The role of youth in social change
It is quite certain that youths staged revolution against authoritarian rulers that came from Europe as colonizers of African nations in order to gain economic interests.
Thisimperialist expansion to Africa was definitely possible as they used military forces as a way of controllingresourcesauthoritatively.
Although their expansion has in fact brought many good things to our society such as education, religion,culture and system of governance, sadly enough, these European and successive Islamic Arab colonizers have apparently dominated and oppressed ourpeople for many years to achieve their objectives.
But this was ended by conscious youth whostaged successful revolutionsagainst the authoritarian rulers with the aim of assumingpolitical power within Africancountries.
Simply, it was logical for youth to make revolution despite the fact that theybecamemore authoritative against their own citizens because of practice of corruption due togreed.
Unfortunately thiscycle of revolutionstaged by the youth will never end as the same youth become authoritative when they get power with intention of making more wealth due togreed.
Thereforeideal revolution in my thinking is for both youth and knowledgeable intelligent leaders to joinhands to makepositive action that can reform and change our society.
Strictly speaking it is always sensible for youth to stage revolution with cooperation of well culture politician to achieve necessaryreform and changeof bad governance instead of wasting time with jungle law thataffectour system of governance.
Thus military warlords of mind set cannot let developmentbe realized for progress and prosperity.Their inheritedof bad culture of war with confuse situation of administrative jungle lawwhere there is an intense struggle for survivalwithin the jungleforest areawithin the nation is not acceptable.
It has been ongoing since liberation struggle for political power control within the economic jungle ofluxuriant vegetation foliage.
They managed to orientate youth into communist ideology thathas affectedsystem of governanceas most of them neverbelieve in a democratic system today.
Thus military hierarchy dominates our system of governance which leads to civil administration management failure. For these reasons guerilla movementposition cannot be use as reason of running the system of governance.
Truly military warlords are well known authoritarianas they practice military centralization and personalization of power through control of status quo without using democratically institutional practices.
In this sense political crisisdoes remain unequivocally and fundamentally more political without promotingdemocracy, political and economical centralizationresult toeven economic crisis as centralization needboth horizontal and vertical on powerwithin the system of governance.
Nevertheless,decentralize politics in South Sudan is that the legislative and judicial branches of power could, become independent and their power strengthened to act as a checkand balance on the powers of the executive.
This power and authority excise by the heads of state blatantly overrides the powers of the legislature and judiciarywithin the country.
Thus personalization of power by the ruler leaves an enormous gap that exists between the ruler and the people. Until one day the constitutions of the country and other laws are revised to give the ruler the right to exercise exceptional powers. Although there is a need to limit excessive concentration of power in the hands of the executive if to ensure some level of accountability within other organs of the government.
By doing that there can be breakof state’s monopoly through seeing thatthe formal structures within the state should no longer becentralized.
The state must communicate within the society across all the clans not with one so call ethnic group in the society. Thus decentralization absorb three issues at the middle level; groups have something they can control at their level as decentralization will be territorial and ethnic based which make minorities to be protected if they have for example, in the wrong area.
This means that decentralization cannot be replaced by authentic at grass roots leaders with party members. It is useful to encourage local autonomy that can strengthen civil society at grass roots level. And that cloaked in rhetoric without devolution that result in illegitimacy and weakness of civil society set up.
Indeed as our states became increasingly incapable of delivering on their economy and political promises, political association life does emerged at the local level.
This does take the form of a shadow state, where people organized themselves to provide basic services to citizens at their communities that have been ignored by the state itself.
In this bubbling up process, these groups try to extract necessities from the state in order to provide services for their people.
But if there is to be efficient link between state and society through articulation by association, then local government with devolution can be appropriated by all as it could provide the missing link between the center and periphery within rural areas.
However, decentralization can be a little dangerous, because the more we try to decentralize, the more we come up against certain community realities that may dismantle or destroy the greater community in the society.
In this there is an inordinate amount of stress on certain ethnic communities or characteristics to talk about. But this may not always be optimal, as far as our country of tomorrow is concerned.
Although in such circumstances federalism might be the best known mechanism even not giving autonomy to different societal groups.
Thereby accommodating what participants do termed as ethnic variable. In contrary comes regionalism, in the form of a unitary state with some federal character.
By resorting to ethnic groups that are territorially based, then people worry about ethnicity because disputes can later lead to intergroup conflicts when groups live in proximity such as in South Sudan. If groups live in the periphery it can lead to separation in the end.
Also if groups are interspersed, then violent conflict can likely emerge meaning that there are no simple solutions to political problems of that kind.
In a sense this devolution of authority in the form of a federal or regional state, I see a problem with the concept a federal state dividing the country into local governments that have absolute sovereignty over their units. In this tribal and ethnic problems could easily emerge perhaps to extent of leading to disintegration of the whole nation.
Any way there is nothing to be so proud about as regionalism and federalism does weaken the central government by recognizing ethnicity or majority–controlled government would not be able to function as expected by the people in the end. It is acceptant of regional government but the state should be given central powers to allow it to function effectively if to distribute resources where needed.
This is why democracy must recognize differences that exist among groups of people if institutionalization is to take place within a federal system.
In spite legitimately such vary from state to state if federalism is to work, there must be real commitment to the center as well as to the individual units.
Otherwise federalism does not provide means of keeping together people’s who do not want to stay together anyhow. Although there is acknowledgement for executive systems of governance to function in this climate where there is decline and stagnation of the economy.
Meaning in the end democratizationdo improved governance and human rights aspects in the society.
In conclusion, thus political scientists said that the concepts of democracy and governance were interrelated, but were not the same governance that entails the efficient and effective reciprocity between ruled, with it incumbent upon government in respective manner.
The majority democracy, on the other hand, entailed a broach consensus on values and procedures, the participation in the selection of ruling elites, and the accountability of leadership to the elected. Both concepts are related to processes in society within the context of reciprocity.
Although our country does need governance reforms as these leaders has practiced bad governance that should be tied to policy performance than blueprint for democracy.
The author of this article can be reached via: firstname.lastname@example.org /www.sudanilechristiandp.org
or Phone: +211915334323