From Peace Agreement to Ballot Box: Policy Choices for Credible Elections in South Sudan

By Gai Karanja Sr. Kampala, Uganda

Sunday, 14 December 2025 (PW) — On December 12, 2025, the SPLM and its satellite parties to the Agreement on the Resolution of Conflict in South Sudan issued a communique affirming their intention to hold elections as slated in the extended 2024 Roadmap. In order to achieve that, the communique includes the implementation of the outstanding issues such as the security arrangements, amendments to the R-ARCSS, and the constitution.

In this article, I am going to agree with the call for elections in the first part; elucidate on what the political meaning of amending the R-ARCSS is, provide its backlash in the second part; and offer a pragmatic framework to the committee on the amendment of the constitution for realistic elections in the last section.

To begin with, elections are the fundamental principle of democracy and it’s upon the government to give its citizens the mandate to choose their leaders. It is this activity creates mutual respect between the government and its electorates. In such a way, the citizens enjoy the power of electing their leaders and holding them accountable.

Over the years, the citizens of South Sudan have been asking for elections which ought to be free, fair, transparent, and credible. Therefore, the communique’s resolution to hold elections in Dec 2026 is very crucial.

However, it will fall short due to a knee-jerk decision that was based on emotions to get rid of Dr. Riek Machar now coded as the amendment of the R-ARCSS. This is what the second part of this article will dwell on in the latter paragraphs.

In retrospect, you may recall that the R-ARCSS cannot be amended. It can only be reviewed and evaluated on its progress. In case of issues of importance, the parties to the agreement seek solutions and provide them as annexure, not amendment.

However, to state that the R-ARCSS is going to be amended means none other than to exclude Dr. Riek Machar’s name as inscribed in the agreement. If this is not the endgame, I’ll be willing to put my neck on the line for that.

After uncovering what’s behind the communique’s resolution on the amendment of the R-ARCSS, it is also a fact that you can’t rule Dr. Machar out of South Sudan’s political space using impulsive decisions.

With the fragile situation of South Sudan, why can’t you just implement the agreement with him and weed him out later using the Museveni style of elections rather than using hasty decisions that will come with a backlash or bring Dr. Machar back to your neck in the near future?

Dr. Riek Machar needs to be beaten hands down during elections, not rigging out in the process as amendments and political prosecutions are concerned.

This is due to the fact that Dr. Riek Machar is first and foremost a historical figure and scholar, a man who also enjoys a great constituency such as the Nuer and now the Equatoria and to the Fertit by extension. This is the man you can only shame in elections that are free, fair and credible instead of ruling him out of the political space. This has been tried a couple of times and it has proven futile. The Narcotics Anonymous have warned that doing the same thing and expecting different outcomes is insanity.

On the other hand, the amendment of the R-ARCSS, if in such a way that I have predicted, is the abrogation of the R-ARCSS which will not sit well with the SPLM IO and the international community, with the former taking up their arms as usual which will call for another agreement in the future and the latter – TRIOKA, IGAD, and perhaps the AU shying away from recognizing the processes.

Amending the R-ARCSS to isolate Dr. Riek Machar is the same as dismissing him in 2013 and arrest in South Africa which created the stalemate we are in today. From the perils of isolating Machar above, it’s important to release Machar, amend the constitution with his consent, review and the R-ARCSS and chart the way forward.

One of best options at hand is to amend the constitution and change the presidential system into parliamentary system. This system is the best option for the fragile economy and the security situation we have to realize elections amidst those challenges.

This is what the last section will dwell on as the SOLUTION to timely elections.

A parliamentary system is simply the type of a government where the head of the government (prime minister) and the whole executive are derived from the assembly. It can best work for us for three reasons such as the little need for security arrangements, cost-effective, and doesn’t allow bureaucracy.

First of all, a major challenge to elections now is the security arrangement. The fragile state we are in now can’t allow David Yau Yau, for instance, to go and campaign in the Red Belt-infested Bor Town. President Salva can’t go to Nasir. Riek Machar can’t campaign openly in Rumbek. This is why the security arrangement has been always associated with the conduct of elections.

Despite the security arrangements going beyond elections but to create a conducive atmosphere for the citizens to live freely in their country, the parliamentary elections require little security arrangements, and the 30-60% that can be achieved is enough for the conduct of parliamentary elections. The parties will contest for only MPs and the party/coalition with majority seats in the parliament will automatically have to elect the prime minister. The prime minister is only elected in the parliament without even the need to go and campaign in Terekeka.

So, the elections will only have to be carried out in the county/constituency levels whereas the security risks of nationwide presidential elections are completely avoided. Gubernatorial elections are less risky, apart from Upper Nile State only.

Up to this point, you may agree that these parliamentary elections are viable and efficient.

Secondly, the cost of national polls in terms of money for printing ballots, providing security, and campaigning is also minimized. The prime minister will only campaign in the parliament and fewer than 300 MPs could vote. Given our ailing economy, it will reduce a huge cost of conducting presidential elections.

Thirdly, the parliamentary system shunts bureaucracy. It bars out politicians who have never been elected to contest for executive positions. All the ministers are appointed within the members of the parliament and anyone who didn’t get any parliamentary seat should not dream of becoming a minister. This means that politicians will keep being relevant to their constituents to get elected to serve in the parliament and the executive branch of the government. Other advantage of this system is that the prime minister is simply accountable to the parliament, and the MPs accountable to their constituents.

Any chaos in the parliamentary system does not affect the whole country. It only happens in the parliament. In order to have elections amidst the security and economic challenges, the committee on the amendment of the constitution should consider the parliamentary system, which is the only way for easy, effective elections.

The elected government will continue to do what is important for the country afterwards. The amendment of the R-ARCSS should completely be avoided too or we risk putting the country into abyss once again.

Other than that, is a knee-slapper.

If you want to submit an opinion article, commentary, or news analysis, please email it to the editor: [email protected] or [email protected]. 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