Decentralization in South Sudan was intended to bring government closer to the people, promote equitable development, distribute political power, and strengthen local participation in governance. It was also expected to accommodate the country’s ethnic and cultural diversity while consolidating national unity.
However, more than a decade after independence, the implementation of decentralization has raised serious questions about whether it has achieved these objectives or instead contributed to ethnic fragmentation, political patronage, and the weakening of professional public administration.
The problem is not decentralization itself, but how it has been interpreted and implemented. Rather than consistently empowering citizens, administrative restructuring has, in some instances, encouraged competition over territorial boundaries, political appointments, and public resources along tribal lines.
From national unity to administrative fragmentation
One of the fundamental objectives of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A), established in 1983, was to resist political arrangements that divided Southern Sudan along regional and ethnic lines. The redivision of Southern Sudan under the Nimeiri regime was widely perceived as an attempt to weaken the collective political identity and political aspirations of its people.
It is therefore a historical irony that the movement that fought for the unity and liberation of South Sudan later presided over administrative restructuring that, at certain stages, reinforced internal divisions.
Historically, the demand for federalism among Southern Sudanese leaders was primarily intended to protect the political, cultural, and religious identities of the predominantly African South against forced Arabization and Islamization by the central government in Khartoum. It was not a demand for tribal federalism within Southern Sudan.
Following independence in 2011, however, federalism and decentralization increasingly became associated with demands for administrative units shaped by ethnic and tribal considerations. Consequently, some communities began perceiving counties and other administrative territories as belonging exclusively to particular tribes rather than serving all citizens within their jurisdictions.
This development has undermined the principle of equal citizenship and transformed administrative boundaries into potential sources of political competition and intercommunal conflict.
The cost of tribal-based decentralization
South Sudan initially adopted a ten-state administrative structure after independence. However, the establishment of 28 states in 2015, followed by 32 states in 2017, significantly expanded the country’s administrative and political structures.
Although these changes were presented as measures to bring government closer to the people, they increased administrative expenditure, multiplied political appointments, and intensified competition over territory and public resources.
The return to ten states and three administrative areas in 2020, under the political arrangements associated with the Revitalized Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan, did not automatically resolve the underlying weaknesses of local governance.
The consequences of excessive administrative fragmentation are evident in several areas.
First, tribal interpretations of administrative boundaries have contributed to disputes over land, grazing areas, water resources, county headquarters, and political representation. Where historical grievances and weak conflict-resolution mechanisms exist, such disputes can escalate into intercommunal violence.
Second, the expansion of administrative units has increased government expenditure without necessarily improving public services. Resources that could otherwise support education, health care, roads, clean water, and agricultural development are consumed by salaries, offices, vehicles, allowances, and administrative operations.
Third, weak oversight and politically motivated appointments have created opportunities for corruption, financial mismanagement, and patronage. Public positions are sometimes perceived as rewards for political allegiance or tribal loyalty rather than responsibilities requiring professional qualifications and competence.
Most importantly, tribal-based administrative arrangements weaken national identity by encouraging citizens to prioritize ethnic affiliations over their common South Sudanese citizenship.
Politicization of the civil service
Another serious weakness in South Sudan’s decentralization system is the politicization of public administration.
Under the former unified Sudan, administrative officers were generally appointed, transferred, and supervised through centralized bureaucratic institutions. Although the system had shortcomings, including political interference and regional inequalities, it provided a recognizable framework for managing the civil service.
In South Sudan, administrative appointments, particularly at state and county levels, have frequently been influenced by political loyalty, personal relationships, and tribal considerations.
Although the Local Government Act of 2009 established a framework for accountable local administration, the appointment and management of local-government officials have not always reflected the principles of professional independence and merit-based administration.
County commissioners and other senior administrators should be accountable to the law and the citizens they serve, rather than primarily to political patrons or particular ethnic constituencies.
A further concern is the institutional imbalance between the attention given to military and security appointments and the development of civilian administrative institutions. While military and security personnel are frequently subject to national appointment, promotion, and transfer arrangements, the civil service lacks an equally effective and consistently implemented national mechanism for managing administrative personnel.
South Sudan cannot build a stable and functional state through security institutions alone. It equally needs a professional, politically neutral, and nationally integrated civil service.
The need for a unified national civil service
The government should undertake a comprehensive review of the decentralization system, particularly the management of administrative personnel.
The recruitment, appointment, promotion, transfer, and redeployment of senior administrative officers should be guided by a unified national framework based on professional qualifications, competence, integrity, and national administrative requirements.
A qualified administrator from one state should be eligible to serve in another state or county without discrimination based on ethnicity, clan, geographical origin, or political affiliation.
Such a system would promote national integration, reduce local political patronage, and strengthen the professional identity of the civil service.
This does not mean abolishing decentralization or returning to rigid centralized government. Rather, it means distinguishing between the decentralization of political and administrative responsibilities and the national coordination of professional civil-service management.
Reactivating local government boards
One practical institutional reform would be to reactivate and strengthen Local Government Boards as professional institutions responsible for coordinating and supervising local administration.
The government should consider placing these boards within a nationally coordinated framework under the Office of the President or the Presidency, subject to appropriate constitutional and legislative provisions.
Their responsibilities should include coordinating the recruitment and deployment of administrative officers, monitoring performance, promoting professional training, enforcing administrative standards, and advising on local-government reforms.
This arrangement would help protect civil servants from inappropriate local political interference while maintaining the ability of state and county governments to deliver services and respond to community needs.
The objective should be to combine local administrative autonomy with national professional standards and accountability.
Recommendations for reform
To make decentralization an instrument of national development rather than tribal fragmentation, the following reforms are necessary:
- Review administrative boundaries: States, counties, payams, and bomas should be established or adjusted according to population, geography, economic viability, and service-delivery requirements rather than exclusively tribal claims.
- Establish a unified national civil service: Recruitment, appointment, promotion, transfer, and redeployment should be guided by merit, professional competence, and national needs.
- Reactivate Local Government Boards: Strengthen their institutional mandate and consider their attachment to the Presidency within a legally defined national administrative framework.
- Strengthen fiscal decentralization: Provide local governments with predictable and adequate financial allocations corresponding to their responsibilities.
- Promote accountability and local democracy: Strengthen public participation, transparent appointments, regular elections, independent audits, and legislative oversight.
- Promote national integration: Government institutions, educational establishments, civil society, and the media should promote equal citizenship, peaceful coexistence, and respect for cultural diversity.
Conclusion: decentralization must unite, not divide
South Sudan’s experience demonstrates that creating more administrative units does not automatically produce better governance. A country may have numerous states, counties, and local-government structures and still suffer from insecurity, corruption, underdevelopment, and institutional weakness.
The historical irony is that a liberation movement that fought against the division of Southern Sudan has, at certain stages, presided over administrative arrangements that contributed to internal fragmentation.
South Sudan must therefore move beyond tribal-based political competition and build institutions founded on equal citizenship, national unity, professional competence, and accountability.
Decentralization should empower communities, not tribal political elites; strengthen public institutions, not multiply administrative offices; and promote equitable development, not expand political patronage.
The challenge is not whether South Sudan should decentralize, but how to ensure that decentralization serves the national interest.
South Sudan needs fewer political divisions, stronger local institutions, and one professional national civil service committed to serving all citizens without discrimination.
The writer is a South Sudanese author, journalist, and university lecturer at Starford International University, Juba. He specializes in Security Studies, International Development, and Development Studies, with professional experience in public administration, anti-corruption, and governance. His writings focus on politics, peace, security, and national development. He can be reached via williamtor2011@gmail.com /+211 922 402 262.
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