Introduction

South Sudan, endowed with vast mineral wealth yet beset by protracted conflict, stands at a critical juncture as it moves toward the December 2026 elections. The country has been mired in an almost continuous transitional period since its independence in 2011, earning the description of a “forever transition.” This protracted state of transition is characterized by repeated delays in implementing peace agreements, persistent power-sharing arrangements, and an elusive move toward stable governance. The roots of the civil war are deeply intertwined with struggles for political power, ethnic divisions, and competition over lucrative oil resources, which have perpetuated cycles of violence since independence.

The Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) has played a pivotal role in brokering peace through the 2018 Revitalised Agreement, but faces mounting challenges as violence, distrust, and political fragmentation persist. The ongoing civil war in neighboring Sudan further complicates South Sudan’s fragile landscape, heightening security risks and disrupting regional stability. The involvement of regional actors, both as mediators and as parties with vested interests, highlights the complex web of alliances and rivalries that shape the prospects for peace. This article examines the South Sudanese conflict, the evolving role of IGAD, the implications for neighboring states, and the broader consequences of regional instability, with a particular focus on the phenomenon of the forever transition.

I. Historical Roots and Causes of the South Sudanese Conflict

The origins of South Sudan’s conflict are deeply embedded in its history, marked by decades of marginalization, colonial neglect, and post-independence struggles for power. After a protracted struggle, South Sudan seceded from Sudan in 2011 amid widespread hopes for peace and prosperity. However, the euphoria of independence quickly gave way to internal conflict, as long-standing ethnic, political, and economic grievances resurfaced. The new state entered a transitional period, but that transition has become indefinite, with repeated extensions and postponements of constitutional processes, elections, and power-sharing deals.

Political Power Struggles

The rivalry between President Salva Kiir and former Vice President Riek Machar ignited the civil war in December 2013. This struggle for leadership quickly took on ethnic dimensions, fueling violence and deepening mistrust between communities. The political institutions remained weak, and the lack of effective, inclusive governance created a vacuum often filled by armed factions. The promised transition to permanent institutions and a stable government has been continually delayed, reinforcing the sense of a “forever transition.”

The rivalry between President Salva Kiir, an ethnic Dinka, and former Vice President Riek Machar, an ethnic Nuer, stands at the heart of South Sudan’s descent into civil war in December 2013. Initially, their alliance was instrumental in the struggle for independence; however, deep-seated mistrust and competing ambitions soon fractured the fragile power-sharing arrangement. Tensions escalated when Kiir accused Machar and several other politicians of plotting a coup, a claim Machar vehemently denied. This accusation triggered violent clashes within the presidential guard in Juba, which rapidly spiraled into widespread ethnic violence, as both leaders mobilized support along ethnic lines.

The conflict quickly engulfed the nation, with atrocities committed by both sides, displacing millions and shattering the hopeful promise of independence. Although multiple peace agreements, most notably the 2018 Revitalised Agreement, have sought to bring Kiir and Machar together in a transitional government, mutual suspicion and periodic outbreaks of violence continue to undermine genuine reconciliation. Currently, Machar, is under house arrest in the capital, Juba. He was detained at his residence in March 2025 following charges of treason and murder marking over a year of detention.

Ethnic Divisions

South Sudan’s ethnic diversity, far from being a source of strength, has been manipulated by political elites to consolidate power and control resources. Competition between Dinka, Nuer, Shiluk, and other ethnic groups has resulted in cycles of violence, communal clashes, and retaliatory attacks, contributing to chronic instability and prolonging the transitional state.

The politicization of ethnicity in South Sudan has fueled a climate of suspicion and division, as leaders routinely appeal to ethnic loyalties to bolster their own authority. This dynamic has marginalized minority groups while intensifying hostilities between the dominant Dinka and Nuer communities, whose rivalry has often spilled over into brutal violence at the local level. The manipulation of ethnic identities, known also from other countries in the region, not only serves the interests of political elites seeking to maintain control over lucrative resources, particularly oil, but also perpetuates a zero-sum mentality, where gains for one group are perceived as losses for others. As a result, efforts at nation-building and reconciliation face persistent obstacles, with communities remaining deeply fragmented and grievances frequently reignited by political maneuvering.

Mineral Wealth and Resource Competition

South Sudan’s oil reserves, estimated at roughly 3.5 billion barrels, account for more than 90% of government income, making control over oilfields a central issue in the civil war. One would say, a typical example of a resource curse. Widespread corruption, lack of transparency, and inequitable resource distribution have fueled grievances and incentivized continued conflict. International oil companies and neighboring states have also vied for a stake in South Sudan’s resources, further complicating the internal dynamics and undermining efforts to achieve a lasting transition.

