As they continue with the stalemate surrounding the scheduling of elections in South Sudan, either for the end of 2024 or pushing it back, the political landscape in the country remains complex and contentious.
The two main parties involved in this discussion, the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement in Opposition (SPLM-IO) and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) Party in Government or mainstream SPLM, have deliberately proposed differing solutions to the issue, with both ultimately leading to a delay in the electoral process.
South Sudan has a long history of conflict and political instability, stemming from the struggle for independence from Sudan and the subsequent internal power struggles that have plagued the country since gaining independence in 2011. The civil war that erupted in 2013 between President Salva Kiir’s government (SPLM Mainstream) and opposition forces led by Dr. Riek Machar, the leader of the SPLM-IO, further exacerbated the ethnic alignment in the country. The signing of the Revitalized Agreement on Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan (R-ARCSS) in 2018 intended to end the violence and pave the way for unity and a peaceful transition to democracy.
In analyzing the key figures involved in South Sudan politics and current debate, it is evident that personal and political motivations play a significant role in shaping the positions of the various parties. President Kiir who leads the SPLM Mainstream has been in power since South Sudan’s independence and has faced criticism for his leadership style and handling of the country’s affairs. Dr. Riek Machar, the leader of the SPLM-IO, has also been a central figure in South Sudan’s political landscape and has been accused of pursuing his interests at the expense of the country’s stability.
Despite the signing of the peace agreement, the implementation of key provisions, including the scheduling of elections, has faced numerous challenges. The SPLM-IO, which is considered the main opposition party in South Sudan, and a signatory to the agreement, has been vocal in its calls for a postponement of the elections, citing the need for further reforms and the lack of readiness within the country for a free and fair electoral process. On the other hand, the SPLM Mainstream has recently proposed partial elections, focusing on presidential and gubernatorial seats while delaying legislatorial elections for a later date.
It is important to note that both suggestions put forward by the SPLM-IO and the SPLM Mainstream ultimately lead to delays in the electoral process, indicating that neither party is truly in favor of holding elections at the scheduled time. This raises concerns about the commitment of both parties to democratic principles, the revitalized peace agreement, and the will of the South Sudanese people.
Neither of the two parties in the current revitalized government of South Sudan is in favor of the elections scheduled for December 2024. Instead of the new strategy, they are continuing the same game of disagreeing to agree on an extension which is a method of buying time—debating uncontroversial issues until time runs out without embarking on the catalysts for the elections—just later to agree on an extension—citing limited time. Consider the fact that significant discussions such as these led to the extension of the elections in 2015, 2018, and 2022 respectively. To increase their legitimacy, the parties appear to be scaring the people of South Sudan by trading angry remarks with each other, which people anticipated to be another possible violence looming, thus, give-in for the sake of peace and stability to prevail.
The SPLM-IO which purported to be the main opposition party despite lacking the qualifications to be called so, is still unsatisfied. They have not been able to fully appropriate what they should have from the government of Revitalization. Therefore, they have to hide behind the shadow of legitimate chucks for free and fair elections such as conducting a census; making a permanent constitution; and finally using the shockingly high level of insecurity in the nation as a means of postponing elections for another year, just to give chance to loot further. The fact that the SPLM-IO, despite being the main opposition party, has not fully embraced its role as a check on the government and is more focused on securing power and resources for itself is troubling.
The real worries that many identify as impediments to the slate 2024 elections such as persistent rebellions and intercommunal violence among the communities and so forth have not received any attention from the SPLM Mainstream, which claimed to be pro-elections. Despite the deadline drawing near and the lack of funding for the technical programs required for the Electoral Commission which include; identifying the national and local constituencies; creating the commission’s framework; acquiring and shipping electorate types of equipment; and establishing, installing, and maintaining the commission’s main office and state branches. With these unmet up-to-date, the SPLM Mainstream has not in any way expressed a desire for any elections to be held in December 2024 as scheduled by the so-called R-ARCSS Road Map—a road I see going nowhere even on the Map.
