Tribalism in South Sudan is often portrayed as an inherent evil and the root cause of the country’s instability. This view, while emotionally appealing, is intellectually incomplete. Tribalism is not inherently bad. South Sudanese are historically and socially organized into tribes and communities. Like all human societies, people possess a natural tendency to lean toward those with whom they share a language, culture, ancestry, and collective memory. This instinct is neither immoral nor abnormal; it is deeply human. Tribalism only becomes destructive when national leadership governs through tribal logic, while believing it is acting in the national interest.
In its neutral sense, tribalism reflects strong in-group loyalty and social cohesion. In traditional societies, it was crucial for ensuring the sharing of resources, defense, kinship solidarity, and cultural preservation. In South Sudan, where more than 64 legally recognized tribes exist, tribes are not merely cultural units but also survival systems. A tribe and a community are often indistinguishable, because survival is rooted in the group rather than the individual. Mutual protection, shared resources, and collective responsibility define social life. This explains the emotional attachment and sense of identity that members of a tribe feel toward one another.
However, tribalism becomes harmful when it migrates from the social sphere into the machinery of the modern state. The danger arises when national leaders, entrusted with public power, unconsciously or deliberately substitute national rules with tribal norms. Such leaders use state authority to implement policies infused with a spirit of tribal loyalty. They may genuinely believe they are acting correctly, but their decisions are shaped by a devotion to their own social group. Because they hold power, they enforce these policies on other communities, often without recognizing that they are imposing values and interests that conflict with those of others. What follows is exclusion, resentment, and resistance.
At this stage, tribalism manifests as a “us versus them” mentality. Strong in-group loyalty becomes a prioritization over justice, reason, or kindness. Outsiders are viewed with suspicion, prejudice, or hostility. In politics, this appears as extreme partisanship and ethnic mobilization, where loyalty to a tribe or clique supersedes the common good. National institutions are weakened, corruption becomes normalized, and public resources are diverted to benefit particular communities or individuals at the expense of others.
Tribalism fuels discrimination, bigotry, and ethnic chauvinism. It escalates into conflict, as history tragically demonstrates in places like Rwanda, and as South Sudan itself has experienced through violent conflicts, particularly between major tribes such as the Dinka and the Nuer. These conflicts have often been orchestrated by the political elites, since when tribes are busy fighting each other, they forget their shared national interest.
Yet it would be intellectually dishonest to deny that tribalism also has positive aspects. It fosters community cohesion, preserves culture, and provides a sense of belonging and security. The proverb “birds of a feather flock together” captures this human tendency toward homophily—the inclination to associate with those who are similar in occupation, interests, habits, or identity. While modern digital communities and social networks may resemble tribes, they lack the features of real tribes: mutual survival of both the individual and the group. In South Sudan, tribal bonds remain adaptive because they provide protection and certainty where national institutions are weak or absent.
This is precisely the tragedy. Individuals appointed to government positions often find greater protection in tribal networks. Tribalism offers loyalty, social bonding, and security even when personal relations fray. At the same time, it restricts national interaction, discourages mobility, and can lead to bullying or exclusion when a member refuses to conform. Tribalism thus becomes a system without layers: it begins with the individual and ends with the same individual, enclosing social life within a narrow circle.
In its most extreme form, tribalism justifies violence against outsiders. Kin-selection behavior—uniting against an external group—may have enhanced survival in early human history, but in a modern state, it becomes catastrophic. When the nation is sacrificed to protect tribal interests, citizens are reduced to what might be described as dangerous social animals, ill-equipped to live beyond the protection of the group. South Sudan, in this sense, risks remaining trapped at a stage akin to small hunter-gatherer societies, where the concept of the country is reduced to a contest among mega-tribal unions, governed by a jungle law of survival of the fittest.
Politically, tribalism in South Sudan has acquired a negative connotation because it now signifies discriminatory behavior toward out-groups based on in-group loyalty. It is no longer a cultural reality alone, but a disease of governance. Ending it is neither simple nor rapid. It requires a long-term, multi-pronged strategy that addresses the structural, economic, and social foundations that make tribalism profitable and nationalism costly.
The process must begin with transitional justice—both judicial and non- judicial—to address past human rights abuses. Prosecutions, truth commissions, reparations, institutional reforms, memorialization, and education are essential for accountability, healing, and preventing recurrence. Victims’ voices must be central to rebuilding trust. This should culminate in a conference, producing a constitution that enshrines key reforms.
These reforms must include merit-based appointments in public service; equitable and transparent resource distribution; strict legislation against hate speech and tribal incitement; incentives for national political parties with inclusive platforms; protection of minorities; and strong economic empowerment to reduce inequalities. Inter-regional trade, grassroots economic development, and local entrepreneurship should be promoted to create cross-tribal interdependence.
Equally important is a cultural and educational shift. Civic education and national identity must be integrated into school curricula. A national language should be promoted to enhance interaction, while respecting local languages. Inter-ethnic cultural exchanges, national festivals, and the deliberate “unlearning” of divisive historical narratives are necessary to replace inherited grudges with mutual respect. Civil society, the media, and community leaders must promote unity and counter misinformation, as demonstrated by initiatives such as the Wunlit Peace Conference.
Social integration should also be encouraged through intermarriage, mobility, and opportunities for citizens to live and work outside their home regions. Leadership must be guided by a strict code of conduct grounded in the Nolan Principles—selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty, and leadership. Such principles can cultivate servant leadership that prioritizes national unity over tribal gain. Finally, sincere truth and reconciliation must heal past wounds and build a shared future.
In conclusion, tribalism in South Sudan is not merely a social identity; it is a political problem born of weak institutions and predatory leadership. Ending it is not an event but a process—a steady transition from loyalty to bloodline toward loyalty to citizenship. Only when merit replaces ancestry, justice replaces favoritism, and national institutions become more protective than tribal networks will South Sudan move from division toward a shared destiny.
The writer, Juol Nhomngek Daniel, is a former national parliamentarian and can be reached via nhomngekjuol@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.