Introduction: A Peace Process Under Question
The Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), a regional bloc that includes Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, Sudan, and Uganda, has been at the center of mediation efforts in South Sudan since the eruption of conflict in December 2013. Yet years after these efforts began, many South Sudanese observers, activists, and analysts argue that the IGAD-led peace talks are simply not convincing. The negotiations, while high-profile, are often perceived as distant, elite-centered, and structurally biased, resulting in agreements that are fragile, contested, and poorly implemented.
Historical Context: From Sudan’s Wars to South Sudan’s Fragile Independence
To understand skepticism surrounding the current peace talks, it is essential to situate them within the longer history of conflict in Sudan and South Sudan. Analysts such as Steven Wondu and Ann Lesch in Battle for Peace in Sudan: An Analysis highlight how past peace processes frequently prioritized short-term ceasefires over deeper political transformation. The Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) of 2005 ended decades of civil war between North and South, ultimately paving the way for South Sudan’s independence in 2011. But many of the root causes—ethno-political exclusion, centralized power, militarized governance, and competition over resources—remained unresolved.
When renewed violence broke out in South Sudan, it did not emerge in a vacuum. It stemmed from a legacy of personalized rule, weak institutions, and factionalized armed movements. IGAD inherited this complex terrain but often relied on the same elite bargains and power-sharing formulas that had proven limited and fragile in earlier Sudanese peace initiatives.
IGAD’s Role: Strengths and Structural Limitations
IGAD’s involvement in the South Sudan peace process reflects its broader mandate to address regional security and political crises in the Horn of Africa. On paper, IGAD has several comparative advantages: it knows the region’s political dynamics, maintains direct channels to key leaders, and can deploy diplomatic pressure, including sanctions or travel restrictions. However, these strengths are offset by profound structural limitations that undermine the legitimacy and effectiveness of the talks.
Member States as Mediators and Interested Parties
One of the most significant criticisms is that several IGAD member states are not neutral brokers. Countries in the region have political, military, and economic interests in South Sudan—ranging from security concerns along porous borders to competition over oil revenues and commercial opportunities. When mediators are also potential beneficiaries or rivals, it creates a perception that negotiations are shaped more by regional geopolitics than by the aspirations of South Sudanese citizens.
Elite-Centered Negotiations
IGAD’s approach has leaned heavily on elite pacts among top political and military leaders. While this model can rapidly halt large-scale violence, it typically sidelines civil society, women’s organizations, youth movements, faith-based groups, and displaced communities. As a result, peace agreements risk becoming deals made for and by elites, with limited popular ownership. In South Sudan, many citizens feel that their voices are only included symbolically, or after key decisions have already been made.
Why the IGAD-Led Peace Talks Are Not Convincing
For many South Sudanese, skepticism about IGAD’s peace efforts is not merely emotional; it is grounded in observable patterns of behavior and outcomes. Several recurring problems in the negotiation process have eroded public confidence.
1. Recycled Power-Sharing Formulas
The dominant framework for the peace talks has been power-sharing: dividing government posts, security positions, and oil revenues among competing factions. While power-sharing can reduce immediate incentives for violence, it often does not transform the underlying political culture. In South Sudan, critics note that these arrangements have repeatedly rewarded those who take up arms and punished peaceful actors who refuse militarization. This cycle entrenches a belief that violence is a rational path to political relevance.
2. Lack of Accountability and Transitional Justice
Another key reason the talks are viewed as unconvincing is the insufficient focus on accountability for serious human rights violations and atrocities. Survivors and displaced communities consistently call for truth-telling, reparations, and credible justice mechanisms. Yet negotiations have tended to prioritize political stability and elite compromise over robust transitional justice. When perpetrators are integrated into government without meaningful accountability, many citizens conclude that peace agreements are simply amnesty frameworks with new labels.
3. Fragile Implementation and Broken Commitments
Even when agreements are signed, implementation has repeatedly faltered. Ceasefire violations, delays in forming transitional institutions, disputes over security arrangements, and slow or selective integration of forces have all contributed to widespread mistrust. Each broken commitment reinforces the perception that the talks are performative rather than transformative—ceremonies for photo opportunities rather than binding commitments to change governance practices.
