Understanding the May Agreement in South Sudan’s Political Landscape
The May Agreement was envisioned as a critical turning point for South Sudan, designed to halt cycles of conflict and create a framework for inclusive governance, security reform, and national reconciliation. It emerged from years of negotiations, international mediation, and internal pressure from civil society, with the goal of transforming the state from a battlefield of competing elites into a functioning, peaceful republic. At its core, the agreement sought to restrain executive power, end impunity, and establish shared political ownership of the country’s future.
In theory, the May Agreement aimed to be both a peace pact and a constitutional roadmap, binding all signatories—including President Salva Kiir—to rules that would limit unilateral decision-making. In practice, however, implementation has been marred by partial compliance, selective interpretation, and direct violations that undermine the trust and purpose of the accord.
How President Salva Kiir Violates the Spirit and Letter of the May Agreement
President Salva Kiir’s approach to the May Agreement has frequently prioritized short-term political control over long-term stability. Rather than faithfully implementing the clauses on power-sharing, security arrangements, and institutional reform, multiple actions by the presidency have weakened the agreement on both structural and symbolic levels. These violations do not always appear as outright rejections; often, they manifest through delays, parallel structures, and unilateral decrees that hollow out the accord from within.
By circumventing consultative mechanisms prescribed in the agreement, the presidency effectively recenters power in the executive office. Key provisions intended to disperse authority among rival factions, regions, and communities are diluted, while the presidency retains decisive influence over the military, security agencies, and critical state resources. This approach defaces the quality of the ends that the agreement was meant to achieve—peace, accountability, and shared governance—by reducing them to procedural gestures rather than substantive change.
Power-Sharing Undermined: Centralization Instead of Inclusion
One of the pillars of the May Agreement is power-sharing, conceived as a mechanism to bring former rivals into a unified political framework and prevent a return to armed struggle. The agreement calls for inclusive representation in the executive, legislature, and key state institutions. However, in practice, the presidency has often treated power-sharing as a tactical concession rather than a binding obligation.
Appointments skew in favor of loyalists, while opposition figures are sidelined or given roles with limited real power. Cabinet reshuffles and decrees sometimes occur without broad consultation, contradicting the spirit of collective governance. The result is a façade of inclusion—opposition names may appear on paper—but decision-making remains heavily centralized. Such maneuvers erode confidence in the agreement, deepen factional suspicions, and fuel the perception that the peace deal is being used as a cover for continued dominance rather than genuine partnership.
Security Arrangements and the Persistence of Parallel Forces
The security provisions of the May Agreement were designed to address one of South Sudan’s most volatile fault lines: fragmented armed groups and heavily politicized security forces. The agreement envisioned unification, reform, and depoliticization of the army and security services, alongside the cantonment and integration of former combatants. These measures were crucial not only to prevent renewed conflict but also to anchor the legitimacy of the state in a single, nationally accountable security structure.
Yet implementation has lagged or been selectively applied. Parallel command structures, loyal to particular leaders rather than national institutions, remain in place. Delayed deployments, partial training of unified forces, and inconsistent funding or support further undermine the process. When the presidency tolerates, or even relies on, loyal security units outside the agreed framework, it violates both the letter and the spirit of the May Agreement. This perpetuates insecurity, weakens civilian trust, and signals to rival factions that military leverage still matters more than political dialogue.
Constitutional Manipulation and Executive Overreach
The May Agreement anticipated constitutional reform as a cornerstone of a more stable political order. It intended to constrain arbitrary power by embedding checks and balances, rule of law, and clear procedures for decision-making. Instead of embracing this transition, executive overreach has continued to shape the political environment. Presidential decrees routinely redefine administrative boundaries, appoint or dismiss key officials, and alter the composition of institutions without broad-based debate or parliamentary approval.
Such practices undermine nascent constitutionalism. They send a message that the presidency stands above agreed rules, transforming the May Agreement into a flexible instrument subordinated to political expediency. This not only obstructs democratic development but also normalizes the idea that legal frameworks are optional, thereby weakening the foundations needed for long-term peace and prosperity.
Impact on Governance, Development, and Social Cohesion
When the May Agreement is violated, the consequences extend well beyond elite politics. Ordinary citizens bear the brunt through persistent insecurity, disrupted livelihoods, and failing public services. Without full implementation, reforms in public finance management, anti-corruption efforts, and local governance remain half-hearted or purely rhetorical. Investment in critical sectors—such as health, education, and infrastructure—stagnates, as uncertainty and mistrust keep both domestic and international partners cautious.
