South Sudan cannot be governed through fear, division, and perpetual transition

South Sudan has now spent far too many years trapped in a cycle of political crisis, insecurity, poverty, corruption allegations, and unfinished peace agreements. For more than a decade, the people of South Sudan have been promised peace, democracy, development, and accountable government, yet ordinary citizens continue to bear the consequences of political failure. Salva Kiir and those who continue to defend his government must answer a simple question: after all these years, where is the political, economic, and social transformation that South Sudanese were promised? Even in Warrap, Salva Kiir's traditional political stronghold, public frustration cannot simply be dismissed. No community should be expected to support a government forever merely because its leader comes from that community. Loyalty based on ethnicity or regional identity cannot replace good governance, security, development, accountability, and respect for human dignity. The same principle applies everywhere in South Sudan. The people of Equatoria, Upper Nile, Bahr el Ghazal, and every other part of the country are citizens of one republic known as South Sudan. They are not political territories belonging to individual leaders or political parties. The 2026 elections must not become another political maneuver South Sudan is again approaching elections, currently scheduled for December 2026. But the central question is not simply whether elections will technically take place. The real question is whether South Sudan will create the political and security conditions necessary for credible, inclusive, peaceful and genuinely competitive elections. Even the United Nations has warned that the political environment remains fragile and that important conditions for credible elections have yet to be secured. UN officials have specifically raised concerns about the absence of key opposition actors from important political processes, the lack of consensus, stalled implementation of the peace agreement, and the shrinking political space. An election without political freedom is not democracy. An election in which opposition leaders cannot freely organize, travel, campaign, and communicate with citizens is not a genuine democratic contest. An election conducted while political opponents are detained or excluded from meaningful participation cannot easily command public confidence. An election conducted without sufficient security, institutional independence, and political consensus risks becoming another source of conflict rather than a peaceful mechanism for transferring political power. The lesson of 2013 and 2016 must not be forgotten. South Sudanese people remember what happened after the political crisis within the SPLM in 2013 and the return to fighting in 2016. The 2016 violence was not an abstract political disagreement. It produced deaths, displacement, destruction, forced disappearance, and immense human suffering. The Revitalized Peace Agreement of 2018 was supposed to prevent South Sudan from returning to that cycle. Yet the implementation of the agreement remains incomplete. UNMISS reports that the transitional period has been extended repeatedly and that the implementation of the peace agreement remains unfinished. That is why South Sudan cannot afford another political confrontation disguised as an electoral process. The country needs political competition—not political elimination. It needs debate—not intimidation. It needs an independent judiciary—not a judiciary perceived as serving political interests. It needs professional security institutions—not security forces used as instruments of political competition. It needs elections in which every legitimate political actor can compete according to the law. Dr. Riek Machar's political rights cannot simply be wished away Whether someone supports Dr. Riek Machar or opposes him is a political choice. But whether he and other South Sudanese citizens are entitled to political rights is a matter of law. The detention and subsequent trial of Dr. Machar have already become a major concern in the peace process. UNMISS called for restraint and respect for the Revitalized Peace Agreement following his detention in March 2025. More recent UN reporting has continued to identify his detention and trial as major factors contributing to the political crisis. No political leader should be forced to surrender his political rights simply because his participation may be inconvenient to those currently exercising power. If Dr. Riek Machar has committed a criminal offense, the answer must be lawful, independent, and fair judicial proceedings, not political conditions requiring him to abandon political life. If he has not committed such an offense, then continued political detention cannot be justified merely because his political participation is considered a threat. The same standard must apply to every South Sudanese politician—whether they belong to the SPLM, SPLM-IO, a smaller opposition party, civil society, or any other political movement. What international law says The political rights of South Sudanese citizens are not gifts from Salva Kiir, Dr. Riek Machar, the SPLM, SPLM-IO, or any political organization. International human rights law protects them. Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that everyone has the right to participate in the government of his or her country, directly or through freely chosen representatives, and that the will of the people shall be expressed through periodic and genuine elections based on universal and equal suffrage. Article 19 of the UDHR protects freedom of opinion and expression, while Article 20 protects peaceful assembly and association. