The republic of South Sudan gained independence in 2011,[i] after decades of armed struggle against domination of the Muslim-dominated north. Barely two years into statehood, an internal political disagreement broke out between rival politicians over the control of the ruling Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) party, which escalated into armed confrontation on the streets of Juba,[ii] resulting into what was later referred to as the ‘Juba massacre’ of December 2013.[iii] The conflict took on ethnic connotations, which ultimately led to a civil war, that has reversed almost all the gains realized during the relative peace during the six-year transitional period 2005-2011. South Sudan as a state was born out of a protracted liberation struggle, which was necessitated by the systematic neglect of the southern people by the colonialists and later by the Arab-dominated post-independence government in Khartoum.
All this considered therefore, it’s fair to point out that South Sudan as a nation, stated at a disadvantage because it was severely limited with regards to administrative and governmental capacity. Most of the leaders the country had at inception were military leaders born out of almost 50 years of fighting. Therefore building institutional capacity for democratic governance was always going to be a difficult undertaking even in peaceful environment. South Sudan however did not afford itself the peaceful environment it needed to build aid structure, because the civil war that broke out after just two years of independence has dictated the direction of governance in the country since. Development of democratic governance has remained a far-fetched wish of the South Sudan people to this day, with numerous hindrances to its realization. Some of the hindrances to the development of democratic governance in South Sudan include:
Poor manpower capacity; This was a challenge right from colonial times because as mentioned above, the south was marginalized in all aspects of life including social, economic and political participation. For example, the 1947 Juba Conference and the subsequent formation of the 12 man committee, all point to the attempt by the British and the Arab collaborators to whitewash the fact that they had effectively marginalized the southerners even in the administration of the own region, where most of the administrators were Arab.[iv] The south grappled with this problem of lack of efficient administrators throughout the period of the armed struggle, and by the time they acquired their independence, they lack able leaders upon which a stable democratic foundation could be built.[v] The time they would have used to try and develop human capacity was interrupted by the outbreak of the civil war, and the country has been governed on survival and appeasement since, giving little room for development of democratic space. This can clearly be demonstrated by the fact that in over 12 years of independence, South Sudan has never held elections to choose their leaders. The leadership in place was elected in 2010 prior to the independence referendum and its mandate has consistently been extended to facilitate peace talks since.
Civil conflicts; One can say that South Sudan is accustomed to conflict and that her people have gotten used to surviving under constant fighting. This was true during the liberation struggle, where faced with a brutal and more powerful enemy, the people had to adapt to war-time hardships in order to survive.[vi] However, with independence came a new uphill task of building state institutions and core pillars of democratic leadership. However, South Sudan has never really had complete peace in its true sense because even prior to the outbreak of the civil war, there were already small armed groups (supposedly proxies of Sudan government) that were fighting the transitional government in Juba. This, coupled with sporadic tribal conflicts, always diverted national attention from building governance capacity to preventing the devastation of conflicts.[vii] For example, in the management of state governments, because of constant threats from rebels and tribal militias, the President always preferred appointing military men as state governors who had the capacity to control rebel and militia incursions, rather than qualified bureaucrats who were needed to develop leadership capacity.[viii] This also affected the development of democratic governance, a challenge which continues to this day.
Ethnic allegiances; South Sudan is a highly ethnic society with most people identifying with their tribe/ethnic group first before the nation of South Sudan. This was especially demonstrated by the political misunderstandings that resulted into civil war, where within the armed forces, the Dinka elements aligned with President Kiir and Nuer elements aligned with Vice President Riak Machar precisely because of their tribal/ethnic allegiances and not because one or the other was on the right side or not.[ix] Due to tribal/ethnic allegiances, leadership positions in the political arena are allocated in a way that is intended to appease the various ethnic groups, and not because of the capacity to deliver the national good. As a result, many people who occupy national political and professional offices lack the capacity to contribute towards national development but they are kept in those offices because their presence fulfills the ethnic ‘quota’ for occupation of political offices.[x] This has also played a contributing role in hindering the development of democratic governance in South Sudan.
Corruption and mismanagement of public resources; This is amplified by the tribalism, where one sees occupying political office as a means to enrich oneself and members of his/her tribe or ethnic group. Because political appointments are based on ethnic identity, office bearers due not pay their allegiance to the nation, but to their tribe, which enabled them to be appointed in the first place. Therefore, their actions are first and foremost meant to benefit their tribe before the nation. Billions of dollars of public resources have been stolen by government officials with the knowledge of the leadership, for example in 2012, President Kiir issued a directive to government officials to return over $4billion stolen from government coffers,[xi] a directive that was ignored by all the concerned officials without any consequence to this day. The resources which are lost through corruption would have helped in strengthening the governance structures, which are crucial for the development of democratic governance.
