I do believe that “too many parties is a big mess” for country like Sudan or south Sudan. But it doesn't mean that one party should rule without competitive, like what happening now in north & south Sudan.
SPLM believes that it should rule the south for 21 years, with no competition from any party specially DC, (friend of mine in SPLM told me that). That means SPLM had made its mind and doesn't want anyone to compete or share the power with it. That is why Dr. Peter Adwok Nyaba is saying this “Conditions don't exist, in the Southern Sudan, for multi-party democracy in the context of Western Europe and America”.

When I said, too many parties is not so good for south at this moment I meant that tow, three or four parties should be there to compete, and not ten, thirty forty parties. Through this competition we can get good governance and good performance, because opposition can watch after government performance.
What I know so fare is that, in middle of seventies and early eighti...

Dear Prof. Peter Adwok Nyaba,

Thanks for your well-thought response to Achwanyo Thabo Adam's article, and with due consideration of the valid points you raised, I would like to object to your statement that "it will be day dreaming to speak of democracy multi-party or otherwise. This is because most of the dominant communities remain traditional, stateless in the classical sense and therefore don’t subscribe to modern state and its workings."

I think it is good to dream of something better and then try to start to put it into practice from the perspective of one-step to many-steps for completing an ideal journey. Unless we agree beyond any reasonable doubt that multi-party democracy is not a better political system to work for, then I could get tempted to support your argument. Otherwise, if we wait till, perhaps, miracles change the status quo of our traditional communities, we should not expect any change because human politics is never miraculous.

Remember that the w...

Dear Prof Peter adowk Thank you for this response Given that political pluralism is to recognize the existence of diversity, and this diversity results in different interests, concerns and priorities, it is a manifestation of political modernity, so you must respect this diversity and accept the consequent dispute or difference in creeds and tongues, interests, lifestyles and ... And then priorities. If something is necessary is to find adequate formulas to express it freely in an appropriate framework
In order to create political pluralism in the State, there must be a legal system that provides all the social groups the right to organize independently and express their views on its origin ,is found in Sudan, but can not compared with developed countries

Dear Folks!!! Many thanks for your comments. However, I do sincerely subscribe to the concept of multiparty political dispensation. What I said and which seems to have been misunderstood is that multi party democracy does not operate in a socio-economic vacuum. There are conditions under which it could operate functionally. These include a developed economy, a vibrant civil society, the rule of law, etc. In Southern Sudan of TODAY these conditions are yet to be constructed. Perhaps in future multiparty democratic system of governance may germinate and take roots in our society. At present, the political discourse is about national liberation which requires participation by all and in this respect the social, economic and political interests are almost identical. The apparent diversity in opinion, as may be reflected by the large number of political parties, springs from personal competition for power. They are splinter groups or variations of original party: The Southern Liberal P...

Dear Prof. Peter Adwok Nyaba,

Your further clarification is much appreciated because it sheds more light to what you have argued out before. However, if there is socio-economic vacuum in the south that is not favourable to the germination of the multi-party democracy, I don't think it is wise to wait spectacularly for the vacuum to get filled up miraculously, without trying to start some steps forward.

Let's put it into consideration here too that without today (present) there will not be tomorrow (future) and there would have not been yesterday (past). That is, if we don't start planting today the seeds of political multi-party systems we want for our future, I don't think it will make any sense to expect “future multiparty democratic system of governance to germinate and take roots in our society.” Therefore, it is wise to saw seeds first if we want germination and rooting of our plant. This is a basic metaphysical principle of any growth and progress.

From your argument, it...

Yes, James Okuki I don't think there is much difference only that which comes first in the riddle of the chicken and the egg you will find that the egg came first but as a result of genetic mutation it transformed from reftile to aves (bird). You can talk of multi-party democracy now and realise it under the conditions obtaining in Southern Sudan. But this does not suggest that I am for a one-party state. It is further from that. In the classical Marxist political economy the stage Southern Sudan is in may be described as the stage of national democratic revolutionary stage in which the political discourse is on the building of the state and the economy. It is democratic in that it involves all sections of the society and it is revolutionary in that it addresses the relations between these sections of the society. Stay well

Prof. Peter Adwok Nyaba,

If we agree here as you stated that "In the classical Marxist political economy the stage Southern Sudan is in may be described as the stage of national democratic revolutionary stage in which the political discourse is on the building of the state and the economy", should we also agree that the same classical Marxist theory be applied to the existing "splinter groups or variations of original party" who seek power competitively only for power sake as you may want your readers to believe? That is, the continual conflicts of those individuals, groups or parties could be considered as necessary elements for keeping the Marxist “national democratic revolution” alive where the fittest should survive while the non-fittest regret extinction.

And if this is the case why are we wasting our time here? Why don't we allow the Marxist Historical Materialism with its epochs (stages) to take care of the situation since it is a determinism theory? Why a...