Governance conditions, roles and capacity‐building needs in the rebel‐held areas of Southern Sudan

Abstract

AbstractAn assessment is made of the state of sustainable human development (SHD) and the institutions of governance that are in the process of being established in the rebel‐held areas of Southern Sudan. The development roles of the main governance actors—government, civil society and the private sector—are examined and capacity‐building needs are described. The importance of good leadership, institutionalised partnerships between government and national and international NGOs, and capacity building for transparency and accountability is stressed. Most pointedly, the risks of allowing governance practices, suited to the management of a liberation struggle, to spill over into the civil administration of a peaceful state are emphasised. The conditions necessary for the institutionalisation of sound governance practices are discussed. Of particular importance are a genuine desire on the part of the leadership to establish such conditions and a willingness on the part of external donors to address issues of accountability and transparency openly in collaboration with the leadership. The data are also suggestive of broad development strategies that address the bases of SHD and empowerment. These broad strategies are designed to improve the very low levels of health and education that exist in the Southern Sudan, and thereby empower people to engage in economic activity and in governance decision‐making. Rehabilitation and maintenance of the physical infrastructure underlies all development activity. The findings highlight the governance difficulties faced by war‐torn societies, the challenges facing post‐crisis administrations and (confirming Caplan 2002) the need for such administrations to possess sufficient executive authority to be able to perform effectively in situations of ‘pre‐state, post‐imperial chaos’. Most critical of all, however, is the genuine interest of the major powers in doing more than—when it suits them—extinguishing the flames of conflict or establishing acquiescent political regimes following the military pacification of ‘rogue’ or anarchic states. Effective post‐crisis administration and development calls for much greater commitment of resources from the major powers than has been forthcoming to date, reflecting a belief among them that equitable and sustainable global development is the preferred route to the prevention of such crises. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.