II. The Role of IGAD in South Sudan’s Forever Transition

The history of South Sudan’s statehood is inextricably linked to IGAD, which has evolved from a mediator of independence to a permanent fixture in the nation’s fragile peace process. Following the landmark 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) that IGAD helped broker, South Sudan officially gained independence in July 2011. The bloc immediately recognized the new nation, transitioning its role from overseeing a secession movement to supporting the stability of a fledgling sovereign state. However, this optimism was short-lived; by December 2013, a power struggle between President Salva Kiir and Vice President Riek Machar plunged the country into a brutal civil war. IGAD responded with unprecedented diplomatic speed, convening emergency summits and establishing a mediation platform in Addis Ababa. While the resulting 2015 Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan (ARCSS) offered a brief reprieve, it ultimately collapsed in 2016 following renewed clashes in Juba, forcing the regional bloc to shift toward more coercive measures, including calls for an arms embargo and the deployment of a regional protection force.

Recognizing that simple ceasefires were insufficient, IGAD launched the High-Level Revitalization Forum (HLRF) in 2017 to breathe new life into the stalled peace process. This inclusive approach, incorporating civil society and various political factions, culminated in the 2018 Revitalised Agreement (R-ARCSS). As the chief guarantor of this deal, IGAD’s involvement became deeply technical; the bloc oversaw the difficult formation of the Revitalized Transitional Government of National Unity (RTGoNU) in 2020 and deployed specialized monitoring mechanisms, such as the Reconstituted Joint Monitoring and Evaluation Commission (RJMEC). These bodies were designed to keep the parties accountable for security sector reforms and the unification of forces, though progress. The 2018 agreement not only mandated a power-sharing arrangement, security sector reforms, but also a timeline for elections. Yet, the transitional period has been repeatedly extended, and the country remains stuck in an interim state.

IGAD’s influence has been tested by shifting regional dynamics. Between 2021 and 2023, the bloc’s effectiveness was hampered as key member states, specifically Sudan and Ethiopia, became preoccupied with their own internal conflicts, leading to a “distraction” that allowed South Sudanese leaders to stall on constitutional benchmarks. Today, as the country approaches the high-stakes December 2026 elections, IGAD’s role is more critical than ever. Beyond its traditional role as a mediator, the organization is now tasked with providing the technical and electoral oversight necessary to prevent a return to violence. The challenge for IGAD in this final stretch is to move beyond “crisis management” and foster a sustainable democratic environment, ensuring that the peace process survives the transition from transitional governance to a permanent constitutional order.

Challenges Facing IGAD

The effectiveness of IGAD in South Sudan is primarily undermined by a chronic inability to enforce compliance and the conflicting agendas of its own member states. Although the bloc has brokered landmark deals like the 2018 Revitalised Agreement, these are frequently ignored by warring parties who face no credible consequences for ceasefire violations. This lack of enforcement is compounded by the “meddler’s paradox,” in which regional powers such as Uganda and Sudan have historically supported rival factions to protect their own strategic and economic interests. When mediators have “skin in the game”, such as Uganda’s military backing of the government or Sudan’s influence over oil corridors, the bloc’s collective neutrality vanishes, eroding trust among South Sudanese stakeholders and resulting in a fragmented diplomatic front.

Beyond these geopolitical tensions, IGAD struggles with a severe lack of leverage over South Sudan’s political elite, who often treat peace negotiations as a tactical delay rather than a path to reconciliation. The bloc’s directives are frequently sidelined because it lacks the punitive authority to compel action, a situation worsened by a perpetual shortage of technical expertise and funding. Without consistent financial and diplomatic backing from the broader international community, IGAD’s monitoring mechanisms remain under-resourced and largely symbolic. For the organization to transition from reactive crisis management to a transformative force, it must bridge the gap between signing agreements and the difficult, resource-intensive reality of long-term implementation and oversight.

In the face of these challenges, IGAD has sought to balance its roles as mediator, guarantor, and regional stakeholder. However, questions remain about the bloc’s capacity to enforce compliance and ensure a credible transition to democracy by 2026. Internal divisions within IGAD and divergent regional priorities further undermine collective action and contribute to the cycle of forever transition.

III. Regional Dynamics and the Role of Neighboring States

Regional Alliances and Rivalries

South Sudan’s internal conflict is deeply enmeshed in the broader web of regional alliances and rivalries that characterize East Africa. Far from being merely a domestic crisis, the civil war has drawn in neighboring countries whose involvement is driven by a mix of security imperatives and economic ambitions. Uganda, for instance, has played a decisive role by providing direct military support to President Salva Kiir’s government at critical moments, aiming to prevent the spillover of instability across its borders and to protect its economic interests in South Sudan. Kenya, while less militarily involved, has significant banking and business investments in South Sudan, making stability in the young nation vital to Kenya’s own economic well-being. Both countries have used their influence to shape political outcomes in Juba, sometimes acting as mediators, but often pursuing their own strategic interests.

