The African Union’s relentless pursuit of international donors to cover South Sudan’s $223 million electoral funding deficit raises critical political, economic, and ethical questions. Pushing forward with elections scheduled for December 22, 2026, may appear logical on the surface – after all, transitional periods have been repeatedly extended, and the country cannot remain under an unelected interim government indefinitely. The people of South Sudan undoubtedly deserve the chance to choose their leaders and establish a legitimate political order. However, the fundamental flaw in the AU’s current posture lies in confusing the mere act of holding an election with the actual realization of democracy.
The core issue stems from a deeply flawed conceptualization: treating the lack of funding as the primary obstacle to a credible vote. In truth, South Sudan’s crisis runs far deeper than a budgetary shortfall or logistical deficits. The country is mired in a systemic crisis of governance, characterized by a breakdown of political trust, pervasive insecurity, institutional fragility, and a total absence of accountability. Injecting hundreds of millions of dollars into ballot boxes, polling stations, and administrative logistics may make the voting process technically feasible. Still, it cannot mechanically generate political freedom, public trust, peace, or genuine legitimacy.
Before asking international donors to step in, a fundamental question must be posed to both the AU and the international community: Why is the South Sudanese government unable – or unwilling – to fund its own elections?
South Sudan is a resource-rich nation backed by substantial oil revenues. Yet, when it comes to financing the most critical political transition in its history, the government has committed only a fraction of the required budget, choosing instead to siphon the nation’s wealth into arms purchases, patronage networks, off-budget allocations, and the consolidation of bad governance. By issuing fundraising appeals on behalf of the regime, the African Union actively turns a blind eye to this reality. Instead of holding the government accountable, the AU opts for a compromise that turns a flawed electoral process into yet another humanitarian project funded by foreign taxpayers, while national resources remain under the control of an unaccountable political elite.
The underlying premise – that bridging the $223 million gap will render South Sudan ready for elections – is inherently false. While financial resources are necessary, money alone cannot construct a democratic environment, particularly under a ruling Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) regime that has actively suppressed democratic space for years. Credible elections require more than ballots and polling booths; they demand political freedoms, civil liberties, and independent institutions trusted by the citizenry. These conditions remain glaringly absent in South Sudan today.
Democracy cannot be engineered by altering the rules mid-game, as demonstrated by the National Legislature’s passage of Amendment No. 13 to the Transitional Constitution, signed into law on September 2, 2026, which delinked the permanent constitution-making process and the national census from the election requirement. The core objective of the Peace Agreement was to establish conditions for a sustainable political transition, a position reaffirmed by the National Salvation Front (NAS) in its July 4, 2026 declaration rejecting premature polls. Waiving key prerequisites simply to meet an impending election deadline reduces the entire process to a political exercise aimed at preserving a timetable rather than safeguarding the democratic rights of the people.
The imperative question, therefore, is not how to hold elections by December, but whether South Sudan can conduct a free, fair, peaceful, and acceptable election under present conditions. There is a profound distinction between adhering to an election schedule and protecting democracy. The former risks extending the very mechanisms of repression wielded by the current regime, while the latter requires a commitment to democratic norms that the ruling party has shown no willingness to guarantee.
Railroading the country into a general election amidst deep political fragmentation and widespread armed violence will inevitably reignite conflict rather than resolve it. Through its financial appeals, the African Union has entangled itself in a dangerous gamble that threatens to further destabilize a fragile nation. Elections do not automatically produce peace; rather, a functional peace is the prerequisite for meaningful elections.
While the African Union has a vital role to play in South Sudan, its responsibility must extend beyond acting as a fundraising entity for an expensive electoral display. South Sudan does not need a costly spectacle designed to project an illusion of democracy to the world. The African Union must anchor its strategy in a basic truth: South Sudan needs genuine democracy, not propaganda elections.
The writer, Sokiri Lo Poni, is a concerned South Sudanese. He can be reached via Sokiril8@gmail.com.
The views expressed in ‘opinion’ articles published by Radio Tamazuj are solely those of the writer. The veracity of any claims made is the responsibility of the author, not Radio Tamazuj.
and then