South Sudan stands at a pivotal moment in its history. The recent amendments to the National Elections Act and the dissolution of the Revitalized Transitional Government of National Unity (RTGoNU) have intensified debate about the country’s future direction. Supporters see these developments as necessary steps toward ending years of prolonged transitional governance and allowing citizens to choose their leaders through elections. Critics question whether the political, security, and institutional conditions required for credible elections are sufficiently in place.
Both perspectives deserve serious consideration.
The central issue before South Sudan is larger than any single law or political decision. It is whether the country is prepared to move from a system largely sustained by negotiated power-sharing arrangements to one grounded in democratic accountability and electoral legitimacy.
A transition was never meant to be permanent
When the Revitalized Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in the Republic of South Sudan (R-ARCSS) was signed in September 2018, it was designed to provide a pathway from conflict to constitutional governance. Transitional institutions were created to implement reforms, maintain stability, and prepare the country for democratic elections.
Over the years, implementation has faced repeated delays. Major provisions of the peace agreement, including aspects of security reform, constitutional development, and electoral preparation, have remained incomplete. As a result, the transitional period has been extended multiple times.
While those extensions were intended to preserve peace and create conditions for a successful transition, they have also raised a legitimate question: At what point does a temporary arrangement cease to be temporary?
Supporters of the recent electoral reforms argue that continued postponements risk undermining the original purpose of the peace agreement. In their view, transitions are intended to lead somewhere. They argue that eventually citizens must be allowed to confer political legitimacy through elections rather than through indefinitely renewed political arrangements.
That argument should not be dismissed lightly.
The legality-legitimacy debate
Yet legality alone is not enough. A political decision may follow established constitutional procedures while still prompting concerns about legitimacy, preparedness, and public confidence.
This distinction lies at the center of the current national debate.
One of the most significant changes introduced by the amended electoral law is the removal of previous requirements linking elections to the completion of a permanent constitution and a national population census. Supporters argue that these changes are necessary to prevent further delays and keep the country on a path toward elections. Critics contend that removing those prerequisites weakens important safeguards that were originally intended to strengthen electoral credibility.
Both arguments reflect legitimate democratic concerns.
The question is not simply whether elections can be held. The question is whether they can be conducted in a manner that commands broad public trust.
Why critics remain concerned
Many critics of the dissolution support elections in principle. Their concerns focus not on democratic participation itself but on the conditions surrounding it.
Security remains among the most frequently cited challenges.
The United Nations Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan has warned that important political, security, and human-rights safeguards necessary for a peaceful and credible election remain insufficient in several areas of the country. The Commission emphasized that its concern is not whether South Sudanese should vote, but whether they can do so freely, safely, and without fear.
Questions of preparedness have also emerged. Reports indicate that voter registration had not yet commenced when the electoral amendments were adopted and the transitional government was dissolved. Organizing a nationwide election under such circumstances presents undeniable logistical challenges.
Political inclusivity raises another concern. Reports further indicate that opposition leader Riek Machar remains under house arrest while facing charges that he denies. Whether fair or unfair, such developments contribute to skepticism among some observers about the broader political environment in which elections will take place.
Similarly, international human rights organizations have called for protection for journalists, civil society organizations, political actors, and ordinary citizens as the electoral process unfolds.
These concerns should be treated seriously because credible elections depend not only on law but also on public confidence.
Why endless extensions are not the answer
Acknowledging these concerns, however, does not necessarily justify indefinite delay.
South Sudan has already experienced multiple extensions of its transitional period since 2018. Each extension has been justified by unresolved challenges, many of which continue to exist today.
This raises an uncomfortable but necessary question: If elections are postponed until every challenge has been resolved, when will the country ever be ready?
Few democracies have emerged under perfect conditions.
Democratic institutions develop through practice, competition, accountability, and civic participation. Waiting indefinitely for ideal circumstances risks creating a cycle in which transition becomes an end in itself rather than a pathway toward democratic governance.
Significantly, many South Sudanese appear eager to participate in elections. A survey commissioned by the United Nations Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) found that more than 90 percent of respondents considered elections important and intended to vote. At the same time, respondents identified security concerns, inadequate preparation, funding constraints, and political disagreements as obstacles that still need to be addressed.
The survey reveals an important reality: citizens can support elections while also demanding that those elections meet credible standards.
The responsibility of all political actors
Democracy places responsibilities on both governments and opposition movements.
Governments must ensure an environment in which citizens can participate freely and peacefully. Electoral institutions must demonstrate professionalism, independence, and transparency. Security institutions must protect voters rather than influence them.
Opposition parties, meanwhile, have a responsibility to do more than criticize. Effective democratic opposition requires presenting practical alternatives, engaging constructively with the electoral process, and offering voters a compelling vision for the future.
Democracy functions best when political competition revolves around ideas, policies, and performance rather than personalities and divisions.
A choice about the future
The current debate is ultimately about more than the dissolution of a transitional government.
It is about whether South Sudan can complete the difficult journey from a peace-agreement framework to a democratic constitutional order.
One side emphasizes the urgency of ending repeated extensions and empowering citizens to choose their leaders through elections. The other stresses the need for elections that are credible, inclusive, secure, and trusted by the public.
Both concerns are valid.
The challenge for South Sudan is not choosing between elections and credibility, but ensuring that both advance together.
In my view, the country must safeguard public confidence in the electoral process without allowing unresolved challenges to become a permanent justification for postponing democratic competition.
If South Sudan’s leaders and citizens can strike that balance, the forthcoming elections could become more than a political event.
They could mark an important step toward transferring political legitimacy from prolonged power-sharing arrangements to the freely expressed will of the people, bringing the country closer to the democratic future envisioned in the 2018 peace agreement.
South Sudan’s first elections since independence will not, by themselves, resolve every political, security, or institutional challenge facing the nation. However, if conducted transparently, peacefully, and credibly, they could represent a significant milestone in the country’s democratic development. The task before South Sudan’s leaders is therefore not simply to hold elections, but to ensure that the process earns the confidence of the people and strengthens the foundations of lasting peace.
The writer is a South Sudanese commentator on governance, peacebuilding, conflict resolution, and political affairs. A member of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM), he advocates for peaceful political engagement, democratic governance, accountable leadership, institutional reform, and the effective implementation of the Revitalized Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in the Republic of South Sudan (R-ARCSS). He resides in the United States and can be reached via manyielpaulino@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