diminished the people ‘revolutionary enthusiasm. Those who were only involved hoping for the SPLM/A-IO’s revolutionary conducts as somewhat swift, have quiet in regression that, not actually being the SPLM-IO movement they were thought of to bring a radical alteration to the status coup.
As we all know that, in almost all of the human revolutions which have been carried out, and are still happening in the world, there is only one thing in common. The “Political Ideology”! By having an action-oriented objective (ideology) that guides the movement’s military and political struggles, that effectively can facilitate the revolutionary movement’s success. Therefore, the Revolutionary Leaders such as Che Guevara and Mao Zedong amongst many others were armed with Marxist and other liberal ideas. In general, ideology (socialism, liberalism and/or Conservationism) are the tools helping a revolutionary leader to come up with the set of objectives and goals needed in waging a planned revolutions. Ideology also gives leaders and supporters the commitment and conviction required in battling (and defeating) the rival government. Where revolution is ignited without any significant organized effort, it is spontaneous; where guerrilla-led revolution occurred, it is planned.
In anything of its similar nature, Dr. Riek Machar is lacking the kind of a proactive revolutionary ideology when comparing with others of his kind. He is best described as a Millenarian rebellious (Utopian Dream which inspired by a Living Messiah)…….. Dr Riek Machar’s revolutionary endeavors is somewhat a gainsaying to the doctrine of modern revolutions. Its mode of political mobilization; military operations; an external connection to mentioned only few, have been the center of worrying and apprehension. The way Dr Riek Machar has been handlings the SPLM/A-IO movement’s revolutionary conduct is completely different with how others revolution such as, the (Militarized Mass Insurrection) which is the phenomenon of the twentieth century based on a deliberately planned mass revolutionary war guided by the dedicated elite.
And, for the success of every revolution, it heralds the transformation of the old political and economic orders. This the basis and the prime objective on which many were dragged into the struggles. More importantly, every revolution in order not to slip halfway the victory, it needs an organizational strength, popular support, resources, and ideology that influence a planned insurgency. However, it is my contention that the main conditions in South Sudan such as, the economic development, regime type, and the state ‘ineffectiveness were the triggering factors that produced the onset of revolution. We know the rest of the story, including the fact that, Dr. Riek Machar’s political ideology, if any, it was unknown to even his own closet.
Dr. Riek Machar’s rapport with the SPLM/A-IO followers was too complex to say the least. Indeed, the fact that his liaising with the bulk of SPLM-IO’s cliques was born out of necessity (that was actually begun with no clear indication of how and what the future might bring). For only this reason, it is easy to conclude that no one knew for sure how long the SPLM/A-IO-led revolution struggle would have taken. And, temporarily at the beginning of hostilities in 2014, it was obvious that many South Sudanese thought of the conflict that it would shortly be resolved. Unfortunately, nearly nine (9) years elapsed.
Instead, the SPLM-IO Chairman Dr Riek Machar ended up in Juba in a situation that many are caught up in bewilderment as to what such a bizarre confinement means and when is that coming to an end. With this particular regard, people are obliged to revive their thinking about Dr Riek Machar Teny’s revolutionary endeavor for over three decades. This is noble, and we need to reconsider how effective Dr. Riek is as our revolutionary leader.
The very reasons why people were firstly convinced to join Machar. At the inception of war in 2013 was the tone of Dr. Riek Machar who presented himself as leader of the frustrated people of South Sudan; the hugs turn up, and others issues, including indiscriminate killing women and children of the specific tribe in Juba and others states on what was an ethnically built political agenda. Without Dr Riek Machar’s calls and mobilizations of the masses for the revolutionary duties, people themselves with unshielded patriotic enthusiasm, there has been an unquestionable push factor for them to join the SPLM-IO movement when the revolution began.
As mentioned earlier, the triggering factors of the conflict in South Sudan tend to ignite due to the long resentment which has been boiling in the heads of the people. They thought of its nature as to be radical, rapid, fundamental, and violent for domestic change in the dominant values and myths of South Sudan (in its political institutions, social structure, leadership, and government activity and policies).
Therefore, whence the onset is refers to a number of insurrections that have been wagged by Dr Riek Machar before, the most popular one which is the rebellion of the year 2013 has been widespread across the rural and/or urban areas of the Republic of South Sudan; a vast number of people (often in millions) have involved; hope was lightened to stresses only few. And, after nearly ten years of struggle, the hope chattered. Dr Riek Machar’s supporters are supposedly expected as a result to rethink and judge between, like for example, “how their leader (Machar’s) desire to achieve a grand stroke of victory over the regime in Juba” such as, the reality of his fighting a defensive war with, at times, and with a skeleton force and, the ways he (Machar) was actually directing the movement’s practical operations. The following questions such as, “how did Dr Machar lead the movement’s armed forces? How did he cooperate with his subordinates (military officers), and the ways the movement’s political organization has been supervised? And how did his contemporaries South Sudanese (supporters/foes) viewed Dr Riek Machar’s conduct of the overall ‘revolutionary business throughout the war? And, by critically examining these inquiries, a more holistic interpretation of Dr. Riek Machar Teny may be gained.
Dr Riek Machar is that kind of revolutionary leader who doesn’t know how to organize an army nor does he know the importance of the revolutionary armed forces. He didn’t know or hardly believed that, of all the insurgencies, having an organized army behind the revolution is above all the heart and soul of the revolution. To mobilize, recruit, train, provide logistics, indoctrinate, and provide a clear chain of command, something that Dr. Riek Machar hardly understood all too well. Any revolutionary who doesn’t care about his armed forces as the backbone of insurrection is working for a loose game.
Thus, it is important when you use your own understanding on how Dr Riek Machar as the commander in chief communicates with his subordinates in the military rangers. Dr Riek Machar is not that kind of a courageous revolutionary leader who can endure the heat of the struggles among his own peoples on the bushes. A revolutionary leader who prefers luxurious over hardship is fragile to indirect and/or a direct commissioning of bribery and corruption. Being not present in many of the occasions amongst his own army, Dr Machar doesn’t lead by example, and he proceeds on his consistent style of always rejecting the societal demands for political reform and the movement’s military welfare. He encouraged violence to quell those he thought of to be critical dissenters, and he (Machar) created an individualized patronage politics within the SPLM-IO movement that was susceptible to revolution.
Specifically, popular support and resources (both from domestic and external sources) always influence the success of a planned revolution. Organizational strength (a function of skillful leadership) also matters to withstand and defeat government attacks and counter attacks as well as popularize the revolutionary movement in planned revolutions. Here is also another most challenging aspect of Dr Machar’s democratic revolution. Lack of a skill of preserving his followers ‘freedom over the long haul; observing a sound constitution which embodies the concepts of a Democratic political system such as, limited power, the separation of powers, and equal justice under the law. Likewise, a good political leadership is also important as so is civic virtue…
