South Sudan is Museveni’s Laboratory of Bad Leadership that Produces Toxic Leaders to Misgovern Blue people
8 min read
President Kiir and Museveni in Kampala, October 2014
By Zechariah Makuach Maror, Juba, South Sudan
Sunday, February 07, 2021 (PW) — Recently, President of Uganda was caught bragging about South Sudan calling it a “laboratory of bad leadership”, something left a question on the scene of social media Analysts up to date. In my opinion, the description is more than fitting to how leaders are running the Country, though describer himself is a Lab technician who is training the described students on how to cling into power. If we are to count key actors who destroyed South Sudan, Uncle Museveni can rank third after two South Sudanese war made leaders who ruined off the country. Bragging of South Sudan has nothing to do with wisdom than the hypocrisy of defecating in the eating plate after serving himself, needless to say South Sudan is the potential economic hub of Uganda, and Museveni must have had respect for source of his livelihood.
What did Museveni meant by “laboratory of bad leadership?”
Uncle Museveni meant South Sudanese leaders are visionless and directionless autocrats, greediest controlled by freaks to varying degrees, who tend to use both micromanagement of lineage, over-management and management by fear to keep a grip of their permission in the institution. The misery is, they usually dislike making decisions that can favorpreponderance, regard-less of the level of authority or factual correctness. To him, South Sudanese leaders are more than toxic leaders that are both hypocritical and hypercritical of their citizens as well as dull to accept the rules that run the lab, pursuing the illusion of glimpsing subjects as corporate and moral virtue to hide their bureau vices. Hypocrisy in this context involves the deception of others and is thus a form of prefabricated to so-called “my people” which is exploitation as well mal-adjusting to withstanding change.
What is toxic leaders and why?
Historically, the etymology description of “toxic leaders” was first coined by Russian Bolshevik Revolutionist in their worker revolution of 1917. “Russian Bolshevik Revolutionist” once described their leaders who are morally perverse as toxic leaders to describe commanders who put their own needs first, micro-manage subordinates, behave in a mean-spirited manner or display poor decision-making on interest. South Sudanese leaders in the country’s top management work to promote themselves at the expense of innocent lives, and usually do so without considering long-term ramifications of their dependents, their member, and the profession workers whom they use as tools of conflict for material gain.
The purposeful account of moral failures in leaders does not provide a complete account of the “laboratory of bad leadership” phenomenon. One needs to suggestthat the reason South Sudanese leaders misbehave ethically is that they willingly go against what they know to be good unknowingly just because of short term interest, unlike lab technician who knows the outcome of any action and direction. However, offering an alternative analysis of leaders who excuse themselves from normally applicable moral requirements. The cognitive account for ethical failures in leaders provides a better analysis of the issues involved in all the ethical conundrums under the rubric of Museveni’s lab produces (toxic leaders).
None bad leadership laboratory manufactured leader can know that a certain kind of behavior is generally required by morality of public institution but still be mistaken as to whether the relevant moral requirement applies to them in a particular situation and whether others are protected by this requirement. How leaders make exceptions of themselves, explains how the justificatory force of leadership gives rise to such exception-making and develops normative protocols that leaders should adopt. Museveni’s statement without J1 subsequence harsh response is a confirmation of uncle Museveni supremacy over twosovereign states in East Africa i.e., one for “bad leadership” that rules “blue people” and the other one for “good leadership” that govern “black people”(SOUTH SUDAN and UGANDA).
Are South Sudanese guilt of existence?
To be honest, South Sudanese are innocently guilty of an unspecified crime as well as a victim of the vote they have cast in favor of separation in 2011 referendum. One dare to say, South Sudanese felts beset by the world and is always in favor of disadvantage because of the leaders’ selfish machinations or lack of consideration for citizens. But it isn’t just a fate of being South Sudanese that causes this “victimization” to experience more difficulties than citizens of any other countries, but attitudes and actions of believing and supporting leaders who care less about people and care most about the seats could be the capital crime assumed to have been committed by South Sudanese in their land.
Though giving in all rights in possession of existences which viewed by citizens as an only option, it often ends out in ocean of tears because rulers always give citizens a “kick of stresses” that psychologists can’t gain back in treatment, therefore South Sudanese are guilty of ignorance as well as tribalism.
Why south Sudanese are blue people?
