THE IMPLICATION OF STATE FORMATION ON STATE INSTITUTIONS IN INDEPENDENT SOUTH SUDAN
Authors: Abraham K. Nyuon, Ph.D. & Ajang Atem Joseph, Ph.D.
ABSTRACT
State formation as a process at the international level has aroused interest and controversy among scholars of the African state and states elsewhere. While the states outside Africa have been shown as having gone through a different course of formation many still believe that the state in Africa especially Sub-Saharan Africa had not experienced the process which the state in Europe and elsewhere had gone through. What is interesting is that many scholars from outside Africa want to study the African state from the time of colonialism as if Africa had no past before European colonialism. This therefore many times leads to concern for many who want to study the state in Africa before colonialism where some authors depict pre-colonial Africa as having no form of polity but quasi or decentralized societies with no form of statehood. This part of history is ignored and therefore it becomes hard to explain the consequences of the way the state was formed in form of institutions formed, conflict and security. The people of South Sudan have historically known more war than peace because of the institutions that were formed during colonial times and later bequeathed to post-colonial leaders. South Sudanese believe now that they are their own nation; it’s time to teach people how to build strong institutions which can protect the citizens and their state through indigenous institutions and constitution. Currently, the institutions in South Sudan are weak, wrecked by corruption and Nepotism. The people in these institutions do not see themselves as belonging to one state where everyone should have equal rights and most importantly, these institutions are a threat to human and national security of the state of South Sudan. This scenario cannot be explained minus the history of the colonial impact over Sudan where South Sudan was a part. The colonialists could not build indigenous institutions, they were not concerned with democracy and a constitution, but built a ruthless army against the indigenous Sudanese including those in southern Sudan who later seceded to form the new state of South Sudan. The breakaway of South Sudan is an interesting area of how states in Africa were formed and the institutions that have become a liability to South Sudan which can be explained by the state formation process which needs to be investigated.
Keywords: State Formation, South Sudan, institutions, state, African states
CONCLUSION
This paper examined the impact of the disrupted state formation process on institutions building, their nature, and character in South Sudan from the time when the southern part of Sudan had been given partial autonomy from Sudan. South Sudan has been listed as one of the states that are categorized as failed states. A good number of authors have not considered the history of South Sudan when examining institutions in South Sudan. The colonial state in Sudan has had far-reaching impact not only on Sudan but also in South Sudan. The area which was covered by Sudan before the secession of Southern Sudan to form the state of South Sudan had polities but many who study state formation in Africa prefer to examine the African state from the colonial times as if there was no nation or emerging states in the same area. This has led to the partial explanation of the impact of colonialism on the institutions built in many states in Africa including South Sudan which was shaped under Sudan. The colonialists did not in any way try to build institutions that would protect the citizens and states in post-colonial times. The colonialists built brutal forces, and agents who served their interests, they used divide and rule, the economic infrastructure that were built was not meant to advantage the indigenous people. There was no form of democracy, they introduced their languages, education system and the administration structure built on dominance of some tribes over others. The remains of such institutions was what was given to leaders at independence. In Sudan, there was no chance that southern Sudan would be any better as it was enslaved and denied any foundation of institutions. This explains the secession of the South, but the new state of South Sudan could not escape the colonial history of institutions in Sudan where it was a part.