South Sudan’s electoral debate risks confusing visible activity with meaningful readiness. Training sessions, registration materials, political meetings, and diplomatic visits can demonstrate progress. They cannot, on their own, guarantee that citizens will participate safely, candidates will compete fairly, or disputed results will be resolved peacefully. When these fundamentals receive less attention than public declarations of preparedness, an election can approach on the calendar while remaining distant in practice.
The country’s long-awaited elections are scheduled for 22 December 2026. Whether they will take place cannot responsibly be answered with certainty. The stronger question is whether the remaining preparations can produce a credible electoral process within the available time. South Sudanese citizens deserve evidence of readiness, alongside assurances that their right to choose their leaders will finally be respected.
There is evidence of preparation. On 2 September, the National Elections Commission reported training officials from the ten states and three administrative areas in voter registration. Such capacity building is essential. Its practical value, however, depends on whether trained personnel subsequently reach communities with adequate materials, funding, supervision and clear instructions. A successful workshop is one step towards registration; it is not evidence that nationwide registration has been completed.
Public confidence also requires consistent information. A June presidency announcement welcomed the release of an electoral calendar. Yet on 12 October, Radio Tamazuj reported analyst Boboya James Edimond’s concern that a detailed public roadmap and registration arrangements remained insufficiently communicated. His assessment should be attributed, rather than treated as an independently verified finding. Nevertheless, the contrast exposes an accountability problem: citizens need one accessible, authoritative schedule against which progress can be measured.
A roadmap must explain the sequence connecting registration, objections, candidate nominations, campaigning, polling, counting, results and appeals. These stages are interdependent. Delays at the beginning compress the time available for correcting mistakes later. An election timetable therefore needs realistic operational deadlines, responsible institutions and public reporting on completion.
Legal changes have altered the debate. Reuters reported on 22 September that amendments removed the requirements to complete a permanent constitution and national census before voting. Criticism should acknowledge this development rather than describe the earlier requirements as unchanged. However, removing a legal precondition does not automatically resolve the underlying questions about representation, institutional legitimacy or the constitutional settlement that elections are expected to support.
The NEC had already announced in December 2025 that it would use the geographical constituencies of the 2010 elections, declaring 102 constituencies. This provides an administrative reference point. It also raises a substantive concern: how will representation account for years of displacement and population movement? Reusing boundaries may simplify preparation, but the commission still needs to explain how eligible citizens will register and vote, particularly when they no longer live in their original constituencies.
Political consensus is equally important. In its declaration of 29 September, the African Union called for a feasible, consensual and time-bound roadmap, broader participation and engagement with opposition parties and holdout groups outside the dialogue. These requests indicate that regional support for elections is accompanied by concern about the conditions surrounding them. International endorsement of a date should not be presented as certification that every requirement has been met.
Dialogue should produce agreements that citizens can examine. Its value lies in resolving disagreements over the rules, participation, and peaceful acceptance of outcomes. The attendance of selected parties at a meeting cannot substitute for wider confidence in the process. Nor should an invitation to dialogue become a mechanism for demanding agreement before grievances are heard.
Security remains fundamental. UNMISS documented 206 incidents of conflict-related violence affecting 1,388 civilians during January–March 2026, while warning of rising killings and sexual violence. These figures do not predict election violence, but they describe a dangerous environment for political participation. Registration centres and polling stations cannot deliver equal access where citizens fear travelling, assembling or identifying publicly with a candidate.
Electoral security must protect competition as well as public order. Police and other security personnel need clear responsibilities, professional restraint and effective oversight. Candidates, journalists, observers and voters must be able to perform their lawful roles without intimidation. A quiet polling station is insufficient evidence of freedom if fear has already prevented people from attending.
Civic space deserves the same attention as electoral materials. Human Rights Watch’s World Report 2026, covering events in 2025, documented restrictions, harassment and arrests affecting political and civil society actors. These findings make freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly central readiness questions. Citizens need opportunities to compare policies, challenge officeholders and hear alternative views throughout the electoral cycle.
Financing must also be transparent. In Radio Tamazuj’s October report, Edimond questioned whether available resources matched electoral requirements. The figures he cited should not be treated as an audited funding position. The appropriate response is for the responsible authorities to publish the approved budget, funds received, procurement commitments and outstanding needs. That disclosure would allow scrutiny of whether preparations are financially achievable.
The wider economic context makes dependable administration harder. The World Bank reports that civil servants faced salary arrears of eight to thirteen months by January 2026 and identifies accumulating arrears as a threat to bureaucratic capacity. Elections require public institutions capable of organizing personnel, transport, communications and procurement. Financial weakness cannot be overcome through political messaging alone.
Physical access presents another test. UNICEF has reported communities isolated by insecurity, poor roads and flooding. An inclusive election requires practical arrangements for remote settlements and displaced populations, alongside support for people with disabilities and older voters. Administrative convenience must not determine whose citizenship can be exercised. [
The final test may come after counting. Citizens need to know how results will be published, checked and challenged. Courts and electoral authorities require clear procedures, realistic deadlines and sufficient capacity. Without trusted dispute resolution, an administrative failure can become a political confrontation. Preparing to announce a winner must include protecting the rights of those who question the result lawfully.
None of these concerns justifies an indefinite transition. Repeated postponement also damages legitimacy and public trust. Leaders should not retain office indefinitely because they have failed to complete the preparations for its democratic renewal. If deadlines cannot be met, any proposed adjustment must be lawful, publicly explained, and tied to verifiable obligations.
Will the elections come to pass? They may, but holding a vote and achieving a credible democratic transition are different outcomes. The evidence supports scrutiny rather than certainty. Citizens should judge readiness through completed tasks, inclusive participation and functioning safeguards.
South Sudan’s leaders must give the fundamentals the attention they deserve. A credible election requires more than registration books, meetings and repeated promises. It requires institutions that protect political choice and accept accountability for delivering it. The long wait should end with citizens exercising authority over their government, not with another ceremony that leaves the central questions of power unresolved.
The writer is a researcher and writer specializing in humanitarian and development issues in South Sudan, holding a degree in Sociology and Political Science from the Catholic University of Eastern Africa and a Master’s in Peace and Development Studies from the University of Juba. He can be reached via mogtomloyo@yahoo.co.uk.
The views expressed in ‘opinion’ articles published by Radio Tamazuj are solely those of the writer. The veracity of any claims made is the responsibility of the author, not Radio Tamazuj.
The post Opinion| A date is not democracy: Will South Sudan’s long-awaited elections deliver? appeared first on Radio Tamazuj.