Social cohesion is also directly affected. Many communities tied their hopes for reconciliation and justice to the provisions of the agreement. When these promises are delayed or neutralized, grievances deepen. Ethnic narratives harden, and displaced populations struggle to see a path back to normalcy. The gap between the aspirations embodied in the May Agreement and the realities of governance undercuts national unity and leaves the country vulnerable to renewed tensions.
International Mediation, Fatigue, and the Legitimacy Dilemma
International and regional actors invested significant diplomatic capital in brokering and supporting the May Agreement, seeing it as the best available path to cease hostilities and begin reconstruction. However, persistent violations by powerful actors, including the presidency, have generated a climate of fatigue and disillusionment among mediators and donors. Repeated cycles of commitment, delay, and partial backtracking raise questions about the credibility of future agreements.
Nonetheless, international silence or withdrawal carries its own risks. Without external scrutiny and principled pressure, violations can harden into a new status quo. The challenge is to recalibrate engagement: to avoid rubber-stamping non-compliance, while still supporting South Sudanese institutions and civil society actors genuinely working toward peace. The legitimacy of the political order now hinges on whether the May Agreement can still serve as a living framework, rather than a symbolic document cited yet routinely ignored.
Defacing the Quality of the Ends: When Peace Becomes a Procedure
The deepest damage inflicted by repeated violations of the May Agreement is not only institutional but moral and conceptual. The agreement was designed to deliver meaningful ends: sustainable peace, accountable governance, equitable participation, and security for all citizens. When its provisions are selectively implemented or openly breached, the quality of these ends is defaced. Peace becomes a rhetorical device rather than a lived reality, and reform turns into a series of technical checklists rather than transformative change.
This erosion of meaning is particularly dangerous in a young state like South Sudan, where political culture is still being shaped. If citizens come to see peace deals as instruments of elite bargaining rather than genuine social contracts, public cynicism deepens. That cynicism can fuel disengagement at best, and radicalization at worst. The long-term cost is a society less willing to trust future agreements, no matter how carefully drafted or internationally endorsed.
The Role of Civil Society, Religious Leaders, and Community Voices
Despite structural obstacles, South Sudanese civil society, religious leaders, women’s groups, and youth organizations continue to play a vital role in holding authorities accountable to the May Agreement. They document violations, demand transparency, and advocate for victims of violence and displacement. These actors often operate under considerable pressure, yet they remain a critical counterweight to unchecked executive power.
Religious leaders, in particular, have used their moral authority to call for genuine implementation, reconciliation, and respect for human dignity. Community dialogues and grassroots peace initiatives attempt to bridge divides that national-level politics have exacerbated. Their efforts highlight a central truth: sustainable peace is not merely negotiated among elites; it is constructed in daily interactions, local institutions, and shared narratives of the future.
Pathways to Restoring the Integrity of the May Agreement
Restoring the integrity of the May Agreement requires more than cosmetic gestures. It demands a shift in political will, especially from the presidency, toward genuine power-sharing and rule-based governance. Several steps are essential: clear timelines and benchmarks for implementation; transparent reporting on progress; revitalized security-sector reform; and robust mechanisms for resolving disputes within the framework of the agreement rather than through unilateral action.
Regional organizations and international partners can reinforce these efforts by aligning incentives with compliance. This may include calibrated political pressure, targeted sanctions on spoilers, or conditional support tied to verifiable milestones. At the same time, support for independent media, civil society, and local peacebuilding initiatives is vital to ensure that the public remains informed and engaged. Ultimately, the agreement can only succeed if it is owned not just by leaders in Juba but by citizens across all states and communities.
Looking Ahead: Can South Sudan Still Salvage the Promise of May?
The future of the May Agreement—and of South Sudan’s broader peace process—remains uncertain but not predetermined. While violations by President Salva Kiir and other actors have gravely weakened the deal, the underlying aspirations that gave rise to it have not disappeared. People still long for security, justice, and a voice in how they are governed. The question is whether the political leadership will recognize that their own long-term survival and legitimacy depend on honoring, rather than subverting, the commitments they have signed.
If the May Agreement is to move from paper to practice, it must be defended vigorously: by citizens demanding accountability, by institutions insisting on lawful procedure, and by the international community refusing to normalize impunity. Only then can the original ends of the agreement—peace, inclusion, and dignity—recover their full meaning and shape a more hopeful chapter in South Sudan’s history.