South Sudan is currently a failing democracy. After South Sudan gained independence from Sudan on July 9th, 2011, they have been experiencing a shaky consolidation of democracy. I believe this is the proper category for South Sudan because from the beginning the government fought against laws that would protect democracy. Backsliding democracy and consolidation of democracy are similar, but the difference is one was a democracy, and one never had the chance to become one. Right now, there are tensions between two of the largest ethnic groups, the Dinka, and the Nuer. The Dinka are farmers who are polytheistic. The Nuer are also farmers who embrace many religions, including some which are polytheistic. The struggle between these two groups is not religion or language, but rather use of land and water for their cattle. In December 2013, tensions boiled over between these two ethnic groups. Presidential guards turned against the former vice president Riek Machar who was ousted by the President Salva Kiir. 

With tensions reaching a boiling point, this event led to civil war with a resurgence of fighting in 2016. Due to threats to democracy, the National Security Service was formed. This governmental body was supposed to serve as a way to collect information to send back to the government. However, this system was used to illegally kidnap, rape, torture and kill innocent civilians without a trial or arrest. USAID has reported South Sudan still lacks constitutional framework, democratic institutions, or open civic space needed to build accountable governance structures and complete the transnational period with free, fair, and peaceful elections proposed 

South Sudan is struggling to create a democracy out of the war. This is the twelfth year in a row South Sudan has a decline in global freedom. Additionally, Kiir continues to rule as “president” since 2011. A peace agreement was reached in 2018, but the declining nation has yet to hold elections. These elections have now been delayed for years and have yet to see an end in sight. South Sudan is experiencing major increases in sexual violence, as well as the use of child soldiers, almost 30% under the age of 15. Additionally, South Sudan has one of the lowest literacy rates in the world and lacks access to internet and news. South Sudan is experiencing one of the worst humanitarian crises in the world, with at least 7.7 million citizens being food insecure and 2.2. million being displaced. In chapter one of “Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition,” Dahl argues there are eight necessary conditions that must be met to have a democracy. These being: freedom to join and form organization, freedom of expression, the right to vote, the right of political leaders to compete for election, alternative sources of information, the right for political leaders to compete for votes, free and fair elections, and institutions for making government policies that depend on votes and expressions of preference. In this sense, it is clear that South Sudan’s new democracy is exceedingly fragile. With no elections, alternative sources of information, and the right for political leaders to compete for the vote, South Sudan is watching their democracy crumble. As of right now I would categorize South Sudan’s government as a politically closed authoritarian regime. South Sudan’s leader was elected in a sense, but elections have not happened in years. There are little horizontal or vertical checks and balances in the government. The President accused the Vice President of starting a coup which had yet to be confirmed. In this sense, there is no one keeping the President accountable. Additionally, because of the civil war, martial law and NSS was created to keep the civilians in line. Lust and Waldner claim in “Unwelcome Change: Understanding, Evaluating, and Extending Theories of Democratic Backsliding,” backsliding occurs when the three legs of democracy—electoral procedures, civil and political rights and liberties, and accountability– wither. As I had mentioned previously there are no current horizontal or vertical checks in place in South Sudan. Additionally, the election procedures have been eroded. Backsliding democracy and consolidation of democracy share similar indicators and I believe for this purpose this book serves a point. There are extensive barriers to voting because there have been no elections in years, meaning no individual or political party is running. Lastly, civil and political liberties are also at risk. There are no alternative media outlets and the most common way of receiving news is through the radio. There is limited freedom of speech and inability to host political rallies. In the book “How Democracies Die” by Daniel Ziblatt and Steven Levitsky, four key indicators of Authoritarian behavior are listed. These are: rejection of (or weak commitment to) democratic rules of the game, denial of legitimacy of political opponents, toleration or encouragement of violence, readiness to curtail civil liberties of opponents, including the media. All of these behaviors are true in the case of South Sudan. While there is not an outright denial of political opponents, the fact is there are no other political opponents or political organizations to challenge. There has been a continuation of the tolerance of violence, with the President ousting his Vice President due to ethnic tensions. The lack of elections has proven the desire to keep the regime under the same leaders. While the civil war raged on, this allowed Salva Kiir to consolidate power and make the civilians fear their ability to speak out or seek out any outside media.

photo image by shutterstock_1115578520, January 5, 2023 https://democratic-erosion.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/shutterstock_1115578520.jpg