The Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM)’s recent announcement on the renewal of party membership has revived an important national debate about citizenship, political participation, and national unity. While updating membership registers is a normal organizational exercise for any political party, the procedures outlined in the directive have raised fundamental questions about the principles governing political participation within South Sudan’s ruling party.
According to the directive, party members are expected to register through their respective counties and states, while members residing in Juba but originating from other states are instructed to register through the SPLM General Secretariat. Although this may be presented as an administrative arrangement, it inevitably raises broader constitutional and political questions about whether party membership is being organized on the basis of citizenship and residency or according to ethnic and ancestral affiliation.
At the heart of the debate lies a fundamental question: Where does a citizen politically belong? Is political identity determined by the place where one lives, works, pays taxes, raises a family, and contributes to the local community, or by the ancestral homeland from which one’s ethnic community originates?
Consider, for example, a citizen from the Moro community who was born and raised in Malakal, received his education there, established his family there, and has spent his entire working life contributing to the city’s development. Should such a citizen be denied the opportunity to register as an SPLM member in Upper Nile State because his ethnic origin is associated with another region? Should he be excluded from participating in party elections in the community where he has lived throughout his life simply because of his ancestral background?
Similarly, what about a South Sudanese citizen who has permanently resided in Juba for decades? Such a person may have invested in the city, paid taxes, raised children, and actively participated in community affairs. Yet under a system that prioritizes ancestral origin over residency, that individual may be required to exercise political rights through a state with which he or she has little practical connection. This raises legitimate concerns regarding political representation and the meaning of citizenship in a modern democratic state.
If political rights within the party are determined by ethnic origin rather than residence and civic participation, the principle of equal citizenship becomes increasingly difficult to reconcile with the party’s organizational framework. Such an approach appears inconsistent with the ideals of equality, inclusiveness, and national unity that have historically formed part of the SPLM’s political vision.
Revisiting the Legacy of Kokora
These developments inevitably evoke memories of the historical policy commonly associated with Kokora, which remains one of the most sensitive chapters in South Sudan’s political history. Regardless of differing interpretations of that period, its legacy continues to symbolize regional division and the prioritization of territorial and ethnic identity over national integration.
Although the current registration policy is not officially described as Kokora, critics may argue that organizing political participation according to ancestral states rather than present communities risks reproducing similar patterns of political exclusion and ethnic categorization. Whether intentional or not, such practices may reinforce perceptions that South Sudanese citizens are first members of ethnic communities and only secondarily citizens of a common nation.
The challenge facing South Sudan today is fundamentally different from that of the liberation era. The country is no longer fighting for independence; it is striving to build a united, democratic, and inclusive state. Such a state cannot be sustained if political participation is defined primarily through ethnic identity rather than citizenship.
Beyond Party Politics
The implications extend beyond the internal affairs of the SPLM. In recent years, concerns have increasingly been expressed about the extent to which ethnic and regional considerations influence appointments within sections of the public administration, particularly in local government institutions, often at the expense of merit, professional competence, and national representation.
Historically, Sudan’s civil service operated under a centralized administrative system in which administrative officers were deployed throughout the country according to the needs of public administration rather than their ethnic or regional origins. While that system was far from perfect politically, it promoted a more nationally integrated civil service by encouraging public officials to serve across different regions of the country.
In contrast, the growing tendency to associate public offices with specific ethnic groups or states risks weakening the foundations of a professional civil service. Public institutions function most effectively when competence, integrity, and experience serve as the primary criteria for appointment and promotion.
A continued shift toward ethnicized public administration risks weakening national institutions by encouraging loyalty to regional identities rather than to the state itself. In the long run, such a trend may undermine social cohesion and reduce public confidence in government institutions.
Citizenship, Constitutional Principles, and Democracy
South Sudan’s Transitional Constitution affirms equality before the law and prohibits discrimination on the grounds of ethnicity, tribe, place of origin, or regional affiliation. Likewise, democratic governance rests upon the principle that political participation should be guaranteed through citizenship and equal rights rather than inherited identity.
Across established democratic systems, political parties generally organize membership according to where members reside and actively participate politically, rather than according to their ancestral homeland. Citizens vote, contest elections, and engage in political processes within the communities where they live and contribute. This practice strengthens local accountability and fosters a sense of shared national identity.
If South Sudan is to consolidate democracy, political parties must become institutions that unite citizens across ethnic, regional, and linguistic divides. They must serve as platforms for policy competition rather than vehicles for ethnic mobilization.
An Opportunity for Reform
As South Sudan’s governing party, the SPLM occupies a unique position in shaping the country’s democratic culture. For that reason, the current membership registration exercise presents an opportunity to reaffirm the party’s commitment to citizenship, equality, and national unity.
Allowing members to register, vote, and contest party positions in the areas where they legally reside and actively participate would better reflect the realities of contemporary South Sudan while strengthening both local representation and national integration.
Such a reform would not erase cultural or ethnic identities. Rather, it would affirm a broader national identity in which all citizens enjoy equal political rights regardless of their ancestry. Strong nations are built when diversity is accommodated within a framework of equal citizenship and shared belonging.
Conclusion
South Sudan’s long-term stability depends upon building institutions that unite citizens rather than reinforce inherited divisions. Political parties play a critical role in that process because they shape not only electoral competition but also the broader culture of democratic participation.
The ongoing debate over SPLM membership registration therefore extends far beyond an internal administrative exercise. It raises fundamental questions about the future direction of political organization, citizenship, and nation-building in South Sudan.
At a time when the country continues to confront challenges of national unity, displacement, intercommunal tensions, and democratic transition, policies that encourage inclusion are more important than ever. Political organizations must become instruments of integration rather than mechanisms that deepen social and regional distinctions.
Ultimately, the challenge before the SPLM is whether it will continue evolving as a genuinely national political movement founded on equal citizenship or whether organizational practices will increasingly reflect ethnic and ancestral affiliations. How the party addresses this question will have important implications not only for its own future but also for South Sudan’s democratic development and national unity.
A modern democratic South Sudan cannot be built on competing tribal loyalties alone. It must be built on a shared commitment to citizenship, equality, justice, and national belonging. The future of the country will depend not on where its citizens come from, but on whether they are treated equally wherever they choose to live, work, and participate in public life.
The writer, William Sunday D. Tor, is a South Sudanese political analyst, researcher, and columnist specializing in governance, public policy, democracy, migration, and anti-corruption. He has written extensively on state-building, constitutionalism, public administration, and socio-economic development in South Sudan. His commentaries advocate for accountable governance, equal citizenship, the rule of law, and inclusive democratic institutions.
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