The Psychology of Reward and Punishment in South Sudan’s Rebellion Crisis

By Gabriel Garang Pioth, Brisbane, Australia

Thursday, 13 March 2025 (PW) — South Sudan has been plagued by a cycle of rebellion and conflict, largely due to the government’s policy of appeasing rebels. President Salva Kiir Mayardit’s strategy of buying peace through negotiations and rewards has inadvertently reinforced rebellion as an effective means of acquiring power and resources. This phenomenon can be analyzed through the lens of behavioral psychology, particularly the principles of reward and punishment in operant conditioning. The unintended consequence of rewarding rebellion has led to endless uprisings, disloyalty, economic stagnation, unpaid soldiers and civil servants, disrespect for authority, and widespread tribal conflicts. To break this cycle, South Sudan must shift from appeasement to accountability, ensuring that rebellion is no longer incentivised, and that national development takes priority.

Historical Origins of the Policy of Appeasement

President Kiir’s policy of appeasing rebels has roots in both Dinka tradition and the Khartoum government’s historical practices, shaping how conflict has been managed in South Sudan. The Dinka people have a long history of reconciliation, compensation (Ganuun Wanh-alel), and peacemaking in conflict resolution. In Dinka customary law, conflicts, including killings, are often resolved through blood compensation rather than prolonged violence or win the war in the battle. Chiefs and elders play a key role in mediating disputes to maintain social harmony and alliances and loyalty are maintained through negotiations and strategic rewards.

People bring the culprits (ring leaders) to be cut in half in front of the two communities as sacrificial lamb to reconcile the communities. This act as a warning to others who will copy the same violence behavior. This Dinka approach prioritizes settlement over punishment, which may have influenced Kiir’s tendency to offer government positions and resources to former rebels to secure peace. However, while this method may work in small (Dinka) communities, its application in national governance has had unintended negative consequences.

During Sudan’s long history of civil war, Khartoum leaders often used a “divide and rule” strategy, where they co-opted rebel leaders by offering them government positions, wealth, or military ranks, exploited ethnic divisions by arming certain groups to weaken unified resistance and rewarded defection rather than focusing on long-term stability.

Many South Sudanese leaders, including Kiir, have spent years fighting against the Sudanese regime, in which they witnessed how Khartoum used appeasement and co-optation to manage insurgencies. After independence, South Sudan inherited similar political tactics, where rebellion became a bargaining chip for power rather than a crime. We often hear rebel elements defecting to government and vice versa.

While both traditions emphasise conflict resolution, their misapplication at the national level has reinforced rebellion as a means to gain power rather than fostering genuine stability. While these groups from rebels join the government, the government soldiers and public servants who became victim of rebellion, may decide to rebel, and join the rebel or form new movement. These new rebels are then bought back into the government ranks/files and the cycle continues.

The Unintended Consequences of Rewarding Rebellions or Buying Peace

The strategy of rewarding rebellions or buying peace backfires by creating a self-perpetuating cycle of conflict, exacerbating ethnic divisions, eroding national loyalty and respect for leadership, and impeding economic growth through the depletion and misdirection of development funds. In behavioral psychology, positive reinforcement occurs when a behavior is encouraged by rewards. In the case of South Sudan, every time a rebel group negotiates peace and is rewarded with government positions, financial incentives, or amnesty, it strengthens rebellion as a successful strategy. Instead of discouraging insurgencies, the government’s actions signal to other factions (loyal/peace loving citizens) that violence is the quickest path to power. For instance, a private soldier rebelled and come back as a Colonel or Brigadier. This has created an environment where rebellion is not seen as an act of desperation but a calculated move to gain influence, ensuring a cycle of never-ending conflict/rebellion.

