By Deng Bol Aruai Bol
Friday, March 28, 2025(Nyamilepedia) — There comes a time when speaking in vague language and generalizing blame only adds confusion to an already messy political situation. South Sudan is at that point now. Too often, we hear people say, “the peace agreement failed,” or “the parties didn’t implement it,” as if all sides bear equal responsibility. That is not only inaccurate—it’s dishonest.
Let me be clear: the Revitalized Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in the Republic of South Sudan (R-ARCSS) was not failed by all parties. It was systematically violated and obstructed by the SPLM-In-Government (SPLM-IG).
Since 2018, the SPLM-IO has been blamed for every delay, every disruption, and every setback. But let’s ask the hard question: where is the evidence that SPLM-IO broke the agreement first? Not one. Every move they have made that appears confrontational has been in reaction to a prior violation by the SPLM-IG. Whether it’s unilateral appointments, delays in security arrangements, refusal to fund critical commissions, or lack of will to conduct a census or reconstitute essential institutions—the pattern is always the same. The SPLM-IG acts unilaterally or blocks progress, and when SPLM-IO resists, they’re branded as the problem.
We cannot talk about consequences without naming the cause.
If elections haven’t been held, it’s not because SPLM-IO refused them—it’s because the necessary preconditions were never met. The unification of forces is incomplete. The security arrangements are selectively implemented. The political and civic space remains restricted. Independent institutions meant to supervise elections, constitutional making, and reforms have either been politicized or rendered dysfunctional. All of this is under the watch—and often, the orchestration—of the SPLM-IG.
So, let’s stop pretending this is a case of “all sides failing.” That’s lazy analysis. The SPLM-IG has perfected the art of sabotaging peace while maintaining the appearance of commitment. And they’ve relied on one powerful strategy: keep the public distracted, divided, and misinformed.
The result is what we see today: citizens blaming the wrong actors, people defending the very system that is suffocating them, and those who speak the truth being labeled tribal, partisan, or unpatriotic.
Let me also be clear about this: truth is not tribalism. Pointing out which side violated the agreement is not being divisive—it’s being responsible. Accountability requires specificity. If we’re serious about peace, we must stop walking on eggshells to protect the image of those in power while deflecting blame onto those who challenge it.
You cannot build peace on lies. You cannot hold elections on broken structures. And you cannot ask people to move on while the very people who blocked their future remain untouched, unchallenged, and unaccountable.
South Sudanese deserve better than this. And they deserve the truth.
So the next time someone says “the agreement failed,” ask them: who failed it? And when they try to blame everyone, remind them that accountability starts with being honest about who did what, when, and why.
Until then, we will remain stuck—starving, displaced, divided—not because the peace agreement couldn’t work, but because the political will to honor it never existed in the first place.
The author, Deng Bol Aruai Bol, is the former chairperson of the Red Army foundation. He can be reached for more information through his social media account.
