Prof. Emmanuel Yenshu Vubo, a Political Sociology lecturer with the University of Buea, revisits the reasons behind last week's attempted coup in South Sudan and why the situation has since degenerated into a virtual civil war. 

What explains last week’s botched bloody coup in South Sudan and the ensuing conflict it has since generated?

As for the coup d’état, only its perpetrators can explain why they undertook it. South Sudan gained independence in peculiar circumstances. This explains the internecine disputes it is experiencing at the moment. Firstly, rather than arrive at a solution to the racial discrimination that the southerners were facing from an “Arab” North, independence was obtained after a protracted war supported by the super powers.

This solution seemed to have been imposed by external powers who wished to weaken Sudan, reduce it in size, cut it off from the oil wealth of the South and have a foothold in the region. This is how a new ‘artificial’ African State was born without the essential ingredients of a nation such as equal citizenship and regard for identity differences. The lack of consensus and preparedness to live together explains why ethnic conflicts have characterised the young republic from the very beginning.

The same Dinkas and Nuers who once served SPLA are supposedly enemies today. In this way, South Sudan’s people are ironically in the same situation they fought against within the larger Sudan: where the majority discriminated against minorities. The new nation has gone the typical African way where politics is seen through a tribal or identity lens. This is the trouble that has bedeviled almost all African countries.

Secondly, it is also well known that the North, now Sudan, not pleased with the way South Sudan’s independence was achieved, has been fuelling long-drawn inter-ethnic conflicts in order to destabilise the new nation. It will not be strange to find that one of the protagonists is being supported by Sudan.

Were the problems being unearthed by the current crisis foreseeable at independence, and what could have been done to prevent them?

Yes and no. Independence was fought for and won as an inter-racial dispute. Overcoming the discrimination and neglect of the South was the over-riding preoccupation. Little thought was given to the eventuality of power-sharing among South Sudan’s ethnic groups. Independence came rather abruptly, with no time to ideologically prepare the ground for peaceful coexistence between the various peoples.

This is how the country has drifted into such a situation. Drawing inspiration from South Africa, one would have expected the independence leaders to take the firm decision not to ever live the type of situation experienced within the former Arab Republic of Sudan. Unfortunately, this was not done.

What future do you see for South Sudan, given that serious internal crises have cropped up just two years, five months after independence?

Conflicts take a long time to overcome. In the short run, the solution can only be political and through a discussion among the parties in conflict. This holds true for the government as well as for the opposing forces.

The identity problem and the question of the ethnic distribution of power are rather inconsequential in relation to the development challenges that the country is facing and for which the SPLA fought. War can only slow down such prospects. The President and his former deputy should bury the hatchet and find a common ground to move this resource-rich, but poor country forward.