South Sudan is grappling with multiple crises, and the average citizen understands that the real devastation extends beyond the peace crisis; the true threat lies in the crisis of transition. Since gaining independence fifteen years ago, the country has been trapped in a futile cycle, governed by a political arrangement aimed at stopping war with little focus on establishing a permanent state.
The Revitalized Peace Agreement has achieved its primary objective of significantly reducing the scale of war. However, this success has also led to several negative consequences, such as an oversized executive branch, an inflated parliament, and multiple security structures that engage in conflict at will. These issues have resulted in an overburdened economy, which now struggles to support both political accommodation and the livelihoods of citizens. No country can be governed indefinitely through transitional arrangements.
Viewing the situation critically, it can be concluded that South Sudan has fallen into a power-sharing trap where political legitimacy is negotiated among elites instead of being conferred by citizens. Government positions awarded at the negotiating table have replaced democratic competition, leaving the people, to whom real power belongs, still waiting for the true dividends of independence, which include the guarantee of their right to choose their leaders.
History tells us that countries that emerged from devastating conflicts on this continent, including South Africa, Mozambique, Liberia, and Sierra Leone, finally discovered that peace agreements must give way to constitutional government. They have realized that negotiations are meant to end wars, but elections provide citizens a chance to choose leaders who build nations.
In our situation, politicians, narrow-minded civil society groups, and exiled opposition members, among others, are rejecting any strategy that could lead to an exit from the power-sharing trap. This mindset must be set aside. South Sudan cannot afford to delay making decisions that guarantee its future simply because one political actor is absent or facing legal issues.
It is important to recognize that dialogue holds value for those who are truly dedicated to peace and are eager to promote the national interest. However, we must remain aware that no individual or political faction should have a permanent veto over the constitutional future of an entire nation. Citizens and international partners of South Sudan must acknowledge this reality; institutions should endure beyond individual personalities.
The recent resurgence of violence in Jonglei State, along with previous subnational conflicts, serves as a political catalyst for a return to power-sharing agreements. Those instigating this violence, particularly Nathaniel Oyet, argue that elections should not occur unless the nation reverts to earlier power-sharing commitments. They imply that failure to do so would result in the unnecessary bloodshed of innocent citizens.
A stance of this nature is further supported by the international community, particularly the United States, which has been undermining the government of South Sudan with statements that are more partisan than one would expect from a neutral observer. While the United States has made significant contributions to South Sudan, including playing a role in its creation, such involvement does not justify interference in the nation’s internal affairs. It is important to recognize that politically motivated violence cannot replace democratic processes. Nonetheless, the law should hold accountable those who perpetrate or instigate such violence.
Many South Sudanese are questioning whether certain factions within the opposition, who profess to seek reforms, are more focused on maintaining the political power they gained through the power-sharing agreement than on establishing electoral legitimacy.
While the conflict persists, ordinary citizens are left to bury their loved ones, flee their homes to neighboring countries, and witness their children grow up in hunger and uncertainty.
The path forward is clear and straightforward. Credible elections, or any form of elections, must be supported by constitutional consensus, ongoing security-sector reform, independent electoral and judicial institutions, fiscal discipline, and enhanced local governance. These necessary reforms cannot be realized through a negotiated government where factions have the power to veto one another.
Therefore, I urge key government officials, including Adut Salva Kiir Mayardit, the new energy and other influential voices, to seize this opportunity to promote a successful transition. Elections must take place. Your most significant contribution should not be to extend power-sharing but to complete it. You need to replace negotiated power with the sovereign will of the people. This is the democratic legacy that South Sudan deserves, and it forms the basis of the constitutional future that can no longer be delayed.
The vocal call for fulfillment of prerequisites to the elections, careful arrangements of presenting a timeline of events that caters to the vested interests of those benefiting from the power-sharing trap may be suitable for an academic textbook, but they do not serve a nation that is alive and in urgent need of a transition.
Till then, yours truly, Mr. Teetotaler!
The writer, Dr. Sunday de John, holds an MBA and a Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBChB) from the University of Nairobi, Faculty of Business and Management Sciences and Faculty of Medicine, respectively. He is the current Chairman of the South Sudan United Front-Progressive and can be reached via drsundayalong4@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