Disadvantages of “SPLM” Guideline 2009

By: Mayar Mayar Kout

Many of us have observed that all political   circumstances in country was assumed  to be favoring our party (SPLM);  in southern states but  it’s seem to decline dramatically in some states according to polling surveys at the local public opinion. And the reason is simply because the party has miss a historic chance because of  its recent selection process for party’s candidates nominations  by selecting un popular candidates which have brought a signal of rebellion voices from party’s members. Some expressed their frustration and others are bitter about the ways party’s leadership handled a selection procedural but a true panic in the public opinion is that the internal split from party’s insiders members which would lead to many declaration of independents candidates in some southern states.

 Obviously, the causes of the recent frustration and resentments was resulted as technical mistake made by  the SPLM party’s Political Strategy Committee (PSC); and those errors were committed by the above committee during their drafting of what so called “The SPLM Candidate Draft Selection Guideline 2009”; and I’ve listed some of some observations:

First of all, the Committee has chosen a selection of “Electoral College Committee); in each state without having good criteria that would be use to qualify a person who will serve in that important Committee.

Their choices of wording in that selection guideline 2009; manual, has opening door of bring in un-qualify person to served in committee. For   example,   they have drafted in some passage that “Electoral College Committee”; will be consist of a traditional   community leaders” as well as some “Opinion Leaders”;

Here’s argument, I would be making though, on weak aspects of guideline 2009; and what the Committee done wrong politically and ethically. Some severe mistakes they have made, two things, expectation was getting criteria platform of qualifying a person who will be committee of (ECC). My viewpoint was political experience, especially person who had served before at the same technical political work.

Secondly, the “Education background” was necessary to be considered because the committee its effectiveness, need a person who have reading & writing skills to understanding process. Eventually, the qualify agent will be always able to help in explaining simple concept of draft guideline 2009.

However, the selection of “Electoral College Committee”; in many states became a problem in which the members of committee were appointed by former’s state governors intentionally and thinking they will be working in his/her favor. Beside the vast majority in those committees were Chiefdoms of Sultanates that’s also a harmful in many selection’s procedural.

Another, thing was a error committed by the same committee, is their choosing of wording for example using of un opening adjective or word it’s un specified pronounce that was in guideline 2009; says   “Opinion Leaders”; will serve in that Electoral college Committee (ECC),   once again it’s   un specified it’s a definite argument let’s say what if you got a thousands in certain community are (Opinion Leaders) and then suppose they all happen to be a party’s members so what criteria will you be using to qualify a fewer from the list of thousands… while they all have an opinions and logical.

Coming into conclusion, “the SPLM Candidate Draft Selection Guideline 2009”; it’s still a vital guidance which was aiming to party’s goal of selecting well qualified “Party’s Cadre” who will shape party’s vision and principals. However, the recent failure resulted from a procedural execution of selection guideline 2009; a mistake as rooted at early stage work of committee from their choosing wording- up to implementation of selecting process of “Electoral College Committee (ECC)”;

So I would close, by suggesting a few solutions that would at least relieve the party’s situation. First of all, the party should give an exclusive steady to “Guideline Selection Rule 2009”; and reason for that revision should address the following issues: 1. a correction of choice wording; especially on “Opinion Leaders, Traditional Community Leaders”; those terminologies need more specifications and clarity.

2. Party’s political strategy committee (PSC); must propose a very solid criteria as a qualify measures of qualifying person to served in “Electoral College Committee” (ECC); In addition to person’s   education background and political experience would be key aspects during selection of that committee.

Lastly, the party should steady some other alternative tasks rather than having select party’s candidate through “Electoral College Committee” ECC; we could try approach of primaries at Counties level in which there must a one candidate to be brought from County after their primary but we will still keeping “Electoral College Committee” (ECC); their jobs will be short listed of all candidates at least to come up with  two candidates, who score    highest points   and second provisional candidates… Etcetera.

A writer is Computer Analyst, he reside southern Sudan – Juba.

Prefer contact email: [email protected] or [email protected]