Paper long abstract:

Much of the discussion of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement has focussed on its high-level political and economic implications. This paper instead explores some of the more popular concerns expressed in Yei, Juba and Rumbek about the nature of post-conflict government, and the future of peace. Symbolic themes of blood, money and guns remain prominent, as highlighted earlier by Hutchinson (1996). The wartime perpetuated or hardened the distinction between the military/government and the 'people' or rural communities; at the same time it saw the spread of new ideas and expectations about the role of government in providing 'development' and the long-promised 'peace dividend'. The result now is deep mistrust of government and increasing expressions of frustration and disappointment. Although Southern politicians and government employees have historically been suspected of accepting 'bribes', there is a sense that there is an unprecedented degree of corruption surrounding 'the money' now. The perception is that everyone, from ministers to court judges and customs officials, is out to get rich quick, quite literally from the blood of the people, before the 'peace' ends. 'Money before people' would appear to sum up the ethos of this interim 'resting time', with little hope that either their own leaders, with their self-interest and perceived ethnic biases, or the Khartoum government with all its tricks, will really allow peace to last. Local and indigenous forms of authority are more trusted to put people first, but the war and the influx of guns into civilian hands are seen to have taken local/ethnic conflicts beyond their capacity to resolve. Government alone is seen to have the power, but not the intention of solving the problems created by its own military impact on the rural areas. And the questions of reward for sacrifices, and whose blood was spilt to 'liberate', and indeed who or what has been liberated, are becoming increasingly bitter and divisive.