Sudan’s relationship with South Sudan is particularly complex, shaped by decades of shared history, unresolved border disputes, and intertwined economies. Although Sudan lost most of its oilfields to South Sudan upon the latter’s independence, it remains the essential transit route for South Sudan’s oil exports, giving Khartoum considerable leverage. At various times, Sudan has supported armed opposition groups within South Sudan as a means of exerting pressure on Juba or pursuing its own security objectives. Simultaneously, periods of pragmatic cooperation have occurred, especially when oil revenues and border security have necessitated collaboration. This dual approach, alternating between confrontation and cooperation, reflects the deeply pragmatic, interest-driven nature of regional engagement in South Sudan’s affairs.

The sum of these regional interactions is a highly fluid and often volatile environment, where alliances and rivalries among neighboring states can either facilitate or undermine peace efforts within South Sudan. The involvement of external actors has at times fueled the conflict by providing arms, logistical support, or political backing to various factions, thereby complicating both domestic and international reconciliation efforts. Conversely, the shared economic and security interests at stake also create incentives for regional actors to support stability in South Sudan, at least to the extent that it serves their own goals. As such, the actions and priorities of neighboring states remain a critical variable in determining whether South Sudan can ever escape the cycle of conflict and transition toward lasting peace.

The Impact of the Sudan Civil War

The eruption of civil war in Sudan in 2023 has dramatically altered the security and humanitarian landscape of South Sudan. As violence escalated north of the border, tens of thousands of refugees poured into South Sudan, straining already limited resources and exacerbating existing humanitarian crises. The influx has heightened competition for food, water, and shelter in host communities, often triggering new local tensions and clashes. Moreover, the spillover of arms and fighters from Sudan has further destabilized border regions, providing opportunities for armed groups within South Sudan to rearm, regroup, and launch new offensives. This porous border and the unchecked movement of weapons have made it increasingly difficult for authorities and peacekeepers to contain violence and protect civilians.

In addition to these direct security and humanitarian impacts, Sudan’s civil war has disrupted the economic lifeline of South Sudan: oil exports. Nearly all of South Sudan’s oil is exported via pipelines that traverse Sudanese territory, making Juba highly vulnerable to instability in the north. Pipeline shutdowns, sabotage, or shifting control of key infrastructure by armed factions in Sudan have resulted in revenue losses and further economic hardship for South Sudan’s government. Furthermore, the international community’s attention and resources have been diverted by the escalating crisis in Sudan, reducing diplomatic pressure and financial support for South Sudan’s fragile peace process. As a result, South Sudan’s “forever transition” is prolonged, with insecurity, economic uncertainty, and a lack of sustained international engagement all delaying the prospects for a durable political settlement.

Implications for Regional Stability

The intricate web of conflicts in the Horn of Africa creates a situation where instability in South Sudan reverberates across the entire region, posing significant security and economic risks for neighboring countries. Armed groups frequently exploit porous borders to move fighters, weapons, and illicit goods, fueling further violence and undermining state authority on all sides. This cross-border insecurity is compounded by large-scale displacement, as waves of refugees flee violence in South Sudan, placing immense strain on the resources and social fabric of host nations such as Uganda, Ethiopia, and Kenya. Trafficking networks, often linked to both criminal syndicates and armed movements, thrive in these chaotic conditions, spreading instability and eroding the rule of law.

The resulting humanitarian crises, marked by food shortages, disease outbreaks, and disrupted livelihoods, do not respect national boundaries, making collective action imperative. These dynamics underscore the necessity for coordinated regional strategies, robust diplomatic engagement, and joint security initiatives to address the root causes of conflict and prevent the escalation of instability across the Horn of Africa.

IV. Prospects for Peace and Lasting Stability

Addressing Root Causes

Lasting peace in South Sudan requires addressing the underlying drivers of conflict, namely, the politicization of ethnicity, competition over resources, and weak governance. Comprehensive reforms to promote inclusivity, accountability, and equitable resource distribution are essential. Breaking the cycle of forever transition will require robust political will and genuine commitment to institutional change.

Strengthening Regional and International Engagement

IGAD’s role remains central, but must be reinforced by greater unity among member states and increased support from the African Union, United Nations, and international donors. Building effective monitoring and enforcement mechanisms is crucial for holding parties accountable and moving the country beyond its endless transition.

Achieving stability in South Sudan cannot be divorced from developments in Sudan and the wider region. Enhanced cooperation among regional actors, improved border management, and joint efforts to tackle arms flows and humanitarian needs are necessary for sustainable peace.

Conclusion

South Sudan’s path toward lasting peace is fraught with challenges, rooted in historical grievances, resource competition, and regional complexities, and compounded by the reality of a protracted transitional period. IGAD’s mediation has created opportunities for dialogue and reform, but persistent violence and the shifting regional landscape threaten to derail progress. The fate of South Sudan will depend not only on the commitment of its leaders but also on the ability of regional and international actors to support a genuinely inclusive, accountable, and peaceful transition. As the 2026 elections approach, the stakes for South Sudan and for regional stability could not be higher, making it imperative to end the cycle of the forever transition and establish lasting peace.