BY DENIS DOGGALE
South Sudan is preparing for its first general elections since independence in 2011, scheduled for December 2026. The government presents these polls as a historic step toward democracy. But under current conditions, holding them would be highly problematic. Millions of citizens remain displaced, key institutions are weak, and the country lacks the political and legal framework necessary for a credible vote. Far from reflecting the will of the people, these elections risk consolidating the power of the ruling elite and destabilizing an already fragile nation.
Since its independence, South Sudan has faced ongoing instability and political fragmentation. The first elections, originally scheduled for 2015, were repeatedly postponed. Transitional governments have been extended multiple times, often under the guise of maintaining security or preparing for changes. Meanwhile, promised agreements and peace initiatives have seen little concrete progress. These repeated delays, rather than ensuring a fair electoral process, have primarily benefited those in power, allowing them to consolidate authority without real accountability.
Observers note that part of the reason elections have been delayed is the continued insecurity linked to certain opposition forces, whose actions and rhetoric exacerbate tensions within the country. The government argues that holding elections before genuine peace and full security are achieved would be extremely risky, likely deepening divisions rather than resolving them. In other words, elections must follow real peace, not precede it.
The National Elections Commission (NEC) has announced December 26, 2026, for the elections, which would include the presidency, the national assembly, and state assemblies. On paper, the system meets international norms. However, South Sudan lacks a permanent constitution, a recent national census, and an independent judiciary capable of impartially resolving electoral disputes. Without these foundations, elections cannot be free, fair, or credible. Holding them now would be a political performance, providing the ruling elite with a veneer of legitimacy while excluding millions of citizens from meaningful participation.
One of the most critical flaws is the exclusion of displaced populations. Over four million South Sudanese currently live outside the country in neighbouring states, having fled conflict, famine, and instability. Most face severe obstacles to registration and voting, effectively silencing a significant portion of the population. An election that excludes half of the citizens is fundamentally illegitimate. Beyond that, it skews results toward areas under government control, giving incumbents an unfair advantage. In other words, the election would not reflect the nation’s will, but the government’s ability to control the vote.
The political environment also raises serious concerns. Reports indicate that opposition figures, activists, and journalists face harassment, intimidation, and arbitrary detention. In this climate, elections become a tool for consolidating power rather than a democratic exercise. Continuing threats to security, particularly from certain opposition factions, make any electoral process rushed under these conditions highly dangerous. It risks inflaming tensions and potentially sparking wider chaos.
International observers have repeatedly stressed that elections in South Sudan must be preceded by institutional changes, security guarantees, and mechanisms allowing displaced populations to participate. Ignoring these warnings risks undermining peace agreements and destabilizing the region. Holding elections without addressing these conditions sends a message that appearances matter more than genuine democratic practice.
Historical patterns also highlight the dangers of rushing into elections. Since independence, repeated postponements have coincided with increased control by incumbents over institutions and resources. Conducting elections now without changes or safeguards is likely to repeat this pattern: a process that looks democratic on paper but delivers predetermined outcomes, leaving grievances unresolved.
For the sake of peace and political stability, the 2026 elections should be postponed until the country is ready to hold truly free, fair, and inclusive elections. This requires conducting a national census, establishing a permanent constitution, strengthening independent electoral institutions, ensuring displaced populations can vote, and guaranteeing political freedoms for opposition parties and civil society. Most importantly, genuine peace and security must come first, addressing any threats that could undermine the process.
South Sudan stands at a crossroads. Rushing into elections for the sake of appearances threatens to exacerbate tensions, disenfranchise millions, and entrench the power of a ruling elite. Citizens deserve a political process that genuinely reflects their voices, protects their rights, and builds a foundation for sustainable peace. Until these conditions are met, the only responsible choice is to postpone the election until peace and security are fully established.
Denis Doggale can be reached at: ddoggale1@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.