A/HRC/40/CRP.1 the 10 state system, while under the 28 states model, areas under Dinka influence would have increased significantly.887 Furthermore, the 28 States Decree stated its fundamental objective was to “devolve power and resource[s] closer to the rural people.”888 Indeed, both the Government and the Opposition have referenced slogans used by the SPLM/A during the Sudanese civil war of such as “taking the town to the people”889 in their justifications for both the proposed 21 and 28 states. However, the 28 States Decree made no changes to the distribution of powers between the national level of government and the state or local levels of government. To the contrary it was an example of the centralised power of the President to create new states and appoint state governors. This further aggravated tensions among those seeking greater devolution. As the crisis has unfolded, the contentions around administrative boundaries have resurfaced and the perception that more recent re-divisions have been used to increase ethnic proportions of power has marginalised certain communities and fuelled political division, as illustrated in the examples that follow below. Figure 4: Major Ethnicities and the 32 Proposed States of South Sudan 887 According to the map analysis, under the 10 states model, the prevailing county level administrative influence was: Dinka: 26 counties making up 25% of South Sudan’s total area; Nuer: 16 counties, 15% of the total area; Shilluk: 4 counties, 3% of the total area; Equatorian: 24 counties, 31% of the total area; Murle: 1 administrative area, 7% of the total area; Other groups: 6 counties, 20% of the total area. Under the 21 states model, the prevailing state level administrative influence would have been: Dinka: 7 states making up 25% of South Sudan’s total area; Nuer: 4 states, 19% of the total area; Shilluk: 1 state, 3% of the total area; Equatorian: 6 states, 31% of the total area; Murle: 1 state, 7% of the total area; Other groups: 2 states, 14% of the total area. Under the 28 states model, the prevailing state level administrative influence would have been: Dinka: 12 states making up 42% of South Sudan’s total area; Nuer: 5 states, 13% of the total area; Shilluk: 1 state, 2% of the total area; Equatorian: 8 states, 31% of the total area; Murle: 1 state, 7% of the total area; Other groups: 1 states, 5% of the total area. The Commission notes, however, that there are limitations to such a simplified analysis based simple population majorities in states and percentages of geographic areas under state administrative influence. 888 Establishment Order No. 36/2015, Order 3. 889 Mareike Schomerus and Lovise Aalen eds., “Considering the State: Perspectives on South Sudan’s Subdivision and Federalism Debate”, Chr. Michelsen Institute, August 2016. 117