The country’s long-awaited elections should represent a peaceful transition from a prolonged period of conflict and transitional rule. Instead, the current rush to organise elections—despite unresolved political, legal, security and institutional questions—risks turning the ballot box into another battlefield.
The warning from the United Nations should not be dismissed as an attempt to delay democracy. The UN Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan has cautioned that rushing elections without essential safeguards could deepen existing conflicts and increase the risk of atrocity crimes, including crimes against humanity, war crimes and ethnic cleansing. This is a warning that must be treated as a national emergency, not as ordinary diplomatic commentary.
A dangerous contradiction.
On the one hand, the President of the Republic is urging state institutions to accelerate election preparations. On the other hand, UN officials and peace monitors report that critical conditions for credible, peaceful and inclusive elections remain unmet.
The Reconstituted Joint Monitoring and Evaluation Commission has said that the country is far behind schedule, with unresolved political and legal issues, incomplete security-sector unification, inadequate funding, insecurity and restrictions on political and civic freedoms. The UNMISS leadership has similarly warned that the conditions necessary for credible elections remain uncertain.
This contradiction raises a fundamental question: are we preparing for an election that will consolidate peace, or are we rushing toward an event simply because the constitutional calendar demands it?
An election is not credible merely because a date has been announced. It becomes credible when citizens can register and vote freely, political parties can campaign without intimidation, candidates can move safely throughout the country, electoral institutions can operate independently, and disputes can be resolved through impartial legal mechanisms. South Sudan is not yet in that position.
Opposition threats cannot be ignored.
The threats issued by opposition groups are equally alarming. The reported warning by the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement in Opposition that people registering voters or campaigning in areas under its control could be treated as prisoners of war is not political rhetoric that can be brushed aside. It is a direct threat to the exercise of political rights and to the safety of electoral officials, candidates and voters.
Such threats could have several consequences.
First, large parts of the country may become inaccessible to electoral institutions. Voter registration, civic education and campaigning could be limited to government-controlled towns and major centres. Communities living in opposition-held or contested areas may be unable to register or participate.
Second, political parties may be prevented from campaigning outside their traditional strongholds. This would make it impossible for citizens to hear competing programmes and would transform the election into a contest between armed and territorial influences rather than a contest of ideas.
Third, electoral officials could become targets. If threats are carried out, the National Elections Commission may be forced to suspend operations in insecure areas. This could produce unequal voter access, incomplete registers and serious questions about the representativeness of the final results.
Fourth, the language of “prisoners of war” risks militarising the electoral process. Elections require citizens to be treated as rights-bearing participants, not as enemies based on their political affiliation or place of residence. Once political opponents are classified as enemies, intimidation, forced displacement and violence can easily replace peaceful competition.
The likely effect on the conduct of elections.
If the elections proceed under the present conditions, the conduct of the vote is likely to be uneven across the country.
In relatively secure urban areas, polling stations may open and voting may take place. But in conflict-affected regions, voters may face threats, displacement, road insecurity and limited access to polling centres. Some communities may vote under the presence of armed actors, while others may be unable to vote at all.
This would create an election with different standards in different parts of the country. One group of citizens could participate freely, while another could be excluded by insecurity. A process conducted in that manner may satisfy a timetable, but it would not satisfy the democratic principle of equal political participation.
There is also a serious risk of low voter turnout in areas where people fear reprisals. Communities may stay away from polling stations because they do not know which authority will control the area after the election. Others may vote under pressure from local commanders or political actors.
The management of polling stations could also become contentious. Where security forces are not unified and professionally managed, their presence may be interpreted as partisan. Instead of protecting voters, security personnel could be accused of intimidating them or influencing the process.
The likely effect on the outcome.
The most dangerous consequence of a rushed election may not be the polling day itself, but the dispute over the results.
If major opposition forces boycott the election, threaten participation or are unable to campaign in significant parts of the country, the result will immediately be questioned. A victory obtained in an election where important political actors and large populations are excluded will lack broad legitimacy.
Even if opposition groups participate, they may reject the outcome if the electoral process is conducted in areas where they were denied access or where their supporters were prevented from voting. The country could then face a post-election crisis marked by allegations of fraud, intimidation, manipulation of voter registers and selective counting.
A disputed result in a peaceful and stable country can be managed through courts, electoral tribunals and political negotiations. In South Sudan, however, a disputed result could interact with existing ethnic, military and regional divisions. The election could therefore become a trigger for renewed armed confrontation.
The danger is not simply that one party may lose and refuse to accept defeat. The deeper danger is that communities may interpret the result as confirmation that the political system belongs to one group and excludes others. That perception could deepen resentment, encourage mobilisation and make national reconciliation even more difficult.
Speed must not replace legitimacy
The President’s call to accelerate preparations is understandable. South Sudanese citizens have waited too long for elections, and the country cannot remain indefinitely under transitional arrangements. But the desire to end transition cannot justify a process that increases the probability of violence.
The choice is not between elections and no elections. The real choice is between credible elections that strengthen peace and hurried elections that may destroy the fragile peace that remains.
A responsible national leadership should therefore treat the election timetable as a goal, not as an excuse to ignore reality. Before polling, the country urgently needs:
• A genuine political dialogue involving the government, opposition parties, civil society, faith leaders, women, youth and communities affected by conflict.
• Clear agreement on outstanding constitutional, electoral and legal questions.
• A monitored cessation of hostilities and effective security arrangements for all parties and communities.
• Meaningful progress in unifying and professionalising the national security forces.
• Guarantees for freedom of movement, assembly, expression, association and campaigning.
• Equal access for political parties to all parts of the country.
• Adequate and transparent funding for electoral institutions.
• An independent and credible mechanism for resolving electoral disputes.
• Protection for journalists, election observers, candidates, officials and voters.
The UN Commission has emphasised the need for a monitored cessation of hostilities, unified national security forces under non-partisan command, restored civic freedoms, independent electoral institutions and impartial dispute-resolution mechanisms. These are not excessive demands. They are the minimum foundations of a peaceful election.
A national warning
South Sudan must not confuse the holding of elections with the achievement of democracy. Democracy is not created by printing ballot papers or announcing a polling date. It is built through public trust, equal participation, lawful competition and the peaceful acceptance of results.
If the government rushes forward while opposition groups threaten violence, the election may be conducted only in selected areas, under unequal conditions and amid fear. If the opposition responds to political disagreement with threats against voters and electoral workers, it will also bear responsibility for weakening the democratic path.
Both sides must understand that the people of South Sudan cannot afford another political crisis disguised as a constitutional milestone.
The horror of rushing elections is that the process may produce a result without producing legitimacy. It may create a government without creating peace. It may declare a winner while leaving the country more divided, more militarised and more vulnerable to atrocities.
South Sudan needs elections—but it needs elections that the people can trust, participate in and accept. A hurried election that excludes communities, silences opposition and ignores credible warnings will not close the chapter of conflict. It may open a more dangerous one.
Okello Lawiri (MP)
National legislature/Council of States
Email:lawiriba74@gmail.com
Comments
Post a Comment