Why South Sudan Should Postpone The Election and Focus on Immediate Needs. By Jacob Abuoi Garang

     In 2026, a few African countries are holding national elections, with some already having gone to the polls and others preparing for upcoming votes. Among the most closely watched is South Sudan, where general elections are scheduled for 22 December 2026. The vote would represent a historic milestone:  It would be the country's first national general election since gaining independence from Sudan in 2011.

Since independence, South Sudan has struggling to establish lasting peace and effective democratic institutions. Political rivalries, recurring armed conflict, humanitarian crises, natural disasters and weak state institutions have repeatedly disrupted the country's transition to stable governance. Elections originally envisaged for the post-independence period have been postponed several times, most recently to December 2026.

The consequences of this prolonged instability have been devastating for citizens. Millions of South Sudanese have been displaced from their homes, with many seeking refuge in internally displaced persons (IDP) settlements or neighbouring countries. As the December election approaches, concerns remain over whether the political and security conditions are sufficient for a credible and peaceful vote. In August 2026, the UN Security Council was warned that preparations remained inadequate, while South Sudanese church leaders cautioned that elections held amid unresolved insecurity and political tensions could exacerbate violence and further fragment the country.

The December election therefore represents more than a scheduled transfer of political power. It is a critical test of whether South Sudan can move from prolonged transitional rule toward a more legitimate and accountable political system without reigniting the conflict that has repeatedly undermined its peace process.

Today, South Sudan's situation remains deeply concerning, with the country's political and socioeconomic conditions continuing to deteriorate. The economy has struggled to mature, the healthcare system remains severely underdeveloped and poorly equipped, and many public servants have reportedly gone months without receiving their salaries. Even when salaries are paid, their value is always eroded by inflation and the high cost of necessities, leaving many government employees struggling to provide for themselves and their families.

Against this backdrop, the decision to hold a national election raises difficult questions about priorities and the allocation of scarce public resources. A credible and peaceful election is an expensive undertaking. It requires substantial funding for voter registration, electoral materials, polling infrastructure, transportation, security, civic education, personnel and other logistical arrangements. Most importantly, it also depends on institutions capable of managing the process transparently and effectively.

This creates a fundamental dilemma for South Sudan. Should the government spend millions of dollars on conducting an election while public servants remain unpaid and essential services are struggling to function? Or could those resources be better directed towards paying salary arrears, strengthening healthcare and other basic services, supporting displaced and vulnerable populations, and addressing the country's wider humanitarian and economic challenges?

The question, however, is not simply whether South Sudan can afford to hold an election. It is whether holding an election under the country's current conditions would contribute to long-term stability or risk diverting limited resources from more immediate needs. At the same time, postponing elections indefinitely also carries significant political costs, as prolonged transitional governance can further weaken public trust and accountability. Therefore, South Sudan faces a difficult choice between addressing its immediate socioeconomic crisis and fulfilling its long-delayed commitment to democratic governance.

This article examines whether holding elections under the current circumstances would best serve the interests of the people of South Sudan, or whether the country's limited resources should first be directed towards restoring stability, strengthening essential institutions, and improving the lives of its citizens.

As many people may agree, there are strong arguments in favour of holding a national election. A successful election would represent a significant milestone in South Sudan's democratic development and could provide the government and citizens with an important opportunity to demonstrate the country's commitment to democratic governance. For the first time since independence, South Sudanese citizens would have the opportunity to elect their representatives through a national electoral process. This could strengthen democratic accountability by distributing political responsibility across elected institutions rather than concentrating it primarily in the presidency.

At present, many citizens attribute the country's economic difficulties and the mismanagement of public resources largely to the President and the central government. While the President and government leadership undoubtedly bear significant responsibility, a functioning democratic system would provide citizens with greater opportunities to hold elected representatives accountable for their decisions and performance. Members of parliament and other elected officials would also have a clearer responsibility to represent the interests of their constituents and scrutinise the actions of the executive.

A national election could also create space for genuine multiparty politics. Political parties would have an opportunity to present their programmes, policies and visions for the country's future, allowing citizens to make informed choices about who they believe is best placed to govern. A credible electoral process could therefore lay the foundations for stronger political participation, encourage the development of democratic institutions and increase citizens' engagement in public affairs. If conducted peacefully, freely, fairly and transparently, the election could become an important catalyst for South Sudan's long-term democratic development.

However, there are equally serious arguments against holding an election under the current circumstances. The most immediate concern is the country's economic condition. Elections are expensive, requiring substantial resources for voter registration, electoral materials, transportation, polling infrastructure, security, personnel and civic education. At a time when the government has been struggling to meet basic obligations, many citizens may reasonably question whether scarce public funds should be directed towards an election when public servants remain unpaid and essential services are severely underfunded.

For many South Sudanese, the benefits of an election may also appear distant compared with their immediate economic needs. A teacher who has not received a salary, a family who has struggled to afford food, or a community which has lacked access to basic healthcare may understandably prioritise immediate relief over an electoral process whose longer-term benefits are uncertain at the moment. From this perspective, government resources could arguably have a greater immediate impact if directed towards clearing salary arrears, restoring essential public services, supporting displaced communities and addressing the country's humanitarian crisis.

