Are Red Belt and Tom Group Politicizing or Blackmailing President Kiir’s “Lion and Spear” Phrase?
By Abraham Madit Majak
President Salva Kiir’s remark about “a man who ran from a lion while holding a spear (tong) in his hand but did not use it” has resurfaced as a source of heated political controversy. What was originally a cultural metaphor has been seized upon by rebel groups such as the Red Belt and the Tom Group, stripped of its original context, and repackaged as a weapon of political agitation. The critical question, therefore, is whether these groups are engaging in legitimate political criticism or deliberately politicizing—and even blackmailing—the President through narrative manipulation.
It is important to recall the original context in which President Kiir used this phrase. Years ago, while addressing the Bor community, the President urged local communities to take responsibility for their own protection. He pointed out that many civilians possessed firearms yet failed to defend themselves against criminal attacks, particularly from Murle or Nuer armed groups. The metaphor was meant as a call for communal responsibility and self-defense, not as a self-referential statement about his own leadership.
Today, however, groups such as Red Belt and Tom Gelbaai have resurrected the same phrase and turned it against President Kiir himself. By doing so, they have reversed its meaning and intention, transforming a community-focused message into a personal accusation against the President.
In South Sudanese political and cultural life, metaphors are not casual expressions. They are deeply embedded in oral tradition and are often used to convey lessons about leadership, responsibility, courage, and missed opportunities. The proverb in question does not literally accuse someone of cowardice. Rather, it reflects on the failure to act decisively despite having the means to do so. Elders, chiefs, and leaders have long relied on such imagery to provoke reflection and corrective action—not rebellion or ridicule.
Yet Red Belt and the Tom Group have deliberately detached this metaphor from its cultural and historical context. Instead of interpreting it as a general reflection on responsibility and action, they present it as a direct personal indictment of President Kiir or as an insult to particular communities. This is not serious political analysis; it is political theater. By narrowing the meaning of the proverb, they convert a reflective cultural expression into a confrontational slogan designed to inflame emotions and deepen divisions.
This strategy amounts to the politicization of symbolism. Rather than engaging substantively with President Kiir’s record on governance, the implementation of peace agreements, economic hardship, corruption, or security sector reform, these groups rely on metaphorical outrage to mobilize their audiences. It is far easier to stir anger around a distorted phrase than to confront complex policy failures or propose workable solutions. In doing so, emotional provocation replaces serious national dialogue.
Does this amount to blackmail? Not in the legal sense. There is no explicit threat or demand, nor any exchange of silence for political concessions. However, in political terms, it closely resembles narrative blackmail—the repeated use of insinuation, ridicule, and public shaming to delegitimize authority and force a reaction. By persistently portraying the President as weak or cowardly through a manipulated proverb, the objective appears less about accountability and more about pressure, humiliation, and political destabilization.
This approach is especially dangerous in a country as fragile as South Sudan. Words matter. Metaphors can unite communities, but they can also divide them when weaponized. When cultural language is turned into a political cudgel, it fuels mistrust, sharpens factionalism, and distracts citizens from urgent national priorities such as peace, reconciliation, economic recovery, and civilian protection.
Ultimately, this controversy reveals more about the state of South Sudanese politics than it does about President Kiir’s words. A political culture that thrives on distortion rather than substance cannot lay the foundation for a stable nation. Red Belt and the Tom Group may believe they are advancing resistance or reform, but in reality, they are contributing to a politics of provocation—one driven by misinterpretation, symbolism, and grievance rather than constructive solutions.
In the end, the “lion and spear” metaphor is not the problem. The real problem is how political actors exploit language to manufacture outrage and gain relevance. South Sudan deserves better than symbolic warfare. It deserves honest debate, cultural responsibility, and political maturity.
Author Bio
Abraham Madit Majak is a South Sudanese writer and political commentator with a strong focus on governance, peace processes, and civic accountability. He regularly contributes to public discourse on South Sudan’s political transition, the role of state institutions, and the responsibilities of leadership during critical reform and nation-building periods.
