The growing power of government and certain
bany e bith clans associated with government prompted rivalry from other
baany e biith. Debates have raged over the boundaries of the purity of the priesthood and their ability to retain their power while proximate to government.
1 Interview with chief, Gogrial State, 2019, on the phone; interview with elder from Gogrial, Juba, 2018; discussions with key informants from Gogrial, 2018 and 2019. There have been growing efforts to recast the
baany e biith as more exclusive, not necessarily to one clan but to the logics of governance of the home communities
instead of the
hakuma.
Between government figures, political loyalties were apparently bought for cash among political elites.
2 de Waal, ‘When Kleptocracy Becomes Insolvent’. Some politicians also tried to buy the loyalties and powers of
baany e biith for money or material reward. This threatened to blur the moral and ontological distinction between the power of the gun and the power of the spirit. Yet, the meaning and morality of exchange have been contested to question the boundaries of buying divine favour.
Firstly, people and competing baany e biith in Gogrial have criticised baany e biith who are too close to government for breaking traditional norms and distinctions. It is not as if there was a static past without history, yet the history of the last hundred years had provided opportunities for baany e biith to question the benefits of proximity to government and especially the towns. Bitter baany e biith were associated with rural areas even if, occasionally, power was blurred with the chiefs.
Secondly, they are criticised for losing their vision of being supporters of the welfare of the community. The claim is that, historically,
baany e biith served the welfare of a wide community, and were a priesthood for the public. This vision of authority was about public welfare in that the
baany e biith was able to petition the divine for the welfare of a broad, public group and was accessible to the whole community.
Baany e biith who have become too close to the elite class of the
hakuma have been accused of using their powers to bless individuals alone.
3 Interview with male elder, Gogrial, May 2019. This is visibly demonstrable when they predominantly work in the home for individuals’ private interests. Post-CPA, access to adequate health and education has often been the preserve of the political elite. The welfare brought by the
baany e biith also becomes the preserve of the same elite. One elder in Luonyaker asserted:
Baany e biith now should leave the government alone and go back home to their villages to help them. The reason I am telling the baany e biith to go away from the government affairs is that what they do cannot benefit the whole nation there. There is no good thing that comes out from it; only bad things. Nowadays there are some baany e biith who do come to Juba and go to the home of these big people and tell them I am a bany e bith and I will do this and that to you. What they will do to them does not benefit the nation as a whole. What I know is that the baany e biith can help the people including those with diseases and during drought. They can bring reconciliation. There is nothing that has brought them in the government. They should go back to the villages.
This was also a clear criticism of government. They, like the baany e biith, were prioritising their own interests.
Thirdly, critics have highlighted the moral ambiguity of money and profit by a bany e bith. The argument is that a pure bany e bith should not receive payment for his work, although a gift of adoration and thanks is acceptable. This criticism has been levelled against a wide range of baany e biith who now seem to demand payment for services. Welfare that used to be publicly available through the baany e biith now appears to be subject to the logics of the market.
However, paying for a bany e bith diminishes the power communicated by exchange. Gifts previously were given in awe and gratitude for the bany e bith’s authority. They were a recognition of authority and did not bind the bany e bith to any act in exchange. Payment for services limits the power of the bany e bith and renders him no longer free to opt out as cash payment is accompanied by an expected return to blessing. It is a contractual exchange.
Despite this, paying for bany e bith services is now so common it is almost expected. In 2018, while research was ongoing, a colleague texted me to say that he would have to take another day off work to find his cow. He had already searched nearby luaks (cattle byre with circular mudded walls and tall, thatched roofs) and neighbours’ gardens. Now he was going to go to a bany e bith to finally solve the conundrum. This bany e bith charged a goat for locating the cow. The payment would be upfront.
In February 2019, a bany e bith from Mayen Jur described it as follows:
Years ago, we were the peace-maker, but now some of us are working to get profit for our children. This is because of this economic crisis and corruption. It has really increased now. If it was there before, it was even small. Some charge up to 3,000 SSP.
4 Approximately USD $20 in a country where the majority live on under $2 per day.At the same time,
baany e biith have long become individually wealthy through the use of their powers. In the past,
bany e bith wealth (like that of most people) was, historically, predominantly in the form of cattle. Descriptions of moral conduct of
baany e biith include their keeping cattle given as gratitude for spiritual assistance separate from their families’ own, private herds. Keeping these cattle together was thought to be spiritually dangerous. However, this danger was not described as emanating from the wealth or a sense of corruption itself. Instead, the fear was that cattle given when their histories and provenance was unknown, meant that the cattle could have been stolen and themselves unclean because of the way they were acquired. If they were then used for marriage, it was believed that the children would die.
5 Interview with man in Gogrial, June 2018. Therefore, the separation of the cattle was to protect the family herd of the
baany e biith and not to prevent the misuse of the gifted cattle. At the same time,
baany e biith often became rich as their daughters attracted much competition for marriage and large amounts of bride wealth.
Despite this history of wealth, those critical of contemporary
baany e biith who are close to government, money and those who make profits, have been criticised. As one elder said, ‘There are now some
baany e biith who have put their hearts into their food’.
6 Interview with man in Gogrial, May 2018.