South Sudan’s political journey has been repeatedly disrupted, not only by war and weak institutions, but by a more subtle and corrosive force: The culture of convenience politics.
This culture is defined by leaders who champion reform only when it elevates them and abandon it once they gain power. They then resurrect the calls again when they fall out of political favor. It is a cycle that has cost the nation stability, trust, and genuine progress.
Over the years, this pattern has become painfully predictable. A politician begins by presenting themselves as a defender of public interests, boldly condemning corruption, mismanagement, and political stagnation. They speak the language of transformation, justice, reform, transparency, and efficiency. This image earns them admiration and secures appointments at the highest levels of government.
The moment power is attained, a remarkable metamorphosis occurs. Reformists quickly become defenders of the system they once opposed. Their voices grow quieter, their criticism becomes muted, and priorities shift from public service to personal comfort. The ideals that brought them into leadership fade as they are absorbed into a network of patronage, privilege, and influence.
When the winds shift, whether through dismissal, loss of favor, or internal power struggles, many of these same leaders retreat to a familiar refuge: the narrative of rebellion. They rebrand themselves as victims of political sabotage, accusing President Salva Kiir of failed leadership and of betraying the national vision. Instead of acknowledging their own abandoned commitments, they weaponize public frustrations to regain political relevance.
This cycle of idealism in search of power, silence in power, rebellion after power, has become so entrenched that it now threatens the legitimacy of any genuine national reform agenda.
South Sudan pays a hefty price for this recurring cycle of political inconsistency and opportunism. The consequences are deeper than individual defections. They strike at the heart of national stability, institutional development, and public confidence.
Years of unfulfilled promises have created a credibility crisis. Citizens have heard the reform narrative so many times, only to watch it evaporate once leaders are appointed, that the word reform now triggers skepticism rather than hope.
This erosion of trust is dangerous: When people stop believing their leaders, they also stop believing in the political system itself. Institutions are weakened: Constant rebellions, political reshuffles, and opportunistic defections destabilize the very institutions meant to sustain the state. Ministries lose continuity, policies are abandoned, and public servants operate under uncertainty. Instead of maturing, institutions are subjected to constant political turbulence, which prevents them from gaining the stability, authority, and professionalism to govern effectively.
Reform becomes a slogan, not a strategy: In South Sudan’s political vocabulary, “reform” risks becoming an empty buzzword. Leaders deploy it to gain power and discard it when they achieve office. This strips the term of its policy value, reducing it to a rhetorical shield for political maneuvers. Genuine reform, which requires planning, long-term commitment, and institutional discipline, is overshadowed by performative promises.
Every rebellion, defection, or political split reopens old wounds in a nation still healing from conflict. These fractures undermine fragile peace efforts, harden ethnic and political divides, and weaken confidence in the country’s long-term stability. Instead of moving toward collective nation-building, society is repeatedly pulled back into cycles of mistrust and division.
The roots of South Sudan’s cyclical political behavior are deep, structural, and systemic, embedded in how power is accessed, exercised, and protected:
1. Reform is viewed as a stepping stone, not a responsibility
For many leaders, reform rhetoric functions as political currency, a persuasive tool to gain visibility, sympathy, and appointments. Once power is secured, the commitment evaporates. Reform is treated not as a long-term obligation to the nation, but as a ladder to political advancement. This creates a market where political promises are traded cheaply and discarded easily.
2. Power comes with incentives to conform
The political system rewards loyalty to the status quo far more than it rewards integrity. Once inside government, leaders often face intense pressure to support the patronage networks rather than challenge them. Access to resources, influence, security, and political protection becomes more important than honoring reform commitments. The system molds reformists into insiders and punishes those who resist.
3. Rebellion is rewarded and normalized
South Sudan’s conflict-resolution model, where armed or politically disruptive actors are eventually accommodated, has inadvertently turned rebellion into a viable political strategy. Amnesty, reintegration, and power-sharing deals often follow defection, reinforcing the belief that resisting from outside yields better results than working within the system. This creates a dangerous incentive structure that undermines discipline, stability, and long-term planning.
4. Accountability mechanisms are weak or compromised
Institutions that should enforce ethical leadership—such as parliamentary committees, audit bodies, and anti-corruption agencies—often lack independence, resources, or political backing. Without consistent oversight, leaders can abandon reform agendas without facing scrutiny or consequences. This vacuum allows unchecked political convenience to flourish.
South Sudan cannot keep cycling through the same pattern of reform, comfort, rebellion, and reintegration. Breaking this cycle requires a new political culture rooted in responsibility, integrity, and institutional strength—not personal ambition.
- Institutional accountability must become non-negotiable
Parliament, the judiciary, and independent oversight bodies should operate without interference. Leaders must be held accountable through structured, legal mechanisms, not merely political disagreements or factional struggles. True stability emerges when institutions, not individuals, enforce discipline.
- Reform rhetoric must be matched with measurable action
Every public official should outline clear reform objectives upon appointment and provide regular performance reports, accessible to citizens and legislators. Reform should shift from empty slogans to verifiable deliverables with timelines, indicators, and consequences for failure.
- Defection and rebellion must stop being rewarded
The culture of promoting defectors or reaching political settlements must end. Reintegration should be tied to accountability, renunciation of violence, and proof of genuine commitment to national stability. Rewarding rebellion only encourages future instability.
- Political parties must police their own members.
Parties need internal governance systems capable of disciplining members who misuse public office, break commitments, or weaponize rebellion. Removing individuals who destabilize the party or the nation is essential for building credible political institutions.
- Encourage a merit-based leadership culture
Appointments should prioritize competence, integrity, and track record, not ethnic balancing, military influence, or personal loyalty. Merit-based leadership is the foundation for strong institutions, effective governance, and national unity.
- Foster civic literacy and media freedom
A politically aware population is harder to deceive and easier to engage in meaningful reform. Strengthening civic education, safeguarding independent media, and promoting open public dialogue will empower citizens to hold leaders accountable, not only during crises but throughout their tenure.
South Sudan’s future depends not on how loudly leaders speak of reform, but on how consistently they practice it. The country cannot keep recycling the same political script in which reformists turn insiders, insiders turn rebels, and rebels return as reformists. This cycle is unsustainable and dangerous.
The culture of rebellion that emerges every time an individual is removed from public office must also come to an end. Being removed from a position is not a justification for turning against the system or portraying the government as a failure. Salva Kiir is the President of the Republic. He cannot occupy every position or personally oversee every ministry. He appoints leaders because he believes South Sudanese professionals deserve the opportunity to serve their country.
When individuals fail in their responsibilities, that failure belongs to them, not to the presidency or the entire system. Public service is a temporary mandate, not a lifetime entitlement. When your term ends, the dignified path is to allow another South Sudanese to serve, not to rebel, undermine the system, or condemn the very government that once entrusted you with responsibility. Such behavior weakens institutions, damages national unity, and projects an unhealthy political image.
True reform will only emerge when leaders treat power as a service rather than an entitlement—and when citizens demand integrity over rhetoric. South Sudan deserves a new generation of leadership grounded not in political convenience but in conviction, accountability, and a genuine national vision.
Leek Daniel is a media specialist and development practitioner. He can be reached via leek2daniel@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.