Opinion | The impact of tribal policies in South Sudan

Since gaining independence in 2011, South Sudan has faced numerous challenges in establishing a stable and unified government. One of the most persistent issues has been tribalism in governance. The country is home to many ethnic groups, with the Dinka and Nuer being the largest. However, the government’s approach to managing ethnic diversity has often been criticized as being driven by misguided policies, contributing to instability and conflicts.

Tribal identity has long been a key component of social and political organization. During the struggle for independence, various groups were united. However, the lack of an effective political strategic plan and mechanisms for inclusive governance led to the emergence of tribal politics as a dominant force. This has resulted in competition for resources, political power, and access to state services along ethnic lines.

Government appointments and resource allocations have frequently reflected tribal affiliations rather than merit or national interest. Senior positions are often filled by individuals from the president’s ethnic group, leading to perceptions of favoritism and exclusion among other communities. This approach has undermined efforts to build a national identity and has fuelled grievances that often erupt into violence.

Political instability has been caused by incompetent leadership, which has led to frequent government reshuffles, the formation of opposition groups, and even civil war, as marginalized groups seek to assert their interests. The government of Salva Kiir mainly focuses on misguided policies for political reasons, making reconciliation and peace-building more difficult. State institutions are weakened when appointments are based on tribal loyalty, resulting in poor service delivery and a lack of accountability. Resource allocation along tribal lines has created disparities in development and access to basic services, exacerbating poverty and underdevelopment in the neglected regions.

Several peace agreements and reconciliation initiatives have been called for more inclusive governance. The 2018 Revitalized Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan (R-ARCSS) emphasized power-sharing between different groups and the importance of building national cohesion. However, implementation has been made difficult by the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement in Government (SPLM-IG) to serve their selfish interests.

For South Sudan to move away from instability, there must be institutional reform to ensure appointments and promotions are based on merit and professionalism. Government institutions should support national dialogue and use a shared vision. Decentralization is the way to empower regional, state, and local governments to manage their affairs and invest in civic education to foster a national identity. South Sudan has suffered because of weak governance, deeply affected by the misguided policies that prioritize ethnic loyalty over national unity and development. Addressing these challenges will require genuine commitment to inclusivity, institutional reform, and nation-building. Only by moving beyond tribalism can South Sudan achieve peace and prosperity.

The ruling SPLM-IG, under President Kiir, has since independence played a significant negative role in creating political instability. SPLM-IG’s approach to governance has often been problematic, favouring certain ethnic groups in both policy formulation and implementation. This has entrenched tribalism within government institutions, further marginalizing minority communities and fuelling resentment.

The SPLM-IG orientation has resulted in the concentration of power and resources among selected groups, undermining unity and equitable development. Such policies have not only weakened state institutions but have also contributed to cycles of instability and conflict, as excluded groups challenge the legitimacy of the government. Addressing these issues requires bold systematic reforms focused on meritocracy, inclusivity, and the dismantling of tribal patronage networks.

The SPLM-IG policies have also extended to narrative control, where the government and influential groups shape public discourse to reinforce tribal loyalties and suppress dissenting voices. This narrative management often manifests through state-controlled media, selective dissemination of information, and the framing of national issues in ways that favour the dominant ethnic group. By controlling the narrative, authorities can justify exclusionary policies, delegitimize opposition, and maintain a hold on power, further entrenching divisions.

Such narrative control also perpetuates stereotypes and prejudices among communities. It undermines efforts to build a national identity and limits opportunities for reconciliation, as marginalized groups struggle to have their perspectives acknowledged or represented. To move toward lasting peace, South Sudan must foster an environment where diverse voices are heard, and narratives reflect the experiences and aspirations of all ethnic groups.

The SPLM-IG manipulative policies have been strategically used to maintain control and influence over both the government and society. These policies often involve the favouring of certain ethnic groups through resource allocation, government appointments, and legislative decisions. They exploit tribal loyalties to secure political support, consolidate authority, and suppress opposition, tribalizing institutions which results in a system where access to state services and opportunities is closely tied to tribal affiliation rather than citizenship or merit.

This manipulation fosters mistrust and rivalry, as communities perceive the state as an instrument for advancing the interests of a select few. The SPLM-IG cycle of exclusion and favouritism not only deepens social divisions but also undermines the legitimacy of public institutions, making it increasingly difficult to achieve meaningful reforms or national unity. Overcoming these policies requires a genuine commitment to fair governance, transparent practices, and the involvement of all ethnic groups in decision-making.

