14 | Steering Capability Question Score
When the civil war broke out in 2013, it became abundantly clear that the government and its adversaries were prioritizing the settling of their differences by violent means.
Economic plans and priorities were put on hold for almost seven years. Both sides and the remaining institutional structures were focused more on financing the war than formulating a strategy for boosting the economy or improving the situation for the civilian population.
All levels of government, including parliament, the army and the executive, became sharply divided as a result of the civil war. The succession of conflicts that have affected South Sudan are rooted in power struggles between senior SPLM members.
The main factor used to explain the alleged coup of December 15, 2013, was the leadership challenge posed by Riek Machar and his group to the president. Riek Machar’s disaffected group did not initially challenge the president because his government had failed or had developed dictatorial tendencies until after they were dismissed by the president in July 2013.
After two years of fighting, hopes that the signing of the agreement in August 2015 would reunify the divided ruling party and secure peace lasted just a few months. In July 2016, three months after the agreement took effect, violence broke out again.
After two additional years of war, both sides agreed to a new peace deal in September 2018, but it took another two years to form a new government of unity in February 2020. Apart from power struggles between political elites, South Sudan also faces the threat of dozens of splinter groups that are not under the direct command of rebel and military leaders and thereby have the potential to undermine the current peace process.
Prioritization
2
During the civil war, the government’s priorities were to contain the rebellion as much as possible. It tried to maintain strict control over the areas under its influence and prevent other areas from joining the opposition. The government used the intimidation and jailing of journalists, NGO and church workers as tactics to contain criticism. The elected parliament and governors were threatened with dismissal, another method used by the government to try to maintain the certain status quo in areas that had not yet been touched by fighting. The government canceled elections multiple times during this period. Consequently, the government’s mandate was extended to 2021 in a manner most opponents viewed as illegal. Elections in 2021 seem to be highly unlikely. Even the peace agreement signed in August 2015 could be considered a government strategy to contain the rebellion. Later events demonstrated that the government was not serious in finding a peaceful resolution to the violence. The new peace deal of September 2018 is seen as a “copy-and-paste”
version of the 2015 agreement, cementing existing power relations. As the last agreement failed and the general situation has not changed significantly, the likelihood of another lapse into open conflict is relatively high. The government’s strategy to contain the civil war in war-affected states has failed. The scale of the war and the level of harm inflicted on various communities suggests that it will not be easy to implement the new agreement. None of the priorities that were set by the government prior to December 2013 have received meaningful attention. At the subnational level, however, some states have tried to continue working toward service delivery, tax harmonization and local security. However, the substantial alterations to the constitutional state system which saw the number of states increase from 10 to 32 between 2015 and 2020, may well compromise these efforts.
Implementation
2
South Sudan is a new country and therefore the time to learn from past policy implementation is extremely limited. The role of the international community in providing policy frameworks, implementation models, monitoring and evaluation capacities, has been substantial. The majority of national governments relied on external technical assistants to produce budgets, annual reports and development plans. Institutionalizing frameworks for policy design, implementation, and evaluation is ongoing. During the civil war, many donors put their support to the government of South Sudan on hold. Many of the funds were redirected toward humanitarian needs. It is likely that some of the initial progress in this field is in decline due to the new priorities of both the government and the international donor community.
Policy learning
1
15 | Resource Efficiency
Prior to the civil war, oil revenues meant that the government of South Sudan had more financial resources than many of its more politically stable neighbors. Due to its small population, this meant it has a considerably higher GDP per capita than the neighboring countries of Uganda and Ethiopia. However, data from IMF, World Bank and the UN - although differing significantly - all indicate that due to the seven years of civil war South Sudan’s situation has deteriorated dramatically. The country remains severely underdeveloped, and the available funds are only modestly invested in public goods such as education (3%) and health (1%). The bulk of the official budget had been allocated to the security sector (38%) and financing the civil war.
Due to weak state structures and seven years of civil war, government efficiency is hard to evaluate. Overall administrative capacity is low and data on performance is frequently not available or of doubtful quality. The Open Budget Survey 2019 gave South Sudan a transparency score of 7 out of 100 and placed the country 106 out of 117 countries in terms of budget transparency.