Loyalty to one’s nation should stem from intrinsic motivation, such as patriotism and national identity. However, when rebels are consistently rewarded at the expenses of patriotism, it sends the message that personal gain outweighs national duty. This is in contrasts with President Kennedy; “ask not what your country can do for you–ask what you can do for your country.” The South Sudanese Government officials, soldiers, and civilians alike begin to see rebellion as more rewarding than loyalty to the system/nation. The result is a nation where individuals act out of self-interest, waiting for their turn to eat or reap the benefits of rebellion rather than committing to long-term national stability.

Instead of investing in infrastructure, education, and healthcare, a significant portion of South Sudan government funds is used to appease rebels (including hotel accommodations). By prioritizing short-term peace over long-term development, South Sudan remains underdeveloped, with weak institutions and poor public services. The cycle of rebellion drains national resources, leaving little room for meaningful progress and perpetuating a state of economic instability. The end results are the government running out of money in not long distance future, and chaos/sporadic rebellions mushrooming all over the country.

When the government spends money rehabilitating former rebels rather than supporting the national army and civil servants, it creates widespread discontent from within. Soldiers who risk their lives for national security remain underpaid or unpaid for months, leading to desertions and further insurgencies. Similarly, public servants, including teachers and healthcare workers, lose faith in the system, contributing to inefficiency and corruption within government institutions.

When the government continuously negotiates with rebels rather than enforcing consequences, it risks losing its credibility. This is because rebellion is seen as a bargaining tool rather than a crime. It undermines the authority of the President and the government. People under the President no longer respect his/her leadership because they perceive it as weak and easily manipulated. This emboldens not only rebel factions but also corrupt officials, tribal warlords, and opportunists who see the government as incapable of maintaining control.

When rebels from certain ethnic groups receive rewards, it exacerbates tribal tensions, as other groups/tribe feel excluded or marginalised. Instead of fostering national unity, appeasement policies create competition among ethnic groups, leading to further conflict. South Sudan is fragile due to historical tribal divisions and risks deeper fragmentation if the government continues to incentivise armed uprisings.

The Way Forward

The only way forward is for South Sudan Government to stop reinforcing rebellion, and shift from appeasement to accountability. It must ensure that governance rewards loyalty, service delivery, and productivity rather than violence. Instead of negotiating with rebels, the government must enforce strict consequences for armed uprisings. A strong judicial and military response should deter rebellion rather than encourage it.

This involves prosecuting war crimes, holding insurgents accountable, and preventing political rewards for violence. Anybody who kill people must pay for their crimes. The government should redirect rewards towards those who contribute positively to society. Soldiers, civil servants, and communities that uphold peace and stability should receive better wages, incentives, and recognition. A merit-based system will ensure that national development is prioritized over conflict. Economic growth is a sustainable solution to long-term peace.

By investing in education, healthcare, and infrastructure, the government can create jobs and opportunities, reducing the incentive for rebellion. A country with a thriving economy and stable institutions is less likely to fall into conflict. In the cause of rebellion was underdevelopment, the government should use the money meant for rebels to provide development activities in their communities.

Living behind high walls and driving armoured/bullet prove vehicles, is a sign of insecurity. To gain trust and respect back from the public, the government must sell out all V8 and luxury cars and buy small vehicles. The government should be seen to live a simple life and more sympathetic to the ordinary citizens.

Conclusion

President Kiir’s policy of appeasing rebels has unintentionally reinforced rebellion, leading to a never-ending cycle of conflict, economic stagnation, and weak governance. South Sudan must stop rewarding rebellion and start prioritizing accountability, national development, and strong governance. By shifting from short-term appeasement to long-term nation-building, the country can break free from the cycle of conflict and move towards sustainable peace and prosperity.

The author, Gabriel Garang Pioth, is a concerned South Sudanese Australian who can be reached via his email address: Gabriel Pioth <gab.pioth@gmail.com>

If you want to submit an opinion article, commentary, or news analysis, please email it to the editor: info@paanluelwel.com or paanluel2011@gmail.com. PaanLuel Wël Media (PW) website does reserve the right to edit or reject material before publication. Please include your full name, a short biography, email address, city, and the country you are writing from.

About Post Author