In moments of national fragility, the conduct and clarity of public officials become the decisive measure of a state’s future. It is precisely at such a time that the political posture of Ezekiel Lol Gatkuoth invites serious concern, not merely as an individual failing, but as a reflection of a deeper distortion in the understanding of government itself.
At its core, government is not a private arrangement of convenience, nor a network of loyalists bound by proximity to power. It is a structured system of authority, comprising legislature, executive, and judiciary, designed to make, implement, and interpret laws in the service of the public good. It exists to provide services, maintain order, and protect citizens under the rule of law. Any departure from this foundation is not innovation; it is regression.
Yet, Gatkuoth’s political conduct reveals a troubling deviation from this universally accepted principle. His apparent abdication of institutional responsibility in favor of personal loyalty suggests a fundamental confusion: mistaking government for a benefactor rather than a public trust. In this framing, allegiance to power supersedes duty to the nation, and governance is reduced to an instrument for political survival rather than public service.
This distortion is most visible in his promotion of a loyalty-centric model of governance, one that equates political endurance with unwavering submission to the existing order. Such a view not only undermines professionalism in public service but also erodes the very essence of accountability. A modern civil service is not defined by obedience to individuals, but by fidelity to truth, law, and institutional integrity, even when these stand in tension with political authority.
More dangerously, this approach elevates the person of the president above the state itself. By implicitly advancing the notion that Salva Kiir Mayardit embodies the system, Gatkuoth contributes to the construction of a political cult in which national identity is subordinated to personal rule. This is not governance; it is personalization of power, an approach historically associated with institutional collapse rather than state-building.
Such thinking carries broader societal consequences. By framing governance through narrow, quasi-traditional lenses, it risks misrepresenting entire communities and reinforcing collective blame for systemic failures. In a country striving to transform its diverse tribal identities into a unified national fabric, this is not merely misguided; it is profoundly counterproductive.
Equally flawed is his conception of public service and capacity building. By privileging loyalty over merit, it transforms state institutions into vehicles for elite preservation rather than engines of equitable development. The implication that political office is a reward for allegiance, rather than a responsibility grounded in competence and accountability, entrenches exclusion and weakens institutional resilience.
His interpretation of sovereignty and security further compounds the problem. Recasting constitutional duty as personal duty to leadership replaces the rule of law with rule by discretion. In such a system, dissent becomes disloyalty, and legitimate criticism is dismissed as hostility to peace. This is not stability; it is the suppression of the very discourse necessary for national progress.
History offers a cautionary parallel. Systems that prioritize control over reform, and loyalty over justice, do not endure; they fracture. The failure to address root causes of conflict, masked by rhetoric of unity and “home-grown solutions,” risks perpetuating cycles of instability rather than resolving them. Peace without accountability is not reconciliation; it is the postponement of crisis.
Even in economic management, the reduction of governance to the mere maintenance of revenue streams, particularly in the oil sector, reveals a narrow and inadequate vision. A functioning economy is not measured by its ability to sustain those in power, but by its capacity to improve the lives of citizens at every level of society.
Ultimately, the politics advanced by Gatkuoth reflect not a coherent model of modern governance, but a reversion to a closed, centric system where power circulates among a few under the guise of state authority. It is a model that confuses control with leadership, loyalty with legitimacy, and survival with success.
South Sudan’s path forward cannot be built on such a foundation. What the country requires is not the personalization of power, but the institutionalization of governance: a system anchored in efficiency, transparency, accountability, and citizen participation. This demands a government that is open rather than insular, adaptive rather than rigid, and accountable rather than self-preserving.
The true test of leadership, especially in times of uncertainty, is the ability to rise above narrow interests and align with the enduring principles of statehood. Anything less is not merely a political misjudgment; it is a disservice to the nation.
The writer, Juol Nhomngek Daniel, is a lawyer, politician, lecturer, and member of SPLM-IO. He can be reached via email: nhomngekjuol@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.