Dr. Joseph Siegle is the Director of Research at the Africa Center for Strategic Studies at the National Defense University in Washington, D.C. In this capacity, he oversees the Center’s research on Africa-wide governance and security trends.
In an exclusive interview with Radio Tamazuj, he said the government’s failure to pay salaries is a very severe situation and shows the weak governance realities in South Sudan which pose a risk of the country becoming a failed state. He contends this will come with even deeper lawlessness, a power shift to warlords and militias, and the potential fragmentation within the country.
Dr. Siegle also argues, among other things, that civil society is the sector with the most legitimacy in the country and should be empowered to take the lead in navigating the transition to democracy.
Below are edited excerpts:
Q: What is your opinion about the recent two-year extension of the transitional period, the transitional government’s tenure, and the postponement of elections to December 2026?
A: This latest extension was not a surprise. It was very predictable. We have seen extensions for elections in South Sudan. Starting in 2016, we have seen extensions every two years when the apparent mandate has expired. It is not a surprise; it is very predictable and reflects the political leaders’ lack of political will and incentives to move forward with elections.
Q: What do you think are the factors behind South Sudan’s struggles for democratic transition since independence?
A: Well, there are of course many factors involved. As a new country, South Sudan has to build many institutions, it does not have a deep democratic history. South Sudan is one the poorest countries in the world and it is a very expansive territory with a history of conflict. Many factors have contributed to the challenging situation. However, there is a consensus among regional and international observers that the real issue is the lack of political will on the part of the political leaders to move this forward.
This reflects their lack of incentive. By not holding elections, they are extending their terms and so they are not the ones who see any hurry to organize elections because it may affect their position in power. I think the real issue is that South Sudan lacks independent bodies that can facilitate all the processes needed to hold free and credible elections. So long as that decision is in the hands of the current political leaders, then they have no reason to move that forward very quickly.
Q: What do you recommend as a solution for the country to come out of this difficult situation?
A: If we are going to see any real change in South Sudan, we need to move past the rhetoric of transitions and even some of the legislation that has been passed for a transition and unified military to real tangible execution of these processes. That is going to require the creation of some independent body endorsed by all political factions to empower them to do things that are necessary to move things forward such as conducting the census, registering parties, and navigating and strengthening the independent electoral commission. And also to work for the establishment of independent institutions in South Sudan that can move this process forward in a way that is going to be meaningful for citizens.
Q: Do you think South Sudanese citizens are fully informed about their rights to hold their leaders accountable?
A: South Sudan is a new country, it has limited experience with democracy and it is among the countries with the lowest human development index according to the United Nations. So, I think many South Sudanese don’t fully understand their role in holding leaders accountable and they don’t fully understand their rights yet at the same time there have been and continue to be many courageous civilians, and civil society actors pushing for reforms and anxiously demanding that South Sudanese leaders uphold their commitment to a transition and democracy. So, the lack of progress in South Sudan is not a result of a lack of citizen commitment to interest or advocacy, this is really about empowerment and the unwillingness of South Sudanese political authorities to adhere to the wishes of the population.
Q: The security arrangement in the 2018 peace agreement has not been fully implemented and the head of the National Security’s Internal Security Bureau was recently removed. Do you think the signatories to the agreement are genuine in security sector reforms?
A: I think this is one of the key challenges that there has not been a commitment to doing so and so long as the security sector remains fragmented and different militias are responding to different political actors, you will continue to have the high levels of insecurity in South Sudan. This is perpetuating the instability that is blocking a lot of political progress.
This has been recognized from the onset of independence that South Sudan needs to revitalize and reform itself so that there is a single military that is professional, responds to a single chain of command, follows human rights, is respectful of the rule of law and in the end is there to defend citizen interests. That has not happened and there has been no political commitment to doing so despite the willingness by the United Nations, UNMISS, and others to work with the South Sudanese political actors to make that so. So, that is a top priority.
Q: Dr. Siegle, how do you view the role of the countries in the region and their interests in South Sudan and how do you think it impacts on South Sudan politically and economically?
A: Well, obviously the conflict in Sudan is having a very severe negative effect on South Sudan and the estimate is up to some 800,000 refugees from Sudan have come into South Sudan and an additional 400,000 returners have come into South Sudan. So, this is this is adding more pressure and escalating the economic crisis in South Sudan. We have seen the damage done to the oil infrastructure and this has affected revenues for South Sudan. The conflict has only worsened the acute humanitarian situation and you know in South Sudan you see 75 percent of the population in need of humanitarian assistance and you already previously have 30 percent of the population that is already internally displaced.
So, this is the highest level in Africa and so when you add to that the complication from the conflict in Sudan, obviously there is not any buffer to absorb these additional needs and so it is making a bad situation worse.