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) similarly protects political participation, peaceful assembly, and freedom of association. The UN Human Rights Committee has emphasized that political participation and peaceful assembly are closely connected. Most importantly for South Sudan as an African state, Article 13 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights provides: 'Every citizen shall have the right to participate freely in the government of his country, either directly or through freely chosen representatives…' The African Charter also protects freedom of expression under Article 9, freedom of association under Article 10, and peaceful assembly under Article 11. The African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance further emphasizes regular, transparent, free and fair elections, political pluralism, participation of citizens, transparency, accountability, respect for human rights, and the role of opposition political parties. These principles matter because democracy is not simply about putting a ballot box somewhere and telling citizens to vote. Democracy requires a political environment in which citizens are genuinely free to choose. South Sudan does not belong to one man or one tribe South Sudan belongs to its people. It does not belong to Kiir. It does not belong to Machar. It does not belong to SPLM. It does not belong to SPLM-IO. It does not belong to the Jieng Council of Elders. It does not belong to any tribe, military faction, political party, or political family. It belongs to the South Sudanese people. Therefore, nobody should fear a genuinely competitive election. If a political leader believes that the people support him, the most legitimate way to demonstrate that support is through a free, fair, transparent, and credible election. The people—not the army, not political appointments, not detention, not ethnic mobilization, and not government propaganda—should decide who governs South Sudan. The people deserve more than 21 years of political survival South Sudanese citizens deserve functioning hospitals, schools, roads, clean water, electricity, employment, security, justice and a government capable of paying its workers. They deserve a state in which public resources are used for public purposes. They deserve institutions that work. They deserve an independent judiciary. They deserve security forces that protect citizens rather than frighten them. They deserve political leaders who can be challenged without turning political disagreement into ethnic conflict. And, above all, they deserve the opportunity to choose their leaders peacefully. Egypt has demonstrated how quickly a state can transform parts of its infrastructure and build major national projects when political will and resources are mobilized. South Sudan, despite enormous oil wealth and international assistance, continues to struggle with basic services and infrastructure. The question therefore remains: How much longer can our people be asked to wait? NO MORE POLITICAL EXCLUSION Dr. Riek Machar's political future should not be determined by President Kiir, the security apparatus, political elders, or any other individual or group. It should be determined under South Sudan's constitutional and legal framework and applicable human rights standards. If Machar is eligible to participate in political life under the law, no political faction should simply declare that his political career is over. And this principle must not be limited to Machar. It must apply to every South Sudanese citizen. Today it may be Machar. Tomorrow it could be someone else. Once political rights depend on the permission of those in power, nobody's rights are safe. South Sudan needs a different future The choice before South Sudan is becoming increasingly clear: We can continue with political exclusion, militarization, ethnic suspicion, unfinished peace agreements and endless transitional governments, or we can finally build a democratic political system in which power comes from the people. The December 2026 elections should therefore not be treated as another ceremony designed to legitimize whoever already controls the state. They should be an opportunity for South Sudanese citizens to exercise their constitutional and human rights. The international community, the African Union, IGAD, civil society, churches, traditional leaders, political parties and, most importantly, South Sudanese citizens should insist on the minimum conditions necessary for credible elections: political inclusion, freedom of movement, freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, independent institutions, due process, security for political actors, transparent electoral administration and respect for the peace agreement. UNMISS has emphasized that elections require an environment in which people can freely discuss politics and that expanding civic and political space is fundamental to credible and inclusive elections. South Sudan cannot be permanently governed through fear. Power must ultimately return to the people. And when that day comes, the ballot—not the bullet—must determine who governs the Republic of South Sudan. South Sudan belongs to all of us. The writer isa South Sudanese Advocate, Human Rights Lawyer, and Juridicae Scientiae Doctor (JSD) Candidate, with a professional and academic focus on human rights, international law, constitutionalism, and the rule of law. His commentary reflects his views and analysis on issues concerning governance, democracy, human rights, peace, and justice in South Sudan. He can be reached via kenyiyasin@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.