Since its independence in 2011, South Sudan has experienced a relentless cycle of conflict that has deeply scarred its people and undermined the promise of nationhood. What was celebrated as the culmination of decades of collective sacrifice quickly degenerated into violent confrontation among those who once claimed unity under the banner of liberation. Independence, rather than consolidating peace, exposed unresolved power struggles within the former liberation movement. These tensions, long suppressed during the armed struggle, erupted openly after independence, transforming political competition into armed conflict and turning citizens against one another. The tragedy of South Sudan is that the very actors who fought for freedom became entangled in rivalries that plunged the country into recurring violence.
The outbreak of the December 2013 conflict marked a decisive rupture in the post-independence order. What began as a political dispute within the ruling elite rapidly assumed ethnic dimensions, fueling mass violence, killings, and displacement. Power struggles, corruption, embezzlement of public funds, and the manipulation of communal identities became central drivers of the conflict. Political elites increasingly mobilized ethnic loyalties as instruments of survival and dominance, facilitating intercommunal clashes and legitimizing violence at the grassroots level. As a result, neighboring communities were displaced, livelihoods were destroyed, and social trust collapsed. The state, instead of acting as a neutral arbiter, became a contested arena where access to power determined access to resources and security.
In response to the escalating violence, the international community, regional bodies, and local actors initiated multiple peace processes aimed at halting the bloodshed. The first major attempt was the Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in the Republic of South Sudan (ARCSS), signed in August 2015 under the mediation of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development. The agreement sought to address the root causes of the conflict through power-sharing arrangements, security sector reforms, and the establishment of transitional justice mechanisms. However, its implementation was undermined by deep mistrust, competing interests among signatories, and the absence of genuine political will. Its collapse in July 2016, marked by renewed fighting in Juba, exposed the fragility of an elite-driven peace that prioritized positions over reconciliation.
Following the failure of the ARCSS, the High-Level Revitalization Forum was launched in 2017 to revive the peace process. This initiative culminated in the signing of the Revitalized Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in the Republic of South Sudan (R-ARCSS) in September 2018. The revitalized agreement expanded inclusivity by incorporating additional armed groups and reaffirmed commitments to ceasefire arrangements, transitional governance, and institutional reforms. While the R-ARCSS succeeded in reducing large-scale confrontations between major armed factions, it failed to deliver meaningful peace dividends to ordinary citizens. Implementation delays, repeated ceasefire violations, and persistent political maneuvering eroded public confidence. Peace, though formally declared, remained largely confined to documents and conference halls.
Beyond these flagship agreements, several other initiatives attempted to address localized violence and political fragmentation. The Cessation of Hostilities Agreement of 2013, the Khartoum Declaration of Agreement in 2018, and subsequent ceasefire monitoring mechanisms aimed to curb immediate hostilities. Additionally, the Rome Declaration of 2020 sought to bring non-signatory groups into the peace framework. Despite these efforts, violence continued in many parts of the country, particularly in areas affected by intercommunal conflict. These failures reveal a consistent pattern: peace agreements have focused disproportionately on elite power-sharing while neglecting accountability, justice, and the everyday security concerns of communities.
A critical weakness of South Sudan’s peace architecture lies in its heavy reliance on externally mediated, elite-centric solutions. While international engagement has been indispensable in preventing total state collapse, it has also contributed to a model of peace that prioritizes short-term stability over long-term transformation. Political leaders have learned that violence can be leveraged to secure negotiation seats, government positions, and access to resources. This dynamic has created perverse incentives, encouraging spoilers rather than deterring them. Consequently, peace has become a transactional process negotiated among elites, rather than a social contract rooted in the aspirations of the population.
In contrast, evidence from other conflict settings demonstrates the effectiveness of locally grounded peace processes. The conflict between the Lord’s Resistance Army and the Government of Uganda offers a compelling example. Although the LRA insurgency was protracted and brutal, its de-escalation was driven significantly by local initiatives alongside formal negotiations. Traditional leaders, religious institutions, and community elders played decisive roles in facilitating dialogue, reconciliation, and reintegration. The Acholi traditional justice system, particularly the Mato Oput process, emphasized truth-telling, forgiveness, and restoration of social harmony. Church leaders and local authorities complemented these mechanisms by fostering trust and moral legitimacy, bridging gaps that formal state actors could not.
The Juba Peace Talks between 2006 and 2008, held with South Sudan’s active involvement, further illustrate the value of inclusive mediation. Hosted in the Ngaramba Forest area of the Democratic Republic of Congo and facilitated by regional actors, these talks brought the LRA and the Ugandan government to the negotiating table. Although the final agreement was not fully signed, the process significantly weakened the insurgency and reduced violence. The talks demonstrated that peace negotiations anchored in local realities, supported by regional ownership, and reinforced by community-level reconciliation can yield tangible results even in deeply entrenched conflicts.
South Sudan’s failure to internalize such lessons has perpetuated its crisis. Instead of empowering traditional leaders, civil society, women, youth, and faith-based institutions, peace processes have marginalized them. Local mechanisms capable of addressing grievances related to land, cattle, identity, and historical injustices remain underutilized. Yet these are precisely the issues fueling much of the ongoing violence. Durable peace cannot be imported or imposed; it must be cultivated from within, drawing on cultural norms, shared values, and collective responsibility.
The persistence of conflict is further exacerbated by political brokerage that thrives on instability. Positions in transitional governments are often negotiated as rewards for armed leverage rather than competence or public service. This practice has entrenched a political economy of war in which peace is deliberately delayed to maximize bargaining power. Those genuinely seeking reconciliation and reform are sidelined, while spoilers dominate the political landscape. The result is a peace process that serves the interests of a few while prolonging the suffering of millions.
For South Sudanese youth, the consequences are particularly devastating. A generation that grew up during war now faces limited educational and economic opportunities, compounded by insecurity and disillusionment. Many young people perceive violence as the only viable pathway to recognition and survival, perpetuating cycles of militarization. Without deliberate investment in youth inclusion and livelihoods, peace agreements will remain disconnected from the demographic reality of the country.
South Sudan today stands as a stark reminder that peace agreements, no matter how comprehensive, cannot substitute for genuine national commitment to reconciliation, accountability, and inclusive governance. The repeated failure of peace deals is not due to a lack of frameworks, but to the absence of the moral and political courage to implement them faithfully. A shift is urgently needed from elite-centered negotiations to people-centered peacebuilding. This entails strengthening local governance, empowering traditional and religious leaders, addressing corruption, and ensuring justice for victims.
If South Sudan were to emulate successful local peace models, adapt them to its diverse contexts, and align them with national reforms, the country could move toward closing the chapter of conflict. The resources spent on repeated negotiations could be redirected toward rebuilding institutions, restoring livelihoods, and healing social divisions. Peace would then cease to be an abstract promise and become a lived reality. Until that transformation occurs, peace will remain on paper, while pain continues to define life on the ground for the people of South Sudan.
The writer, Mogga Loyo, is a social researcher and peace advocate. He can be reached via mogtomloyo@yahoo.co.uk.
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.