Economic hardships; One of the major prerequisites for developing democratic governance is economic welfare of the citizens, which is necessary for promoting stability. In South Sudan however, since prior to independence, mismanagement of public resources has resulted into income inequalities, economic and welfare stagnation, with increased unemployment and increased poverty especially among the youth.[xii] This has increased vulnerability of the youth to manipulation by political actors who easily recruit them into subversive activities with the promise of a better future. Most of the youth who are involved in rebel activity in South Sudan do not have political or ideological inclination towards rebel causes but rather, they are pushed by poverty and desperation and the promise of improved life when victory is achieved. Having the country’s youth involved in rebel activity is one of the hindrances to the development of democratic governance in the country.
Regional interference; South Sudan has been described as the playground for regional strategic interests.[xiii] The intervention of neighboring states like Sudan (through supporting proxy rebel activities), Uganda (through supporting the government against the opposition), Kenya and Ethiopia.[xiv] Whereas these neighboring countries have a genuine interest in ensuring stability in South Sudan so as to avert a spillover of insurgency into their own countries, they have also brought in their own political influences in order to further their political agendas and national interests. For example, the Uganda government has sided with the government of President Kiir in order to maintain a friendly government in power in South Sudan to buffer them against the Khartoum aggression.[xv] In trying to protect their interests, South Sudan’s neighbors have ended up stifling the development of internal democracy in South Sudan. For example, by siding with the president, the Ugandan forces helped to preserve a prolonged government which has remained in power on transitional basis without elections for over ten years.
International interests; South Sudan being a new nation with vast resources, has attracted major global powers in the country. Powers like China, USA, UK and European Union see South Sudan as a source of vital resources for their development. Therefore each of these countries have tried to influence the political leadership in the country in order to secure favorable business terms for their countries.[xvi] The presence of oil and other resources needed by these global powers has meant that all of them have an interest in having politicians in government who are friendly to their interests. A clash of the interests of these international powers has contributed to instability in the country through the proliferation of proxy rebel activities using regional players, which has contributed to subversion of democratic efforts in the country.
Mass illiteracy; The fact that majority of the people in South Sudan are uneducated has also presented a challenge that has played a contributing role in hindering the development of democratic governance.[xvii] For democracy to develop, there is need for a politically sensitized population which has the capacity to demand for democratic values from the leadership, as well as a well-developed middleclass elite that can put the political class to task. The fact that most of the people in the country are illiterate makes it easy for politicians to avoid the scrutiny that is necessary for transparent and accountable leadership, which is a cornerstone for the development of democratic leadership in eth country.
Poor connectivity and communication; For democracy to prevail and develop, there is need for people to connect and have social and political exchanges at local, regional and national levels. However, South Sudan is one of the most poorly connected countries in the world, with many regions inaccessible by road, which is virtually the most widely available means of transportation.[xviii] Many areas are severely isolated from the rest of the country that reaching them requires air transport, which can only be afforded by international humanitarian organizations, political elite and a few affluent people, meaning that these isolated areas have no chance to engage with the rest of the country and therefore they cannot participate in the political processes. In addition to that, communication is also very limited, with modes of mass media such as radio, television and telecommunication mostly restricted to cities and major towns.[xix] This means that many people are constrained from actively following the political processes as well as having a say in how they are governed, which hinder the development of democratic governance in the country.
Lack of social integration; As mentioned earlier, South Sudan is a highly ethnic society with deep ethnic identities. Given its history of marginalization, colonial divisions (divide and rule policies) and liberation struggles, each community developed on its own, surviving on self-sustenance of in rivalry/competition with the other communities for scarce resources.[xx] For example, during the early years of the liberation movement, every community formed its own rebel group based on its ethnicity (for example the Nuer axis under Lam Akol and Riak Machar, and the Dinka axis under John Garang and Salva Kiir).[xxi] Amidst all the struggle and hardship, there was no room for genuine integration, and even after independence, the leadership did not get a chance to integrate its people into one national identity. This has created a challenge which has stifled democratic engagement because leaders are presumed to serve the interests of their ethnic kinsmen and not the entire country as a whole. In such circumstances, the development of democratic leadership is hindered.
