The narratives spoken at the peace meetings were not completely controlled by the
hakuma and repeatedly criticised the role of the
hakuma and members of the government in the conflict. For example, an army general in 2018 explicitly warned against discussing land at the peace conference. Yet, chiefs did not hesitate to specifically blame members of the government for conflict and to discuss prohibited topics, such as land. Some argued for the need to ‘vomit it out’. This vomiting of grievances was not to incite tensions, but so that hot hearts and grievances could be exposed and, therefore, solved. One legislator argued: ‘You have said that nobody should mention the border issue and that anybody who does mention it will be considered to be inciting violence. It is not true. It is what is unsaid that divides people.’
1 Legislator, speech during Ajiep Peace Conference, 21 April 2018. Conference attendees also used comical images to mock those who tried to restrain discourse at the meetings. For example, one woman in 2018 in Ajiep told the following story:
A woman left her child with a man while she went to collect firewood. The man was so engaged with the child that when the woman returned, the man jumped up in fear. As he jumped, he let out a loud fart. Feeling ashamed, the man beat the woman in the head. The woman did not complain, but concerned neighbours took the case to the chief … Because of the man’s violence, the chief and whole village came to know that the man had farted loudly.
2 Woman leader from Kuac, speech Ajiep Peace Conference, 21 April 2018. The woman used this story to highlight that the hakuma’s violence had also made visible their faults and costly pursuits of their own interest. The hakuma was a farting man. She warned that people in the hakuma who tried to hide their faults through violently supressing criticism would only increase their visibility.
Criticism of the
hakuma also often highlighted the class difference between the Juba-based members of the
hakuma and those living in Greater Gogrial. As one chief asserted, ‘let those who buy you guns come to fight themselves’.
3 Chief from Gogrial East, speech at Ajiep Peace Conference, 20 April 2018.A repeated accusation in the peace discussions was that some elites from Juba – and often those who were not attending the meetings – were inciting violence and buying guns, while keeping themselves and their children at a safe distance from the conflict.
4 Interviews and discussions with people in Warrap State, 2017–2019. This visible class divide, which was manifest in who could and who could not stay safe and avoid the violence, was a repetitive, accusatory observation.
Specific Juba-elites were accused of distributing guns and of preventing their allies and relatives being arrested. As one chief said, ‘[t]oday, our government distributes guns like salt’.
5 Chief, Ajiep Peace Conference, 20 April 2020. Many weapons that were collected during periods of disarmament were quickly returned to local markets as soldiers got hungry and wanted to exchange weapons for money. Those speaking were usually careful to limit their accusations to unnamed but specific elites, as opposed to condemning all political leaders.
Peace meetings did provide a public forum to contest government power and legitimacy. However, this acted more to quieten dissent than to bring change. Discussions about law have highlighted how colonial and authoritarian rulers have created a semblance of listening to their citizens through law courts, which has actually helped them cement their unaccountable authority.
6 Mark Fathi Massoud, Law’s Fragile State: Colonial, Authoritarian, and Humanitarian Legacies in Sudan (Cambridge University Press, 2013). In many ways, for the government, these peace meetings had a similar function.