A recent statement by a minister in President Salva Kiir’s government, who has in recent days identified himself as one of the Nuer leaders in Juba, advances the notion that loyalty to the nation requires unequivocal alignment with the government, particularly on matters of sovereignty and constitutional order. The statement contends that citizens and public officials cannot simultaneously support both the government and an armed rebellion, presenting this as a necessary “black-and-white” position in the defense of the state. Drawing on rhetoric associated with former United States President George W. Bush in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, it further suggests that political ambiguity is incompatible with patriotism and that genuine loyalty to South Sudan requires unwavering support for the government in the face of armed opposition.
At first glance, this framing appears decisive and compelling. However, it rests on a borrowed parallel that does not withstand careful contextual scrutiny.
Invoking President Bush’s post-9/11 declaration that “Either you are with us, or you are against us” may resonate emotionally in its original context, but its application to the political realities of South Sudan is conceptually unsound. The post-9/11 framework was developed to address transnational non-state actors operating outside any shared constitutional or political order. By contrast, domestic political contestation takes place within a shared constitutional framework in which legitimacy may be contested but is not externally determined. Conflating these contexts risks treating internal political disagreement as though it were an external security threat. This shift is not merely rhetorical; it transforms the moral and legal basis upon which political judgments are made, replacing constitutional contestation with the logic of wartime categorization.
Can a slogan designed for counterterrorism against an external adversary be responsibly repurposed as a framework for adjudicating internal political loyalty? More importantly, does such a framework meaningfully distinguish between armed rebellion, political opposition, and legitimate civic criticism, or does it instead collapse these categories into a single label of “disloyalty”? If so, is it still an argument about national defense—or has it become a rhetorical device for narrowing political space and delegitimizing dissent by borrowing moral authority from a fundamentally different historical crisis?
Seen in this light, the analogy does not clarify the debate; it instead distorts it. The danger is not that it is forceful, but that it is imprecise: it substitutes a globally recognized security narrative for the far more complex realities of South Sudan’s internal political contestation, where legitimacy is not assumed but continuously negotiated.
The weakness of the parallel becomes even more apparent when applied to the conduct of the government itself. If the post-9/11 doctrine of “Either you are with us, or you are against us” was used to justify a global response against those who attacked a state from outside its borders, how can Kiir’s government—now facing allegations of serious crimes, including mass violence against its own citizens and other abuses documented by local sources and peace-monitoring bodies—adopt the same moral language of absolute loyalty?
The government has faced widespread and well-documented allegations from international and regional bodies, human rights organizations, and political actors regarding serious incidents of violence against civilians during various phases of conflict and political crises.
In that context, one must ask: how does a government with such a contested record of internal violence demand unconditional alignment while denying space for dissent and collapsing all political opposition into a label of “disloyalty”? Is it truly defending the nation, or is it using the language of national security to avoid accountability for violence committed within its own borders against the very citizens it claims to protect?
It is precisely from this distortion that the central misconception emerges: the assumption that the government and the nation are synonymous.
A government is a temporary institution entrusted with power for a limited period. Its authority is derivative, not inherent, and is conditional upon continued consent, constitutional compliance, and accountability to citizens. In many political systems, public demonstrations of loyalty can become incentives for political survival and advancement. Such displays, regardless of their underlying motivation, often blur the distinction between loyalty to a government and loyalty to the nation itself. These performances must be understood in context: they frequently reflect incentives within political systems rather than a clear expression of moral alignment between government and nation. Political actors must understand that governments come and go; the nation endures. No one should be under the illusion that loyalty to a government is identical to loyalty to the country.
Once this distinction is acknowledged, the space for moral reasoning in politics becomes clearer. Without it, citizens are forced into a coerced alignment, where disagreement is interpreted as betrayal, and policy critique becomes indistinguishable from hostility toward the state itself. It is entirely possible to oppose corruption, incompetence, abuse of power, or failed policies while remaining deeply committed to the nation. In fact, responsible citizenship often requires people to speak out when public institutions fail to serve the public interest.
Supporters of the original statement might argue that in a country that has experienced repeated armed conflicts, ambiguity regarding support for constitutional authority can create genuine security risks. That concern deserves consideration. Yet recognizing the need for constitutional order does not require treating every critic of government policy as an enemy of the state.
The claim that citizens must choose between supporting the government and supporting rebels presents a dangerous dichotomy. It is a category error that conflates armed rebellion with a single moral category of disloyalty, despite their fundamentally different legal and political statuses. Many South Sudanese reject both armed rebellion and the government’s policies. They support neither violence nor authoritarian governance. Instead, they stand for lasting peace, reform, accountability, constitutional governance, and the rule of law. This distinction does not minimize the seriousness of armed rebellion or its consequences for civilian security; rather, it insists that security responses and political criticism must not be merged into a single category of illegitimate opposition.
Defending constitutional order does not require granting any government unchecked authority. One can oppose armed attempts to seize power while simultaneously criticizing leaders who misuse authority, violate rights, or fail to deliver good governance. These positions are not contradictory; they are consistent with loyalty to the nation rather than loyalty to personalities, political patronage, or sycophantic praise of individuals—in this case, Kiir.
True patriotism is not measured by proximity to power or by blind praise of those in authority. It is instead measured by the willingness to uphold constitutional principles even when doing so is politically inconvenient or personally costly. It is measured by fidelity to the principles that give a nation legitimacy: justice, freedom, accountability, and equal citizenship under the law.
From this perspective, the attempt to equate criticism with disloyalty becomes fundamentally untenable. If the government truly belongs to all citizens, as is often claimed, then criticism cannot be treated as treason, dissent cannot be equated with rebellion, and demands for better governance cannot be interpreted as hostility toward the nation. A government confident in its legitimacy should welcome scrutiny; blind loyalty driven by political expediency is not genuine loyalty.
In institutional terms, durable governance depends on feedback mechanisms that allow error correction. Suppressing criticism removes those mechanisms and increases the likelihood of policy failure and political instability.
South Sudan deserves loyalty to its people, its constitution, and its future—not unconditional allegiance to any government, leader, or political movement. Unquestioning praise of the current regime in the face of governance failures, or public displays of exaggerated loyalty designed to signal political alignment, are not patriotism; they are forms of sycophancy that ultimately weaken the nation they claim to defend.
Duop Chak Wuol is an analyst, critical writer, and former editor-in-chief of the South Sudan News Agency. He is a graduate of the University of Colorado and writes on geopolitics, security, and social affairs in South Sudan and the broader East Africa region. His work has appeared in leading regional and international outlets, including AllAfrica, Radio Tamazuj, The Independent (Uganda), The Arab Weekly, The Standard (Kenya), The Chronicle (Ghana), Addis Standard (Ethiopia), and Sudan Tribune. In 2017, the Ethiopian Broadcasting Corporation highlighted his article on Meles Zenawi’s role in Ethiopia’s economic transformation. He can be reached at duop282@gmail.com.
The views expressed in ‘opinion’ articles published by Radio Tamazuj are solely those of the writer. The veracity of any claims made is the responsibility of the author, not Radio Tamazuj.
and then