In conclusion, it can be agreed that South Sudan has a long way to go in as far as democratic governance is concerned. As the country stands now, its leadership is faced with a multitude of challenges to political engagement, which is necessary for development of democracy in the country. Some of these challenges are locally engineered such as the ethnic and rebel conflicts, corruption and mismanagement of public resources among others, which require a deeper reflection and change of attitude and direction among the country’s leaders. However, other challenges are bigger than South Sudan as a nation, given the fact that globalization has overtaken the pace of progress in the new nation. It therefore calls for genuine and honest engagement at both local, regional and international levels, with the realization that a failure of democratic development in South Sudan presents a threat not only for South Sudanese as a people, but for regional/neighboring countries and the world as a whole. All stakeholders must acknowledge this and cooperatively contribute towards addressing the fore-mentioned challenges in order to help the development of democratic governance in South Sudan.
[i] A referendum was held in July 9th-15th to determine whether the then semi-autonomous Southern Sudan remains part of Sudan or becomes an independent state as per the provisions of the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement. See
[ii] Howden, D. (2013). South Sudan: the state that fell apart in a week, The Guardian Newspaper, available at; <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/23/south-sudan-state-that-fell-apart-in-a-week>
[iii] Human Rights Watch (2013). South Sudan: Soldiers target ethnic group in Juba fighting, available at;
<https://www.hrw.org/news/2013/12/19/south-sudan-soldiers-target-ethnic-group-juba-fighting>
[iv] Suliman, Mohammed (1993) ‘Civil War in the Sudan: From Ethnic to Ecological Conflict’, The Ecologist, 23 (May–June), pp. 104-109.
[v] Ali, A.G., Elbadawi, I. & El-Batahani, A. (2005) ‘The Sudan’s Civil War: Why has it Prevailed for so Long?’ In Collier, Paul; and Sambanis, Nicholas (eds), Understanding Civil War: Evidence and Analysis. Volume I: Africa. Washington, DC: World Bank.
[vi] Malwal, B. (2015). South Sudan: The Beginning of the Struggle for Political Emancipation, 1947–2004. In: Sudan and South Sudan. St Antony’s Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London.
[vii] Eye Radio (2021) ‘Activist criticizes Kiir over Appointment of Deputy Governors’, Available at: <https://eyeradio.org/activist-criticizes-kiir-over-appointment-of-deputy-governors>
[viii] Eye Radio (2021) ‘Kiir Reconstitutes Western Equatoria State Gov’t’, Available at: <https://eyeradio.org/kiir-reconstitutes-western-equatoria-state-govt>
[ix] Voice of America (2021) ‘South Sudan’s Kiir to stay out of Inter-communal conflicts’, Available at: <https://www.voanews.com/africa/south-sudans-kiir-stay-out-inter-communal-conflicts>
[x] Tchie, A.E.Y. & Hamid, A.E. (2021) ‘Restructuring State Power in South Sudan’. The Economics of Peace and Security Journal, 6(1), p. 41-51.
[xi] Prendergast, J. & Adeba, B. (2016). Stolen Assets Must be returned to the South Sudanese People, Enough Project.
[xii] IGAD South Sudan Office (2018) ‘Signed Revitalized Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan’, Available at:
[xiii] Mesfi, B. (2015) ‘East Africa Report. The Regionalization of the South Sudanese Crisis’, Managing Conflict in Africa, Available at: <https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/191757/E_Africa_Report_4.pdf>
[xiv] UNMISS Press Statement (2021) ‘Statement of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General David Shearer to the Security Council on the Situation in South Sudan’, Available at: <https://reliefweb.int/report/south-sudan/statement-special-representative-secretary-general-david-shearer-security-council>
[xv] Tchie, A.E.Y. & Hamid, A.E. (2021) ‘Restructuring State Power in South Sudan’. The Economics of Peace and Security Journal, 6(1), p. 41-51.
[xvi] Gallopin, J.B. (2020) ‘Bad Company: How dark money threatens South Sudan’s transition’, European Council on Foreign Relations. Available at: <https://ecfr.eu/publication/bad_company_how_dark_money_threatens_sudans_transition>
[xvii] VOA (2019). South Sudan Promoting Adult Literacy to Maintain Peace, available at; <https://www.voaafrica.com/a/africa_south-sudan-promoting-adult-literacy-maintain-peace/6179024.html>
[xviii] Ranganathan, R. & Briceño-Garmendia, C.M. (2021). South Sudan’s Infrastructure: A Continental Perspective, South Sudan country report, African Infrastructure Country Diagnostic.
[xix] OCHA (2017). South Sudan Media and Telecommunications landscape guide, UN’s Office of the High Commission for Humanitarian Affairs.
[xx] Wai, D.M. (ed.), (1973). The Southern Sudan and the problem of national integration. London: Frank Cass.
[xxi] Lesch, A.M. (1998). The Sudan-Contested National Identities. Indiana University Press. United States of America. P. 42-43