Due to the protracted wars of independence and the subsequent civil war, many South Sudanese have been living and studying abroad, either in the region or in countries like the United States, the UK, Canada or Australia, which all have large South Sudanese diaspora communities. Many of these people have been returning home over the past few years, bringing with them the capabilities and knowledge they acquired during their time abroad. Due to the lack of transparency in recruitment procedures and the need to accommodate certain individuals in the government or military, returnees may experience difficulties in effectively using their newfound capabilities to the benefit of the public administration and the country.
Efficient use of assets
2
Policy coordination is generally poor. This is partly attributable to the lack of institutional capacity, economic development and persistent insecurity, particularly since the start of the civil war in 2013. The lack of policy coordination is sometimes a deliberate attempt by the ruling elite to undermine the authority of some institutions, particularly the subnational institutions of states, payams and lower levels of government. The administrative changes that saw the number of states in South Sudan increase from 10 to 32, and then revert to 10 under the 2020 peace deal, has been particularly difficult for policy coordination between these new and ill-equipped structures.
Despite numerous policies and guidelines defining the distribution of roles in various sectors, the central government is often accused of interfering in affairs that fall under the jurisdictions of lower levels of governance, such as community land leases. The lack of policy coordination is also visible in the security and land sector. Patronage and corruption further undermine the state structure and coherent policy implementation.
Policy coordination
2
Generally speaking, the executive tends to dominate other pillars of the government, and politics atthe national level tends to dominate those at state level. Some states are trying to make progress in certain domains, but are often hindered by a lack of clarity over roles and responsibilities, lack of funds, and being overruled at the national level.
Officials at state and county levels often complain about interference from the national government without prior notification. Tax and revenue collection is, for instance, one of the fields where a lack of coordination impedes the work of lower levels of government.
The executive’s apparent control of the judiciary and legislative means this is another area that experiences a lack of policy coordination. At the national level, the president has tended to rule the country by presidential decree, which significantly undermines the work of the legislature. When policies are presented to the National Legislative Assembly for deliberation, the president tends to dictate what should and should not be adopted. Mirroring practices at the national level, state governors and county commissioners have also tended to rule by decree, despite this being in contradiction to all existing laws.
Despite the government rhetoric on accountability and measures against the abuse of office, a widespread lack of transparency hampers the fight against corruption. Many people in the government have a sense of entitlement toward their positions because of their contribution to the fight against the north during the war of independence.
Corrupt practices, patronage, murky deals and the abuse of office are seen as simply a part of politics in South Sudan. The financial resources that became available during the years immediately following the signing of the CPA, both in terms of oil revenues and development aid, were unprecedented for the semi-autonomous government.
There was no system available to monitor the use of the funds, and billions of dollars were reportedly stolen or embezzled from the government of Southern Sudan.
The Anti-Corruption Committee, established during the interim period, has its functions set out in the transitional constitution (Articles 143/44). The constitution gives the Anti-Corruption Commission the powers to investigate and prosecute cases of corruption. However, according to the independent Sudd Institute, the “Anti-Corruption Commission Act, 2009 has not been amended to include the prosecutorial powers for the Commission.” No official investigated by the commission has ever been subject to prosecution. Moreover, courts are controlled by the executive.
Therefore, while anti-corruption policies exist, they are simply not implemented or enforced. NGOs have criticized that the September 2018/2020 peace deal fails to address corruption in any significant way.
Anti-corruption policy
1
16 | Consensus-Building
At the time of independence, the people of South Sudan and the majority of its leaders agreed on the urgent need to pursue safety, democracy and inclusive development.
However, many people in the political and military elite seem to only pay lip service to these values and appear to be more concerned with their resources and power base than peace and democracy. Perhaps as a result of the personal ambitions of some of the protagonists in the war, South Sudan is more divided today than it has ever been since its independence in 2011. Recent years have also shown how deeply divided the leadership is about whether or not to prioritize peace and democracy or, instead, to continue fighting over power. The violence of December 2013 and the seven years of civil war that ensued were sparked by these divisions. As the civil war continued, more factions emerged, with splinter groups breaking away from SPLM. The fact that SPLM continues to dominate the political space makes it difficult for new political actors to emerge. Rural areas, on the other hand, are under the authority of chiefs, who are often SPLM members and representatives. Politically, the role of a chief is to convey and oversee the implementation of SPLM’s policies. In summary, there are no short-term prospects of consensus-building between disparate groups.