As I have analyzed the two SPLMs, I have come to see them as the dominant political forces in South Sudan. The other political parties in the revitalized government of South Sudan seem to be following the lead of these two giants, rather than charting their course. This is not surprising, given the history of the SPLM and their deep roots in the struggle for independence. In the revitalized government of South Sudan, the other political parties seem to be playing a secondary role to the two SPLMs. They have been many times, sidelined in sundry peace negotiations, and have little influence over the direction of the country. This is a worrying development for democracy in South Sudan, as it suggests that power is concentrated in the hands of a few powerful individuals rather than being distributed among multiple parties. The ploy of the revitalized government in power seems to create confusion among the already confused population by playing games with the idea of extending or no-extending mantra. This tactic of stirring up uncertainty only serves to further bamboozle the common citizens who are eagerly awaiting elections, regardless of their perceived quality.
The impact of the stalemate surrounding the scheduling of elections extends beyond just the political elite and has significant implications for the future of South Sudan. The lack of progress toward holding elections and implementing key reforms outlined in the peace agreement risks undermining the fragile peace process and could reignite tensions and conflict within the country. The South Sudanese people, who have already suffered greatly from years of violence and instability, are now faced with the prospect of further uncertainty and delays in the transition to a stable and democratic government.
In considering various perspectives on the matter, it is clear that there are no easy solutions to the challenges facing South Sudan. While the SPLM-IO’s call for a postponement of elections may have some merit in terms of ensuring a more inclusive and transparent electoral process, the lack of concrete steps toward achieving this goal raises questions about the party’s commitment to democratic values. On the other hand, the SPLM Mainstream’s proposal for partial elections may seem like a compromise, but it ultimately falls short of addressing the underlying issues that continue to plague South Sudan’s political landscape, for instance, they should be focusing on alleviating the problems contributing the delay of Dec. 2024 elections.
Looking ahead, all parties involved in the peace process must prioritize the interests of the South Sudanese people and work towards a truly inclusive electoral process. The international community, which has played a key role in supporting peace efforts in South Sudan, must also remain engaged and hold all parties accountable for their actions. Ultimately, the success of South Sudan’s transition to democracy will depend on the willingness of its leaders to put aside personal interests and work towards building a more peaceful and prosperous future for the country and its people.
It is a commonly held belief that any election, even a flawed one, is better than no election at all. After all, African elections habitually got exposed to rife corruption and irregularities, leading to doubts about the legitimacy of the results, wherefores South Sudan is unexceptional. Despite the looming challenges and imperfections of the electoral process, the desire for participation and the hope for change continue to drive the South Sudanese to seek out any form of election on time, whether, fair or unfair. One must say the deep-rooted socio-economic; socio-cultural; and socio-political divisions and the ongoing conflict and power struggles within the ruling parties only serve to highlight the complexities and challenges that face the country in its quest for democratic governance.
Furthermore, the fact that South Sudan has never held truly free and fair elections as a sovereign state raises questions about the relevance of focusing on the fairness or unfairness of upcoming elections. Instead of dwelling on assumptions and shortcomings of this first exercise, it is essential to conduct it, so that it gives the experiences to enable us to engage in evidence-based post-election discussions—that alone can provide valuable insights and lessons for the planning and organization of subsequent free and fair elections.
In conclusion, the road to free and fair elections in South Sudan is a challenging one, marked by deep-seated political divisions and historical grievances. However, by fostering dialogue, building trust, and upholding democratic principles, together with patriotism, not patriotism, the country can overcome its past and chart a new course towards a more equitable and participatory electoral system if there is a willingness for elections, not extensions. It is essential for all stakeholders to remain committed to this goal and to work towards a future where elections are seen not as a source of conflict, but as a catalyst for positive change and national unity.
The writer Zechariah Makuach Maror is an Activist and can be reached via zeemakuach@hotmail.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.