By EMMANUEL MALUAL
In an unexpected turn of events, a survey conducted by a group of people in South Sudan has pointed out that the presence of five vice presidents in the peace agreement between Dr. Riek Machar and President Kiir Mayardit is viewed as worse than rebellions by the people of the nation. This revelation has sparked a widespread debate and calls for upcoming elections to bring an end to the current complex governance structure.
Amidst ongoing efforts to achieve stability and peace in South Sudan, the inclusion of five vice presidents was aimed at fostering inclusivity and power-sharing among different political factions. However, the survey’s results have caught the attention of the general public, shedding light on a sentiment that challenges the effectiveness and efficiency of this arrangement.
Public sentiment indicates that many South Sudanese citizens are disillusioned by the complexity and apparent inefficiency of the five vice presidents system. They argue that a simpler government structure, with only a president and deputy president, would be more conducive to addressing the pressing issues the country faces.
“The current system creates unnecessary bureaucracy and slows down decision-making processes,” says Samuel, an outspoken resident of Juba. “We need a streamlined government that can swiftly respond to the needs of the people and focus on tackling the root causes of the conflicts we have faced for so long.”
This growing sentiment has led to an increased call for elections to establish a new leadership structure that aligns with the desires of the South Sudanese people. Advocates for elections argue that the democratic process would provide an opportunity for citizens to elect a president and deputy president who can then focus on uniting the nation and driving forward much-needed socio-economic development.
However, proponents of the five vice presidents system maintain that it ensures broader representation of different factions within the country and guards against the concentration of power. They argue that dismantling the current arrangement could potentially reignite tensions and jeopardize the fragile peace process achieved so far.
With both sides presenting compelling arguments, the push for elections to streamline the government structure in South Sudan gains momentum. It remains to be seen how the political landscape will evolve in response to the survey’s findings and the prevailing public sentiment. As the nation navigates through this critical juncture, all eyes are on the leaders to shape the future of South Sudan and respond to the aspirations of its people.
Once upon a time in South Sudan, a land blessed with natural resources and potential for economic growth, the people found themselves trapped in a state of despair. The country had been through a difficult period of conflict and division, and as they yearned for stability and prosperity, they began to question the very structure of their governance.
The citizens grew increasingly concerned about the size of their government. It seemed that every decision was bogged down by a myriad of voices and conflicting interests. At the heart of the issue was an alarming number of vice presidents, each vying for power and influence. The multitude of five vice presidents not only created confusion but also added unnecessary burden to the public coffers.
Additionally, a parliament comprising 550 Members of Parliament (MPs) seemed excessive for a country still struggling to find its economic footing. The people wondered if such a large legislative body could effectively address their needs and concerns. To make matters worse, there were over 30 cabinet ministers, each with their own deputies, leading to a bloated bureaucracy that appeared disconnected from the reality on the ground.
As the people pondered the situation, hope for economic recovery started to wane. They couldn’t help but question the allocation of resources and the efficiency of their government. Money that could have been invested in vital sectors of the economy was being spent on inflated salaries, unnecessary positions, and administrative costs.
However, amid the gloom, a collective voice began to rise. Citizens, activists, and intellectuals joined forces to advocate for change. They called for a leaner, more transparent, and accountable government that would prioritize the well-being of the nation over personal interests. Social media campaigns, public debates, and peaceful protests began to resonate.
The demand for reform eventually reached the ears of the policymakers. The government, realizing the growing discontent, pledged to undertake a comprehensive review of the governance structure. A constitutional assembly was formed, comprised of representatives chosen by the people, with the goal of redefining the country’s governmental system.
The assembly worked diligently, engaging in constructive debates and drawing inspiration from successful models of governance from around the world. After months of intense deliberation, they presented their findings to the nation.
The new constitutional proposal recommended a reduction in the number of vice presidents to a more manageable and efficient size. The parliament would also be streamlined, allowing for a more focused legislative process. Additionally, the number of cabinet ministers and their deputies would be significantly reduced, ensuring that only the most essential roles remained.
With the proposed changes, the citizens of South Sudan felt a renewed sense of hope.
They believed that a more accountable and efficient government would be better equipped to address the pressing economic challenges and bring about much-needed development.
As the sun rose on a new day in South Sudan, the people recognized that true progress lay not in the number of positions or cabinets, but in the commitment of their leaders to serve the nation diligently. They understood that by working together, they could overcome their past grievances and build a brighter future for all.