Although there is a proclaimed general consensus on the principles of a market economy, the ongoing conflict and power struggles within the ruling party are a major impediment to promoting a functioning market economy.
Consensus on goals
4
Despite the factionalism, violence and seven years of civil war, all parties involved in the conflict claim to protect democratic rights. This was also the case in the conflicts that predated South Sudan’s independence. Even those fighting against the government claim to be fighting for the restoration of democratic principles and values in the country.
However, in practice various actors have used violence to remain in power, to gain it or regain lost government positions. The repressive policies developed by the government (e.g., the restriction of freedom of assembly and expression, and the intimidation of emerging political parties) are primarily strategies to retain power.
The rebellion of Riek Machar and the other groups was in part a reaction to the repressive policies of the government but was primarily motivated by their dismissal from powerful positions. Political actors in South Sudan are aware of the international value of ostensibly espousing democratic government and act accordingly. In conclusion, various groups have claimed to be working toward the consolidation of democratic rights, as a means of justifying a power struggle.
Anti-democratic actors
2
In addition to ethnic divides, there are numerous social cleavages in South Sudanese society. Conflicts in rural areas are often related to access to resources, such as grazing land for cattle. The conflict over resources has been central to disputes in areas where a large proportion of the population depend on cattle for their livelihoods.
After the CPA, disputes over land have become central to conflicts between communities, which have often assumed an ethnic dimension. Though labeled as
“ethnic” or “land” conflicts, the root causes of these conflicts are broader. However, ethnicity or land are often used as a strategy by political elites to mobilize support for their specific interest, whether political or economic. An additional cleavage is the competition within the public sector workforce. Those who fought for the SPLA feel that they have the right to public employment opportunities, despite their lack of experience or skills. Those educated in Sudan during the war are regarded with suspicion and are often marginalized. Citizens who returned from the diaspora face similar hostility and suspicion. Primary language, age, and gender are other sources of fractures in South Sudanese society.
Cleavage / conflict management
1
Civil society plays an important role in South Sudan. The South Sudan Civil Society Forum (SSCSF) claims to represent more than 200 civil society organizations. Key organizations such as the Sudd Institute and the Community Empowerment for Progress Organization (CEPO), as well as various churches, play instrumental roles in bridging the gap between the state and society. Despite continued efforts to contribute positively to state-building in South Sudan, the continuation of the civil war has negatively affected some civil society groups, primarily by leading some organizations to take sides during the conflicts. Some civil society groups have also been internally divided in their support for the government or opposition forces. The end result is that many civil society groups have become increasingly politically partisan. The public space for the freedom of expression, deliberations over policies and laws, and investigative journalism has been steadily eroded in recent years. Thus, ending the still unsolved political conflict and restoring the rule of law across the entirety of South Sudan is key to ensuring that civil society groups can perform their duties, and benefit society and the country.
Civil society participation
3
Conflict mediation and reconciliation are central to many communities in South Sudan. Despite the high number of casualties of violence since the 1991 split within SPLM, churches and traditional leaders have been able to reconcile communities involved in the conflicts with minimum assistance. However, from the beginning of the interim period in 2005, political elites have increasingly politicized conflicts and exploited ethnic cleavages, making it difficult to resolve local conflicts, particularly those involving communities from different ethnic groups. In December 2012, the parliament approved a reconciliation campaign to be led by the then vice president.
Although the importance of reconciliation became an important topic of conversation in South Sudan, many distrusted the vice president’s intentions. President Kiir
Reconciliation
2
campaign. In December 2016, Kiir issued a decree for the formation of a National Dialogue Steering Committee. The civil war has added yet another layer of grievance and divisiveness that must be overcome by any efforts to promote reconciliation. The real need for reconciliation remains central to South Sudan’s development, but it will not be an easy process. On December 17, 2020, the National Dialogue Steering Committee issued its final report, concluding that with the current leadership of Kiir and Machar, a reconciliation process appeared unlikely.
