Build institutions first, or hold elections first—South Sudan chose elections.
Eight years after a peace agreement promised South Sudan a structured path from civil war to democratic governance, the country's parliament has chosen to reorder that path — voting to hold elections in December 2026 before completing a national census or drafting a permanent constitution. The original logic of the 2018 accord was that legitimate elections require accurate population data and settled constitutional rules; the new logic is that elections themselves must come first, and the rest will follow. It is a wager that momentum can substitute for foundation, and history will judge whether the sequence matters as much as the destination.
- South Sudan's Transitional National Legislature voted to strip two foundational prerequisites — a national census and a permanent constitution — from the conditions required before December 2026 elections can proceed.
- The original peace agreement's sequencing was explicit: build the institutions first, then hold the vote — but eight years of delay have transformed those safeguards into obstacles in the eyes of parliamentary supporters.
- Without census data, electoral districts risk being drawn on outdated figures, potentially distorting representation before a single ballot is cast.
- An elected government would inherit the task of writing the very constitution that defines and limits its own power — an arrangement critics warn could undermine both legitimacy and institutional stability.
- The international community's pressure for visible democratic progress and domestic exhaustion with transitional governance are driving the calculation that electoral momentum now outweighs procedural completeness.
South Sudan's parliament voted this week to amend the 2018 peace agreement, removing two requirements that had stood as prerequisites to holding elections: a national census and the drafting of a permanent constitution. Both tasks are now deferred to after the general elections scheduled for December 2026, with the expectation that whoever wins will inherit the responsibility of completing them.
The original peace accord had a clear internal logic — accurate population data to draw fair electoral districts, and a ratified constitution to establish the rules of governance before an elected government took power. Eight years on, with elections still unrealized, lawmakers argued those requirements had become barriers rather than protections, and that clearing them was the only way to keep December's vote on track.
The implications of the reversal are considerable. Electoral districts drawn without census data risk misrepresenting the population. More strikingly, an elected government would be tasked with drafting the constitutional framework that governs its own authority — a process historically fraught with competing visions and difficult negotiation. Observers have questioned whether elections held under these conditions can carry full democratic legitimacy.
Yet the pressure to move is genuine. South Sudan has lived in transitional limbo for years, and both domestic actors and international partners are eager to see civilian rule established. The amendments reflect a deliberate bet that forward motion matters more than sequential completeness. Whether that bet holds will become apparent only once December's vote concludes and the newly elected government turns to face the foundational work still waiting to be done.
South Sudan's parliament took a significant step this week to reshape the country's path toward elections, voting to strip away two foundational requirements that had been written into the 2018 peace agreement. The Transitional National Legislature, meeting under the gavel of Speaker Joseph Ngere Paciko on Tuesday, approved amendments that defer both a national census and the drafting of a permanent constitution—pushing both tasks to sometime after the general elections scheduled for December 2026.
The peace agreement that ended South Sudan's civil war had stipulated these two processes as prerequisites to holding elections. The logic was straightforward: you need an accurate count of the population to organize electoral districts fairly, and you need a constitution in place to establish the rules by which an elected government would operate. But eight years later, with elections still pending and the country eager to move toward civilian rule, lawmakers argued that these requirements had become impediments rather than safeguards.
Parliamentary supporters of the amendments contend that removing these obstacles clears the path for elections to proceed on schedule in December. Without the census and constitution-writing hanging over the process, they argue, there is no reason the vote cannot happen as planned. The burden of completing these foundational tasks would then fall to whoever wins the election—an elected government rather than the current transitional administration.
The shift is substantial. It reverses the sequencing that the original peace agreement established: instead of building democratic institutions first and then holding elections, South Sudan would now hold elections first and build those institutions afterward. This represents a fundamental reordering of how the country intends to transition from war to representative government.
The practical implications are significant. Without a census, electoral districts would be drawn based on outdated or estimated population figures, potentially skewing representation. Without a permanent constitution already ratified, the elected government would inherit the task of drafting the supreme law under which it operates—a process that typically involves intense negotiation and competing visions for the nation's future. Some observers have raised concerns about whether elections conducted under these conditions can claim full legitimacy, and whether an elected government can function effectively while simultaneously writing the constitutional rules that govern its own powers.
Yet the pressure to move forward is real. South Sudan has been in transition for years, and the international community and many domestic actors are eager to see elections held and a civilian government installed. The amendments represent a calculation that momentum toward elections matters more than completing these preparatory steps first. Whether that calculation proves sound will likely become clear only after the December vote takes place and the newly elected government confronts the work of census-taking and constitution-writing that now awaits it.
Citações Notáveis
Supporters argued that removing the census and constitution requirements eliminates major obstacles that could have pushed elections beyond the planned December 2026 deadline— Parliamentary supporters of the amendments
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why did parliament decide to remove these two requirements now, after they were part of the original peace deal?
The original agreement was written with the assumption that the transition would move quickly. Eight years later, it hasn't. Elections keep getting delayed, and there's real pressure—from donors, from civil society, from people tired of waiting—to actually hold them. The amendments are essentially saying: let's not let perfect be the enemy of done.
But doesn't a census matter for fair elections? How do you draw districts without knowing where people actually live?
That's the tension. Yes, ideally you have accurate population data. But South Sudan doesn't have it, and getting it takes time and money. So the choice becomes: delay elections another year or two to do the census properly, or proceed with imperfect information and let the elected government handle it later.
And the constitution? That seems even more fundamental.
It does. A constitution is supposed to be the foundation—the rules everyone agrees to before the game starts. Doing it after elections means the elected government is writing the rules while already in power, which creates obvious conflicts of interest. But again, the alternative is waiting longer.
So this is really about speed versus legitimacy.
Exactly. The amendments prioritize getting to elections on schedule over having all the institutional groundwork in place first. Whether that trade-off was worth it will depend on what happens in December and after.