A Measured Critique of Pesuech Arok Deng’s Opinion on Dr. Benjamin Bol Mel
By Dr. Deng Bol Aruai Bol
The views expressed by Mr. Pesuech Arok Deng in his open letter to H.E. Dr. Benjamin Bol Mel, Vice President for the Economic Cluster and First Deputy Chairman of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM), are filled with dangerous assumptions, unlawful propositions, and a blatant disregard for the institutional frameworks that govern the Republic of South Sudan. While the author attempts to portray himself as offering guidance, many of his suggestions, if followed, would amount not only to a violation of the Revitalized Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan (R-ARCSS) but also to a unilateral overthrow of the constitutional order. That, in itself, is a declaration of war by another name.
Misguided Appeal for Executive Overreach
One of the most troubling aspects of the opinion is its casual dismissal of the constitutional order and the power-sharing structure currently holding the country together. Mr. Arok repeatedly urges Dr. Bol Mel—who is not the president but one of five vice presidents—to unilaterally “reform the judiciary,” “retake ministries,” “remove ministers and MPs,” and “appoint administrators.” These are not merely ceremonial suggestions; they are calls to dismantle the very pillars of executive restraint and institutional balance.
Nowhere in South Sudan’s Transitional Constitution or the R-ARCSS is the Vice President granted the authority to implement such sweeping executive decisions. For instance, Mr. Arok demands that Dr. Bol should “retake the Ministry of Petroleum from SPLM-IO” and “thwart SPLM-IO activities to the level of Joseph Kony.” These recommendations are both incendiary and unconstitutional. South Sudan is governed by a fragile peace agreement. Any action outside that framework would risk the total collapse of governance and a return to civil war. What Mr. Arok proposes is not nation-building—it is sabotage disguised as patriotism.
The Fallacy of a Benevolent Strongman
Another recurring theme in Mr. Arok’s letter is the romanticization of authoritarian control. He insists that Dr. Bol “should not fear sanctions” and compares his prospective leadership to “the Syrian leader who was a fugitive years ago [but] is now a sweetheart.” This kind of language is not only morally reckless but also betrays a complete lack of understanding of South Sudan’s international standing and its dire need for diplomacy, accountability, and legality.
Encouraging a sitting Vice President to “use military might” and dismiss due process undermines everything the SPLM itself fought for. It also ignores the basic political reality that no leader in the modern era, however talented or visionary, can succeed by ruling with impunity. If Dr. Bol were to take such steps, he would not last six months in office. He would lose regional and international legitimacy, fracture the ruling coalition, and drive South Sudan into deeper isolation.
Misplaced Notions of Loyalty and Ethnic Superiority
The letter takes an unfortunate turn when it begins to praise or dismiss communities based on ethnic stereotypes. For example, Mr. Arok claims, “Dinka Rek are the best when it comes to respecting authority,” and proposes arbitrary relocation of state capitals and appointments based on tribal lines. This kind of ethnic generalization is the very poison that has corroded the national fabric for decades. South Sudan’s future does not lie in rewarding loyalty based on bloodlines or assuming competence based on geographic origin. It lies in building institutions that are inclusive, lawful, and merit-based.
Sycophancy Masquerading as Strategy
The entire tone of the letter is riddled with flattery rather than genuine advice. By suggesting that Dr. Bol “has all it takes” and “should not wait” to implement sweeping reforms, Mr. Arok is not offering support—he is trying to seduce a national leader into unlawful overreach. True statesmanship does not emerge from being surrounded by praise-singers and political opportunists. If anything, South Sudan’s tragic past 20 years have been shaped by exactly this kind of sycophantic thinking, which equates loyalty with silence and advice with provocation.
Real leadership is tested by restraint, wisdom, and legality—not applause.
What Responsible Advice Should Sound Like
If Mr. Arok truly wished to help Dr. Bol succeed in his current role and possibly ascend to higher office in the future, he would have advised him to:
• Strengthen his institutional legitimacy by working collaboratively within the executive structure.
• Uphold the power-sharing agreement and resist any temptation to take unilateral actions.
• Build trust among coalition partners and invest in reconciliation and constitutional reform processes.
• Distance himself from those who view politics as warfare and leadership as dominance.
• Exercise the long-term patience that sustains leaders—not the short-term provocations that undermine them.
South Sudan does not need another era of men driven by entitlement. It needs principled individuals who understand that state-building is a collective journey—bound by law, tempered by history, and judged by future generations.
Final Thought
Mr. Arok’s letter, while wrapped in patriotic language, is ultimately a blueprint for political chaos. It is not guidance—it is incitement. It is not loyalty—it is flattery. And it is not strategy—it is recklessness dressed as ambition.
It would serve both Dr. Bol and the country best if such dangerous voices are kept at arm’s length, not as enemies but as warnings of what happens when wisdom is ignored and emotion replaces reason. South Sudan deserves better than this—and so does Dr. Benjamin Bol Mel.
