South Sudan: Governance arrangements, war, and peace.

• Author: Radon, Jenik
• Position: Regional Case Studies

"When elephants fight, it's the grass that suffers." (1) There are several similar versions of this Kenyan proverb, both in Swahili and other African languages, that all describe the same thing: "the feeling of powerlessness in the midst of larger forces." (2) Few sayings so aptly describe the devastating impact that power wrangling, and consequent violence, is currently having on South Sudan's vulnerable and defenseless population.

Since mid-December 2013, when civil war broke out in South Sudan between President Salva Kiir's government forces and opposition rebels, led by former Vice President Riek Machar, repeated attempts to reach a negotiated peace settlement have failed. The Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), East Africa's eight-country trade bloc, has been facilitating the peace talks, which have been held in Ethiopia--initially in Addis Ababa and then in Bahir Dar. While peace remains elusive and the fighting continues, the urgent humanitarian situation in South Sudan is deteriorating rapidly.

The failure to end the ongoing conflict can be attributed to both the numerous and complex causes of the violence, as well as to an apparent lack of political will from either side to end the fighting. This article will first examine the various factors that have contributed to the unfortunate violence that we see in South Sudan today, and will then explore possible ways forward for the country.

A reflection on why the world's youngest nation descended into civil war less than three years after its establishment reveals, among other things, the enduring importance of key elements of good governance: effective separation and devolution of powers, appropriate government and electoral systems, the establishment of strong institutions, and good fiscal management. So, too, public participation and ensuring that all voices are heard and represented plays an invaluable role.

WHAT CAUSED THE CIVIL WAR IN SOUTH SUDAN?

On 15 December 2013, President Kiir, an ethnic Dinka, accused his former Vice President Riek Machar, an ethnic Nuer, of attempting to overthrow him in a coup. It remains unclear whether such a coup attempt actually took place; nevertheless, violence quickly broke out in Juba, the nation's capital. Although often touted as an ethnic war, the role of ethnicity in actually triggering the conflict is uncertain. Of the eleven politicians arrested by the government in connection with the alleged coup, six were Dinkas, two were Nuers, and the other three were from different ethnic groups, thus seemingly negating possible ethnic motivations. (3) Regardless of the initial role of ethnicity in the conflict, as the fighting continued and spread beyond Juba, the violence became increasingly ethnic, largely pitting Dinkas against Nuers.

Despite these apparent ethnic divisions, no insurmountable hostility seems to exist between South Sudan's ethnic groups; rather, these divisions are the result of patronage systems that have tended to develop along ethnic lines. Ethnic patronage is understandable, given the natural comfort, ease, and familiarity in working with those with whom one shares common bonds and language. Still, patronage and the access to resources that patronage brings are undoubtedly significant underlying causes of the violence. Accordingly, one could say that "[t]he fault lies not in the DNA of the South Sudanese tribes. It lies with the political leaders who use ethnic patronage to build their power bases; or who incite their ethnic kin to carve out a geographic or political niche." (4) While natural, the inclination to work only with one's own ethnic and linguistic group must be consciously overcome, particularly in diverse populations, such as that of South Sudan.

A number of other factors appear to have contributed to the outbreak of violence, which ended the two years of relative peace that South Sudan had enjoyed since the establishment of the country in 2011. (5) These factors include tensions between different factions of the army, some of which have a stronger sense of loyalty to various tribal leaders and militia groups than to the new country or its national leadership. (6) Again, this is to be expected to an extent, since a new nation has to slowly build a common identity and unifying national vision. So, too, the long-simmering leadership struggle within the ruling party, the Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM), between Kiir and Machar, has created division and instability within the ruling party and the national government. (7)

Connected to these factors are several underlying governance features that helped set the stage for conflict to erupt, including the following: (1) the concentration of power in the presidency under the 2011 Transitional Constitution, which countered decentralization efforts; (2) the presidential system of government, which all too often lends itself to constitutional collapse, particularly in countries with limited histories of democracy; and (3) the fragility of the new country's institutions, which were too weak to constrain individual South Sudanese leaders. These governance issues will now be considered in greater detail.

However, the various contributing factors outlined above must be examined within the broader context of the country's excessively heavy dependence on oil revenues and the political, economic, and social implications of revenue sharing in the country. Indeed, South Sudan is the most oil-dependent country in the world, with oil accounting for some 98 percent of fiscal revenues and for the totality of the country's exports. (8) Additionally, over 80 percent of South Sudan's GDP relies on contributions made by oil, either directly or indirectly. (9) This high dependency leaves the South Sudanese economy acutely vulnerable to the volatility of international oil markets, as well as to factors affecting oil production in the country.

A MOVE AWAY FROM DECENTRALIZATION UNDER THE 2011 TRANSITIONAL CONSTITUTION

A DIVERSE AND FRAGMENTED NATION

South Sudan is sparsely populated and ethnically, culturally, and linguistically diverse, with over sixty different ethnic groups of various sizes living within its borders. These ethnic groups have historically been fragmented, and their only real sense of shared purpose existed during the years of civil war against Khartoum, when the predominantly non-Muslim, non-Arab southern states forged a common front against the Islamist Arab regime of the North. (10) One of South Sudan's chief demands of Khartoum was the establishment of a more federal system of government in Sudan that gave greater autonomy to the southern states. Thus, it was largely the fight for limited self-rule that united the South. (11)

However, once independence was achieved, the commonality shared by the South's numerous ethnic groups largely fell away. Commentators have remarked that the South Sudanese government and its development partners placed too much emphasis on state-building and did not focus enough on nation-building. (12) Many other African countries, notably Nigeria, as well as countries like Angola and Mozambique, experienced similar post-independence collapses into civil war after they failed to unite their plural societies into nation-states with a shared identity. (13) Some African countries, however, successfully created shared national identities by undertaking explicit post-independence nation-building efforts. A good example is the common national identity that Tanzania created by abolishing tribalism and promoting Swahili as a shared national language. (14)

Today, there remains a great diversity of views and interests among the people of South Sudan. (15) The social and economic development challenges in the country are numerous, and they vary from region to region, making the delivery of basic services in the country's complex and varied environments a notable challenge. (16) Extensive swamps and a lack of paved roads are examples of the many serious development challenges that South Sudan faces.

THE NEED FOR A DECENTRALIZED SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT

In order to adequately take into consideration the different views and developmental challenges of South Sudan's diverse people, a degree of decentralized government is necessary. This system of regional, semi-autonomous rule would entail "certain national rights [being] established for all citizens, while at the same time allowing regional governments to make laws, rules, and regulations that do not conflict with national codes." (17) Decentralization would bring the government closer to the people, and would empower local governments to be more responsive to community needs and enable them to better deliver basic services. Additionally, decentralization facilitates greater public participation and government accountability, which is key in South Sudan. (18) A decentralized government gives more voice to minority groups and permits a greater diversity of voices to be heard. Yet, because of this, it may seem inefficient at times.

There are other drawbacks of decentralization: It may create a more expensive administration, and it often requires a greater number of competent personnel to be effective. (19) Such personnel may be lacking in developing countries, particularly at subnational levels of government. Having a deficit of qualified personnel managing subnational governments may be detrimental, as inexperienced officials are more likely to make bad decisions and mismanage state resources. That said, the downsides of decentralization are generally outweighed by the importance of allowing limited local self-rule, and decentralization frequently promotes stability through enabling greater inclusivity and lessening civil unrest. (20) For these and other reasons, a number of countries with highly centralized systems, such as Afghanistan, are currently moving towards a more decentralized system of governance. (21)

South Sudanese leaders accepted the...