By Deng Chol
When our nation gained independence in 2011, it was not just a political victory.
It was a promise.
A promise that our resources would finally benefit our people.
A promise that dignity would replace deprivation.
A promise that the suffering of the past would not define our future.
Independence raised expectations and rightly so.
Self-governance meant self-determination.
It meant that if poverty continued, we could no longer blame distant powers.
The responsibility would be ours.
More than a decade later, we must confront an uncomfortable reality, poverty is still deeply rooted.
Many families continue to struggle for basic necessities.
Youth unemployment remains high.
Rural communities lack consistent services.
Graduates search for opportunities that seem scarce.
Hard work does not always translate into stability.
We often explain this by saying development takes time.
That is true.
Nation-building is complex.
Institutions must be built.
Stability must be maintained.
But time alone does not eliminate poverty.
Design does.
If a system truly prioritizes ending poverty, it organizes itself around that goal.
It aligns budgets, laws, institutions, and accountability structures toward measurable change.
It treats economic empowerment as urgent, not optional.
When poverty persists year after year, despite plans and speeches, it forces us to ask, is poverty being confronted at its roots or merely managed at its surface ?
Poverty today is rarely just about lack of resources.
Our country has land.
It has natural wealth.
It has a young and energetic population.
The issue is not simply what we have.
The issue is how what we have is structured and distributed.
Systems are powerful because they shape outcomes consistently.
If public funds are not tracked rigorously, misuse becomes routine.
If accountability is selective, corruption becomes normalized.
If economic opportunity concentrates in a narrow circle, inequality widens naturally.
These are not accidents.
They are predictable consequences of design.
A population struggling to survive has limited time to question policy or demand transparency.
When daily life revolves around finding food, paying fees, or securing work, civic engagement becomes secondary.
In this way, poverty quietly stabilizes weak systems.
It lowers expectations.
It reduces pressure.
This is not about accusing individuals of bad intentions.
It is about recognizing structural incentives.
Systems protect what they are built to protect.
If they are built to preserve power, maintain loyalty, or reward networks over merit, poverty will remain untouched at its core.
Consider this:
when something is treated as a national emergency, action is swift.
Policies change quickly.
Resources are mobilized immediately. Coordination becomes urgent.
If poverty were treated with that same seriousness, we would see consistent, aggressive investment in productive sectors.
Agriculture would be modernized systematically.
Youth employment would be linked directly to market needs.
Small businesses would have real access to financing, not promises.
Education would not just expand in numbers but in quality.
Healthcare would not just exist but function reliably.
Public projects would be completed on time and audited transparently.
Anti-corruption measures would not be symbolic; they would be firm and impartial.
Instead, poverty often appears as a recurring theme acknowledged, discussed, sometimes eased temporarily but rarely dismantled structurally.
True independence is not only about sovereignty.
It is about economic justice.
It is about ensuring that the child born in a rural village has a realistic path to prosperity.
It is about ensuring that national wealth translates into national well-being.
If poverty remains widespread, it is not enough to call it unfortunate.
We must examine the system that produces it.
Because systems are not neutral.
They are shaped by choices.
And choices reveal priorities.
This is not a call for hostility.
It is a call for honesty.
If ending poverty were the central design of our system, we would see bold, consistent, and measurable reductions in it.
We would see transparency as a standard, not an exception.
We would see opportunity expanding faster than hardship.
Poverty that endures for years is rarely just bad luck.
It reflects how incentives are arranged and how power is structured.
Independence gave us control over the blueprint.
If the blueprint is not delivering broad prosperity, it must be redrawn.
Because if a system truly wanted to end poverty, it would have done so.
And if it has not, then the design deserves serious scrutiny.
The writer is a concerned citizen and can be reached at:
dengolesmo5@gmail.com