17 | International Cooperation
The international community and development partners have been supportive of state-building in South Sudan since independence, particularly the World Bank, the EU, Norway, the United States and the United Kingdom. The major donors have focused on infrastructure projects, the diversification of the economy, security sector reform and policing capacities. To provide technical assistance, numerous professionals from other countries have been deployed in various capacities within the government of South Sudan. The civil war has however affected relations between the government, the donor community, and international and national NGOs that receive external support. Partly in reaction to the growing tensions between the government and the international community, the government passed a bill in 2015 that introduced restrictions on the work of NGOs within the country. In January 2017, for example, the government banned relief agencies from operating in the rebel-controlled areas. In 2011, South Sudan published its first National Development Strategy (NDS) covering a three year period, as well as South Sudan Vision 2040.
During the civil war, no new NDS was prepared. In September 2018, a new NDS for July 2018 – June 2021 was published. Bilateral relations between South Sudan and some neighboring countries have stabilized in the last two years, but the region still faces several challenges. With the outbreak of the civil war, donors shifted the focus of their development aid to humanitarian assistance. Donor countries have now halted their direct and indirect support of the South Sudanese government. Members of the international community, nevertheless, are seeking ways to continue assisting the South Sudanese people. The new government of unity has appeared to cooperate with international agencies on emergency measures prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Effective use of support
3
The relationship between the government of South Sudan and the international community has deteriorated since initially high expectations in 2011. This has been the result of the civil war, human rights violations and the flouting of peace agreements. As a result, the government and various other parties to the conflicts have increasingly lost credibility. One reason is that it became increasingly apparent that the focus of South Sudan’s political elites was their power struggle rather than working toward a better future for the country and its population. Neighboring countries such as Sudan and Uganda clearly favored the Kiir government as a vehicle
Credibility
2
to protect their own interests. As the dynamics have changed in Sudan after the revolution in that country, there is – in principle – a window of opportunity for better and closer relations between the three states. During the civil war the international community remained neutral and encouraged mediation between the conflict parties.
The Kiir government interpreted this as support for the armed opposition and accordingly tried to reduce the international community’s influence in the country.
Prior to the 2018/2020 peace agreement, some international partners came close to canceling all support for South Sudan after numerous broken peace deals. Others have judged that there will be no lasting peace while the current generation of political leaders remain in place. Whether the new government of unity will come together and develop more constructive relationships with its neighbors and the international community remains to be seen.
According to chapter five of the Revitalized Peace Agreement of 2018 (which came into came force in 2020), the new Transitional Government of National Unity of South Sudan is obliged to create the Hybrid Court for South Sudan (HCSS) as an institution of transitional justice to investigate and prosecute war crimes during the civil war. The HCSS is to be created in close cooperation with the African Union (AU) and will apply both international as well as South Sudanese law. This court could, due to international involvement, potentially retain its independence and therefore be in the position to be able to prosecute military commanders. However, it remains unlikely that the primary adversaries of the civil war will be held accountable. In fact, South Sudanese authorities have blocked the establishment of the HCSS for some time. After international pressure, the necessary Memorandum of Understanding between the AU and South Sudan was signed on January 30, 2021.
Relations with the international community and neighboring countries were strained during the civil war. All neighboring countries have economic, political and strategic stakes in South Sudan, and are for this reason directly or indirectly affected by any conflict in the country. With multiple political conflicts occurring within and between the countries of the region, combined with political change in the last few years, it remains open to debate whether the new government of unity can gain momentum and cooperate with its neighbors on future challenges.
At the start of the civil war in 2013, the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) initiated a mediation process. However, the neutrality of IGAD’s efforts was compromised by the presence of the Ugandan army on South Sudanese soil. There was also a disconnection between the objectives of the regional body IGAD (responsible for the peace talks and a monitoring and observation mission to observe the earlier signed cease-fires) and those of the individual member states (with their own interests). After the outbreak of violence in 2016, Ethiopia was the first to lead IGAD’s mediator efforts. Due to the political change in Ethiopia, the negotiations were subsequently led by Sudan, which put heavy pressure on the opposition to agree
Regional cooperation