A damaging political aspect of the SPLM-IG’s policies has been the weaponization of government appointments. Rather than promoting national development and administrative efficiency, appointments have been strategically used to reward loyalty and punish dissent. By allocating influential positions almost exclusively to individuals from favoured ethnic backgrounds, the government reinforces a system where power and privilege are closely guarded by a selected group. This approach not only marginalizes capable candidates from underrepresented communities but also entrenches dependency and clientelism, where career advancement is contingent upon tribal allegiance rather than merit.

The weaponization of appointments has far-reaching impacts, including the erosion of trust in state institutions and the perpetuation of divisions. It creates a sense of exclusion and disenfranchisement among marginalized groups, fuelling grievances that can escalate into open conflict. Such practices undermine governance, resulting in weak oversight, poor policy implementation, and persistent underdevelopment. Addressing this issue requires instituting transparent, merit-based appointment processes and ensuring that all have equal access to opportunities in the public sector.

When South Sudan gained independence, there was widespread optimism that the nation would experience peace, stability, and inclusive development. South Sudanese celebrated the end of a long and brutal conflict with Sudan, believing self-determination would usher in a new era of opportunities and unity. However, these hopes were quickly overshadowed by internal divisions, persistent tribalism, and a lack of effective governance.

Instead of building on the promise of independence, political struggles and ethnic rivalries intensified. Competing interests among ruling elites and the exclusion of minority groups led to broken trust and recurring violence. The initial spirit of nation-building was replaced with disappointment as cycles of conflict and patronage politics undermined the prospects for genuine reconciliation and sustainable development. For many, the dream of a peaceful and united country was replaced by ongoing instability, hopelessness, and hardship.

Oil resources, while offering significant economic potential, have often acted as a curse rather than a blessing. The competition for control over oil wealth has exacerbated tribal tensions, with various groups vying for access to revenues and influence over resource-rich regions. Instead of fostering national development, oil has fuelled patronage networks and incentivized exclusionary policies.

Regional interests have further complicated the political landscape, often intensifying divisions and undermining national sovereignty. Neighboring countries and external actors, motivated by economic gains, security concerns, or strategic alliances, have at times supported rival factions or intervened in domestic affairs. This external involvement has contributed to the fragmentation of political authority and fuelled proxy conflicts, making it more difficult for South Sudan to achieve internal consensus and lasting peace.

The SPLM-IG’s approach to governance has fostered a pervasive sense of entitlement among certain ethnic groups, particularly those closely aligned with the ruling elites. This entitlement is manifested through preferential access to state resources, government jobs, contracts, and development projects, often justified by historical grievances or perceived contributions to the liberation struggle. As a result, public resources are distributed not based on need or merit, but as rewards for political loyalty and tribal affiliation.

Such politics of entitlement have entrenched a system where state benefits are seen as the exclusive domain of the dominant group, reinforcing divisions and undermining the principle of equal citizenship. This has led to widespread resentment among marginalized communities, who feel excluded from the nation’s wealth and decision-making. The cycle of entitlement and exclusion perpetuates dependency, weakens social cohesion, and poses significant obstacles to building a fair and inclusive state.

Another deeply concerning aspect of the SPLM-IG’s governance is the deliberate denial of essential services to enforce citizen submission. Access to basic services such as healthcare, education, and infrastructure is often selectively withheld from communities perceived as unsupportive of the ruling elites or insufficiently loyal. This calculated deprivation serves as a means of control, compelling marginalized populations to surrender in exchange for the most fundamental public needs.

By weaponizing service delivery, the government not only deepens divisions but also undermines the social contract between the state and its citizens, eroding trust and perpetuating poverty and disenfranchisement. Ultimately, the politics of service denial hinders nation-building and obstructs the development of an inclusive and accountable state.

Given the persistent patterns of exclusion, patronage, and repression under the current leadership, South Sudanese demand a total regime change as the only realistic path to restoring power to the people. If the present regime remains in control, efforts to establish inclusive governance, equitable resource distribution, and genuine reconciliation will remain hindered. Change could provide an opportunity to rebuild institutions, foster national unity, and empower marginalized voices in shaping South Sudan’s future.

The writer, Philemon Daud Tom, is the SPLM-IO Provincial Coordinator of Ontario, Canada. He can be reached via email: philemondaud84@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.