4. Limited Inclusion of Grassroots Voices
While IGAD frameworks often reference inclusivity, in practice the space for grassroots participation is narrow. Consultations with communities, women’s groups, and traditional leaders are frequently rushed, under-resourced, or purely advisory. Participants may share detailed recommendations, only to find that the final text of an agreement barely reflects their input. This gap between rhetoric and reality deepens frustration and a sense of marginalization among ordinary South Sudanese.
Regional Politics and the Perception of Bias
Regional rivalries and strategic interests shape how the peace process is designed and conducted. Neighboring states may support different factions, influence the mediation agenda, or seek security and economic concessions as part of the negotiations. When these dynamics are visible, parties who feel disadvantaged by the regional balance of power view the talks as structurally biased. This perception can encourage spoilers to hedge their bets, maintain parallel military structures, or treat agreements as temporary tactical tools rather than as a roadmap for lasting peace.
Lessons from Past Negotiations in Sudan
Insights from earlier peace processes in Sudan underscore the risks of over-reliance on elite bargains and narrow security arrangements. As Wondu and Lesch argue, agreements that fail to transform state–society relations tend to produce “negative peace” at best—an absence of open fighting rather than a durable, just political order. In South Sudan, repeating these patterns has contributed to cycles of ceasefire, relapse, and renegotiation. Without a broader shift toward inclusive governance and accountable institutions, even well-intentioned IGAD initiatives are likely to remain fragile.
What a More Convincing Peace Process Would Look Like
For the peace talks to gain credibility among South Sudanese communities, mediation must move beyond narrow power-sharing and address structural questions of governance, identity, and justice. A more convincing process would rest on several pillars.
Deep and Genuine Inclusivity
Inclusion should not be confined to symbolic conference seats. Women’s organizations, youth groups, traditional leaders, faith communities, and displaced populations need meaningful opportunities to shape agendas, review draft texts, and monitor implementation. Mechanisms such as citizens’ assemblies, community consultations, and thematic working groups can create structured avenues for people to contribute to decision-making, not just to offer comments after the fact.
Independent Oversight and Monitoring
Monitoring mechanisms must be independent, transparent, and empowered. Regional observers, African institutions, and international partners can support verification of ceasefire compliance, security sector reforms, and the allocation of public resources. Regular public reporting on progress and violations helps build trust and allows citizens to hold leaders accountable for their commitments.
Prioritizing Justice and Reconciliation
Durable peace in South Sudan requires credible transitional justice measures. Truth-telling bodies, reparations programs, and special courts or hybrid mechanisms can help address atrocities and signal that no party is above the law. While political actors may fear accountability, avoiding justice only delays the reckoning and risks sowing the seeds of future conflict.
Reforming the Political and Security Architecture
A convincing peace process must tackle the structure of the state itself: how power is shared between the center and regions, how resources are allocated, and how security forces are commanded and professionalized. Transitioning from a patronage-based, militarized system to a rule-based, civilian-led order cannot be achieved overnight. It requires phased reforms, clear timelines, sustained support, and a genuine willingness to cede some of the privileges that have fueled past violence.
The Human Dimension: Hope, Fatigue, and the Search for Normalcy
Beyond diplomatic communiqués and negotiation rooms, the lived reality of South Sudanese communities is defined by displacement, loss, and resilience. Many citizens are exhausted by repetitive announcements of ceasefires that collapse and agreements that fail to deliver tangible changes. Yet within this fatigue lies a persistent hope for a normal life—access to education, health care, and livelihoods, as well as the simple ability to move safely and plan for the future.
This human dimension is precisely why the legitimacy of the peace process matters. When people feel that negotiations truly reflect their aspirations and protect their rights, they are more likely to support disarmament, reconcile across community lines, and invest in nation-building. When they do not, the gap between the political elite and the population widens, making each new agreement feel like another distant document rather than a social contract.
Conclusion: Moving Beyond Symbolic Peace
The IGAD-led peace talks in South Sudan are not convincing to many observers because they have too often mirrored past approaches that produced only temporary stability. Structural regional interests, elite-centered bargaining, weak accountability, and limited grassroots participation have combined to produce agreements that are long on promises and short on implementation. To move beyond symbolic peace, regional mediators and South Sudanese leaders alike must embrace a broader vision: one that centers citizens, confronts impunity, reforms institutions, and recognizes that sustainable peace cannot be built solely in negotiation halls—it must be rooted in the daily lives and aspirations of the people whose future is at stake.