Q: As an observer, what do you foresee if the war in Sudan does not stop soon?
A: The concern we have in Sudan is that as the conflict goes on, the regional powers are going to be competing to carve up Sudan and we risk seeing the perpetuation of a military state in Sudan. This will perpetuate the instability there much as we see in Yemen or Libya and this will be a huge disaster for South Sudan and the region more generally.
These regional actors are vying for their self-interest, they do not have the interest of Sudan and Sudanese civilians at heart. So, we are at a very dangerous time right now with the regional rivals competing and not wanting to get outmaneuvered and their incentive to continue to fund one side or the other is only increasing. So, this is a huge problem strategically and security-wise for the region and of course, the huge humanitarian catastrophe in Sudan, distracts world attention and resources away that could be going to South Sudan.
Q: The international community has been criticized for not putting enough pressure on the signatories to the peace agreement in South Sudan. What do you have to say about this?
A: I think we have to qualify that because the international community has been actively involved in trying to move the parties forward and UN Special Representative Nicholas Haysom, UNMISS and the UN Human Rights Council have been actively involved in trying to move this forward and there was the ten-point plan on what needed to be done to move towards elections and very little action was taken towards those efforts by the South Sudanese political authorities.
There has been major humanitarian assistance provided to South Sudan over the years to the tune of a billion dollars a year and so it is not that the international community has not been involved in South Sudan. In the end, it is going to require the domestic actors to be willing to move forward and that is going to require pressure from different domestic stakeholders on the political actors to work in the interest of citizens rather than their own private and profit-oriented interest.
It is very difficult given how long the conflict has gone or how polarized the situation has become and there needs to continue to be a role for the International community. We should add the Kenyans and regional actors have been part of the process to try and forge a way forward and find a sustainable peace agreement but short of deploying more peacekeeping forces and trying to do this by force, which is not in the interests of South Sudan and the international community, we are dependent on political pressure on the political actors in South Sudan to move this forward. If their own political and economic interests are enabled with a state of South Sudan, if it is competition over resources, there are going to be far more resources in South Sudan if there is a stable political situation and stable security situation.
Q: Do you think the Tumaini Peace Initiative high-level mediation which was launched on 9 May in Nairobi between the government and holdout groups will yield results?
A: I think the Tumaini initiative is welcome and it shows the interest and effort on the part of the region to help South Sudan, and that South Sudan is not isolated, it has friends. This is an African-led peace initiative so it is intentionally done in a way that is trying to build consensus and local ownership and commitment to these processes of change and reforms that are needed. So, I think it is highly desirable and it complements the other efforts through the United Nations and other international actors, so it is all welcome.
In the end, what needs to be done is clear on the political front and in terms of security, in terms of strengthening the judiciary and independent institutions. What is ultimately going to be needed is a shift in the political will of the actors. Again, it should not be left to the current political leaders whose tenures have long expired, it should not be up to them to organize these processes moving forward. So, to take the politics out of this, we need to see the independent bodies established to navigate the transition. There have been great proposals for a hybrid judiciary, a court system in South Sudan and I think something like that across all the different institutions is needed to move the transition forward and it is what will be required to move past the current situation
Q: South Sudanese civil servants and the armed forces have gone unpaid for almost a year. As an observer, what are the risks if this situation continues?
A: This is a very severe situation, it shows the weak governance realities in South Sudan currently and I think the risk it poses is the country could become a failed state and with it, there becomes even deeper lawlessness and a lack of organizing structure to address the needs. Whenever there is state failure, then power shifts to warlords and militias and you could see fragmentation within South Sudan. Those are the lack of any legal framework and civilized structures displaced into the hands of those willing to use violence. Here again, while political actors may feel that they can manage the situation to their benefit and feel they are thriving politically with the status quo, that is a very short-term calculus because even for those political actors, their security, their revenues, and living condition for their families, are highly tenuous.
It is not something that will be sustainable, even for those who are prospering under the current circumstances. And so, even out of self-interest, I think it is important for political actors in South Sudan to move forward with the process of transition and moving South Sudan to a more stable footing.
Q: Any parting shot?
A: I think the real way forward for South Sudan, the real hope, and in fact, the sector with the most legitimacy in the country is the civil society and they should be empowered to take the lead now in navigating this transitional path that we have been talking about. Several things need to be put in place to strengthen the institutions that can better pay civil servants, restore the economy, unify the military, build up the electoral commission, and all these things that are going to be needed to have genuine elections.
This cannot be done by the politicians and is going to have to be done by an independent body and I think civil society is best placed to do that. We want to see a power-sharing agreement across the parties that supports these independent civil society actors that do not work on behalf of any party but for South Sudanese civilians. I think that sort of mechanism is the best way forward for South Sudan and would help to restore stability. And in the end, this is going to be best for the political actors themselves.