When citizens are reluctant to resolve a problem, the leaders can have benefits thus, making innocent subjects ended up in victim mentality that makes them feel pleasure when they received Museveni’s attention of pity, describing South Sudan’s crisis as a result of misfortune befallen them. In response, the innocence South Sudanese may also get a perverse “thrill” from showing off the injury caused by their leaders and admitted a sense of guilt by refusing to accept responsibility for a problem that can be liberated in less than a weeks, months, or years, perceiving it as a natural dilemma created with or a curse that they have inherited from their creator right from the time God allocated fortune and misfortune. It is this ignorance inform of tolerance that President Museveni described as “Blue people” because “Black people” are not such oblivion.
Why did Museveni distance himself from his students?
Teaching psychologist believe that “No teacher lovesdull student!”
We have leaders who neither accept personal guilt for the outcomes of their choices nor take responsibility for their actions. For example, the citizens gave each of them responsibility inform of the social contract in 2010 elections, which seems to be a small mission they could have completed in the quicker period, and then subjects would be in a position to thank them that they stand responsibility by completing the task, and for withstanding any external aggression, challenges or problems that may emanate as a result of life circumstance. But it disappointedly tends opposite, they decided to misplaced ploy manifestos as a tool of lured people into what I can term as “non-acquitted crime”, making them professional magistrate that can preside over live fate depending on their mercy to punish subjects for having bestowed trust on them,ordered citizens to keep hush whenever they want to accomplish their ambition. Uncle Museveni did not taught them this course in his laboratory and that is why he is trying to distance himself. Museveni in hisphilosophy of bad leadership laboratory believes that,“kill he who want leadership, but not he who want food”.
According to uncle Museveni, the Revitalize Agreement on The Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan (R-ARCSS) was not peace in political concept,but a ploy of overstaying the rule. And intention was politically correct, Revitalized government of National Unity is the only hope which citizens surrender their lives, the fate depends on its actors’ mercy, if his students accomplished it in a safe environment, people will say thank God for touching their hearts. And then enlarge help to build trust between them (leaders and people). In other word, if such win will have been achieved it would help to build self-respect, trust and pride to teacher Museveni, thus making laboratorypopular to attract many students in the whole region, but failure of his students to observe rule of the game isbelieved to be failure of first experiment on blue people in laboratory of bad leadership.
Uncle Museveni is worried of Subjects without knowing that portion of subjects still have hope in themselves, seeing Revitalized government of national Unity as an opportunity of success ascertained Museveni’s students’ readiness for more responsibilities. On other hand, there is an indication that portrays clearly that R-ARCSS isn’t being set up for that hope given the fact of former politico-militarydivorce in 2016 known as J1 dogfight, Museveni has reason to worry.
Portion of subjects hold illusion that, no hope if former dogfighters are unlikely to view such experiences in a positive light; Making this ongoing process zigzag government appropriate rather than a one-off exercise; to help reinforce their acceptance of personal accountability to pave the way for justice as stipulated in the Agreement on the Resolution of the conflict in the Republic of South Sudan, should Museveni description be deflected otherwise, constant scene can deny South Sudanese their real visible color.
The carelessness of South Sudanese leaders is a judge for the lives fate of their country, and at the same time a curse and threat to their population and east African at large. How do you expected lab technician to express himself when his students are unable to understand experiments in laboratory? He did not taught them to view innocent citizens as sub-human, he should be harsh to correct them.
The final reality remain like this, uncle Museveni made that statement to rescue himself from his fellowUgandan who hated him because of his much involvement in South Sudan crisis. He was trying topush mistake to its owners in order to be re-elected for his sixth term as he had done. On the other hand, he was trying to save his face from the world’s pity groupwho had been accusing him of masterminding South Sudan crisis thus, enlisting himself among the world leaders who are hunting for Novel peace prizes.
The writer is an activist based in Juba, South Sudan, he could be reached via zeemakuach@hotmail.com
The opinion expressed here is solely the view of the writer. The veracity of any claim made is the responsibility of the author, not PaanLuel Wël Media (PW) website. If you want to submit an opinion article, commentary or news analysis, please email it to the editor: info@paanluelwel.com or paanluel2011@gmail.com. PaanLuel Wël Media (PW) website do reserve the right to edit or reject material before publication. Please include your full name, a short biography, email address, city and the country you are writing from.
About Post Author