Furthermore, there is also the question of whether sufficient preparations can be completed within the available timeframe. A credible national election cannot be organised simply by setting a polling date. It requires extensive planning and preparation, including voter registration, electoral administration, security planning, civic education, logistical arrangements and mechanisms for resolving electoral disputes. Given the country's institutional weaknesses, political tensions and security challenges, concerns about whether adequate preparations can be completed before the scheduled December 2026 election are legitimate.

The central issue, therefore, is not whether elections are desirable in principle. They clearly are. The more difficult question is whether South Sudan currently possesses the political, economic, institutional and security conditions necessary to conduct an election that is trustworthy enough to strengthen, rather than undermine, public confidence in democratic governance. An election that is rushed, poorly funded or widely perceived as unfair could deepen existing political divisions and potentially create new instability. Conversely, repeatedly postponing elections without a credible pathway towards democratic governance could further entrench transitional rule and weaken public trust.

Therefore, South Sudan is consequently faced with a difficult decision, particularly, the government. Holding elections could mark an important step towards democratic legitimacy and accountability, but conducting them under unfavourable conditions could carry significant risks. The challenge is to determine whether the country can create the minimum conditions necessary for a reliable election while simultaneously addressing the urgent economic, humanitarian and institutional needs of its people.

Secondly, there are significant concerns about whether the political and security conditions exist for a credible national election. There are no clear indications that all major opposition parties support holding the election under the current circumstances, while some international organisations and observers have questioned whether South Sudan is adequately prepared to conduct a credible vote in 2026. The situation is further complicated by the fact that the country's principal opposition leader is currently facing legal proceedings, while insecurity continues to affect significant parts of the country.

Security is particularly important because an election can only be genuinely national if citizens across the country can participate. In some areas, for instance, in Upper Nile, insecurity has made it difficult for government officials and other public institutions to operate safely. This raises serious questions about whether electoral authorities would be able to register voters, distribute electoral materials, establish polling stations and provide adequate security across the entire country. If large parts of South Sudan cannot safely participate, the authenticity of the resulting election could be seriously undermined.

In addition, there are also concerns about the state of political competition and electoral preparation. In many constituencies, candidates and political parties have yet to establish meaningful campaigns or communicate their programmes to voters; A democratic election requires more than simply opening polling stations and counting ballots. Citizens need to be sensitised and sufficient time to understand the choices before them, political parties need an opportunity to campaign, and electoral institutions must have adequate time and resources to prepare. Without these conditions, there is a risk that the election could become a procedural exercise rather than a meaningful expression of the people's will.

Taken together, these challenges suggest that several essential conditions for a credible national election remain incomplete. With the scheduled election approaching rapidly, the government has limited time to address these problems. Under these circumstances, postponing the election through an inclusive and transparent political agreement may be preferable to proceeding with a process that lacks broad political participation, adequate preparation or nationwide security.

In my view, the Government of South Sudan should seriously consider postponing the election and returning to the negotiating table with the opposition and other political stakeholders. The purpose should not be to delay elections indefinitely, but to establish the conditions necessary for a credible and sustainable democratic transition. This process should include a review and strengthening of the 2018 peace agreement, meaningful progress towards a permanent constitution, and the establishment of a clearer and more effective system of governance.

Political space must also be expanded. Political detainees should be released where there are no legitimate grounds for continued detention, and political leaders and other political actors living outside the country should be able to return safely and participate freely in the political process. Concurrently, the government should prioritise the payment of salary arrears owed to public servants and direct available resources towards essential public services, infrastructure and other national priorities.

Such measures would demonstrate that the country's political leadership is responding to the immediate needs of its citizens rather than focusing solely on meeting an electoral deadline. They would also create an opportunity for the government, the ruling SPLM and opposition parties to begin a new phase of political cooperation aimed at stabilising the country and preparing the foundations for a genuine democratic transition.

Another important component of this process should be the safe and voluntary return and reintegration of South Sudanese refugees and internally displaced people. Any large-scale return must be supported by adequate security and basic services so that people can return to their communities without being exposed to renewed violence or displacement. Ensuring that displaced citizens can safely return and participate in public life would make a future election considerably more inclusive.

If the government nevertheless proceeds with the election under the current circumstances, there is a serious risk that voting could take place only in relatively secure cities and selected areas. If substantial parts of the country and significant political groups are unable to participate, it would be difficult to regard the process as a genuinely national election. The objective should therefore not simply be to hold an election because a date has been announced. South Sudan needs an election that is inclusive, credible, peaceful and broadly accepted by its people.

Ultimately, the choice facing South Sudan is not between democracy and no democracy. It is between holding an election under conditions that may undermine its legitimacy and taking the additional time necessary to create the foundations for a more credible democratic process. A short-term postponement, if accompanied by clear benchmarks, a firm timetable and genuine political negotiations, could provide an opportunity to strengthen the peace process, rebuild institutions and restore public confidence. The goal should be an election that marks the beginning of a new chapter in South Sudan's history—not one that merely fulfils a deadline or creates a symbolic historical milestone while leaving the country's underlying political and security problems unresolved.