In 2014, Professor Mahmood Mamdani presented a separate opinion as part of the African Union Commission of Inquiry on South Sudan. His analysis offered a structural diagnosis of the crisis of the South Sudanese state and warned of the consequences if the root causes of the country’s political and economic crisis were left unaddressed. Since then, the country has remained besieged by political instability, humanitarian crisis, and communal violence.
As South Sudan pushes toward elections by the end of 2026, a critical question arises: has the country addressed the structural conditions that once turned political competition into ethnic violence? The uncomfortable truth is that it has not. The reality is that South Sudan has yet to transition to a functioning democratic and civilian state with effective institutions. For instance, the national army remains closely linked to the ruling party, while the interests of a small circle of political elites are deeply tied to existing state structures. This has weakened oversight institutions and left the judiciary unable to enforce accountability. As a result, political disputes are too often settled through force rather than law and dialogue. These structural weaknesses remain largely unchanged, despite peace agreements signed in 2015 and 2018 and the formation of transitional governments.
At the center of this crisis is a culture of impunity. Violence persists because those responsible for the displacement of civilians face no accountability for their actions. This pattern is evident in ongoing realities across the country, where civilians continue to face displacement with little accountability for those responsible. Recent violence and displacement of civilians in Baggari in Western Bahr El Ghazal, parts of Central Equatoria, and areas in Jonglei State, as well as across Unity State, highlight the persistence of insecurity and the fragility of civilian protection. These are not isolated incidents but part of a broader national pattern in which communities remain vulnerable and displacement continues to be a recurring feature of everyday life.
In such a context, the absence of accountability mechanisms, particularly the long-delayed establishment of the hybrid court, raises serious concerns about the state’s ability to protect its citizens and uphold the rule of law. Given such an environment, holding elections risks becoming another recipe for crisis rather than a genuine and inclusive democratic process. No doubt, when a state fails to hold its leaders accountable, it sends a clear message to its citizens: power, not law, determines outcomes.
The security sector presents another major challenge. The rise of community-based armed groups and militias, which are often organized along ethnic lines, continues to expand, while meaningful security sector reform remains incomplete. At the same time, the national armed forces remain deeply politicized, making neutrality and respect for the rule of law, essential conditions for credible elections, difficult to achieve.
Equally concerning is the nature of the revitalized peace agreement, which is often considered non-existent due to the failure to implement its provisions, and its primary focus on power-sharing among political elites while neglecting the deeper task of building strong institutions. Key democratic institutions, including the judiciary, the national parliament, the civil service, and the electoral bodies, remain fragile and susceptible to political influence. Hence, power-sharing and reconciliation among elites, without genuine institutional reform, do not create lasting peace; they merely postpone future crises.
Furthermore, most worrying is the continued ethnicization of political competition among the political elites. What began as a political crisis has increasingly been shaped by ethnic-based divisions. For instance, political appointments are often driven more by ethnic considerations than merit, and citizenship continues to be overshadowed by ethnicity. Elections held under such conditions risk deepening ethnic divisions rather than fostering national unity.
The bottom line is that South Sudan faces a defining moment. Without a credible, broad-based dialogue that leads to a national consensus, followed by a national census, a reliable voter registry, an independent judiciary, and a professional, neutral security sector, elections could become another mechanism for delaying a meaningful transition to democracy and risk reproducing the same patterns that ignited the 2013 crisis. The current political and security environment offers clear warning signs about the direction the country is heading. South Sudan’s struggles are not a reflection of its people’s inability to coexist, but rather the result of a state that has yet to be built on justice, strong institutions, and equal citizenship. Unless these structural conditions are addressed, the 2026 elections will not mark a turning point. They will instead be a test the country is not yet ready to pass.
The writer, Lilian Riziq, is a renowned social justice activist and a leading figure in South Sudan’s women’s movement. Her work focuses on advancing gender equality, fostering peace, and promoting social justice. She formerly served as finance minister of Western Bahr el Ghazal state.
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.