By: Jack Lino Wuor Abeyi
(Gurtong Edited/Published)-The irony is that federalism is being championed by elites from regions which could fair equally badly with those they accuse of fear if it is to be implemented. Why did the call not come from communities living in either Unity or Upper Nile states?
Take the case of the Dinka communities in the Melut Basin (around oil blocs 3 and 7) in Upper Nile state as an example. It sits on the largest discovered oil reserves in Africa (newly revised figures estimate the presence of at least 10 billion barrels of crude oil under the basin). In the meantime, development remained an elusive dream in the basin, which took more than its fair share of suffering under Al- Bashir’s aerial bombardments during the war.
Even today, those communities are facing the environmental consequences of chemical toxins from the oil production. The poisonous materials leak into water sources and destroy their livestock, farms, land and lives.
Why aren’t they champions of federalism and request half of the oil produced in their backyards? Do they not want to see the streets of their cities illuminated and filled with expensive vehicles, take their children overseas for medical treatment like most corrupt politicians do? Did they grow accustomed to live of misery and dispossession? I am sure the opposite is true.
The most successful and practical form of federalism, which South Sudan could learn from, is that of the United States of America. Each U.S. state benefits from the federal system but manages its internal affairs separately.
Take the case of the highly prosperous state of Florida as an example. The state has managed to benefit from its tropical weather and attracts millions of retirees into large suburbs and secluded resorts.
It also encourages tourism and direct foreign investment by not imposing state taxes on business conducted within its borders. As a result, Florida’s annual budget is one the largest in the union.
On the contrary, to the west of Florida, lie the states of Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana. They comprise a region which has historically been the stronghold for slavery and white supremacy.
It is therefore not a surprise to see them attracting few investors, which translates into modest annual budgets compared to that of Florida or New York. They are also major recipients of federal aid and therein are found the unhealthiest and the poorest population in the union.
In the future, the Federal Republic of South Sudan will have many states which will prosper while others will trail behind. The economic prerequisites for federalism in any environment include the presence of a reasonable educated population and economic equality among various regions of the federal system.
There’s also a need of a reliable infrastructure for effective communication and transportation to insure efficient transportation of goods and services across the federation.
South Sudan sadly lacks any of those factors for a healthy federal system. Therefore, it shouldn’t come as a surprise to say that the major factor, which will decide the shape of any federal arrangement in South Sudan, will be an agreement on the amount of money each state must contribute to the federal treasury. What form of federalism can be set up if citizens from Upper Nile and Unity states refuse to subsidize the budgets of the remaining eight states?
It will be a hotly contested issue and a time when current enthusiasts to the proposal will scratch their heads wondering what they have pulled themselves into.
The solution was easy in the U.S model: the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution gives the federal government permission to collect Federal Income Tax from every legally working individual in all fifty states. In other words, the U.S. has a tax-based economy.
On the contrary, South Sudan has a resource-based economy with inefficient tax collection mechanisms. In fact, over 98 percent of our national revenue is received from crude oil produced within two states: Unity and Upper Nile.
There are no significant taxes that can be collected from various states now and in the near future even if best tax collection methods are introduced; for the following reason: there’s no middle class to generate business projects and drive consumer activities.
Further more, most businesses in various states are concentrated in the informal sector of the economy, which are hard to be taxed. These include local merchants who rely on selling simple goods to families of government employees and the law enforcement agents.
Citizen in the ten states are faced with a problem of low purchasing power since their little budgets is often delayed in Juba. These are certainly not hospitable conditions for federalism now or in the near future.
Furthermore, if federalism is formed with an agreement to subsidize sizable portion of individual states budgets from the federal treasury, as it’s currently being practiced, then the same states might abandon the goals of generating development activities within their border and grow a habit of dependency on federal funds.
More, precisely, states will remain vulnerable to decisions by federal politicians in Juba while their citizens remain impoverished. The truth is that no single state will be able to stand on its own feet and fund its own budget without large subsidies from the central government.
Not even the two oil producing states of Upper Nile and Unite as their Capitals lay in ruin and their population scrapping by at various U.N camps.
Practical implementation of a federal system, without first insuring national reconciliation and nursing social ethos might exacerbate ethnic strives in the area of service delivery. Individual states will begin to keep accurate population census and genealogical records of their citizens, as they will be the basis for service delivery.
Oil producing states stand the chance of quickly affording the construction of modern healthcare and educational facilities, hire the best physicians, build better roads and provide better security to its citizens.
How will these wealthy states treat citizens from poorer states when they come knocking on their door, requesting medical treatment or education for their children?
Mishandling of such potential issues could cause ethnic tensions and mass relocation of entire communities from certain states to others. Minority ethnic groups within one state might feel discriminated by more dominant ones. States will guard their borders with the viciousness of a lioness protecting her cubs; cattle rustling might cause intra-state wars since they will be settled by state law enforcement agencies and not mere cattle owners. States will grow more homogenous and the final picture will be a nation divided across ethnic lines.
The second possible challenge, which will arise from implementing federalism, before first fighting corruption, will affect the area of foreign investment. At least two possible problems might arise here. The first one concerns the visitor visa policies for investors entering the nation. This is an area where the current government deserves much credit for protecting the nation’s resources and economy by preventing bogus investors from entering the country.
However, in a federal system, there will be two ways to rush for development. Individual states, now realizing that they must stand on their own feet, will crisscross the world in search for investors.
In the meantime, thousands of investors will flood the nation to choose a suitable state for investment. The federal government will struggle to prevent shady investors from conducting maladroit dealings with state officials or risk seeing the country descent into chaos.
The second and more serious investment challenge might come from the quality of investors individual states will attract or find themselves tricked into signing shady deals with.
Additionally, state officials, now operating without fear of federal officials watching their backs, might practice corruption with impunity. The natural wealth of the states might be at the mercy of thieves and bogus investors. State citizens will only have to blame their own state officials.
The idea of federalism might have enchanted many citizens to see it as a viable solution to the problem of governance in the south Sudan; but it’s not the best. Its timing, as stated above has added fuel to the fire of confusion in a society washed in ignorance.
Federalism is now being interpreted as a new code for tribalism. It’s hardly an issue citizens can coalesce around if they become aware of its challenges in the current political period.
Those who expect it to deliver the positive outcomes it promises might be expecting too much. It will be like giving a car key to five year-old children and expect them to drive themselves to school and come back safely.
Before the nation embarks on a serious debate on the issue, there is a need to promote solidarity, reconciliation, and a sense of nationalism. Quite simply, federalism without nationalism is another tragedy in the making.
(*Read Part 1 also posted here).
Jack Lino Wuor Abeyi is a researcher in Political Science and Sociology. A graduate of Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, U.S.A. He can be reached at cush2008@yahoo.com