The phrase "Free at Last" reverberated through the streets of Juba, South Sudan, on July 9, 2011. After years of fighting, the Sudan People's Liberation Movement had finally won independence for the South Sudanese people, creating the world's newest country. Ululating women filled the streets and fireworks erupted in the midnight air. The people had desired to be free of the oppressive and disinterested Sudanese government which they lived under for so many years. Now, at last, this new era provided the hope for autonomy and coexistence.

But, as the celebrations died down, reality began to set in. The SPLM was now entrusted with building a country. However, it now seems unable to act as a government. Using military rhetoric invoking the cause of freedom was no longer relevant, as now the country had earned the freedom to mold their very own democracy. Caring for the development of a new country was too difficult for those who appeared to think only of war. 

The leaders of the SPLM want to remain in power by all means, but they are just soldiers masquerading as political leaders. Some experts believed that what would happen in South Sudan was inevitable, as a result of of poor planning and conflicting interests within the government. But no one was prepared for South Sudan spiraling into violent and unforgiving conflict last December, creating yet another era of war in the new country. 

According to the Enough Project, a project to end genocide and crimes against humanity, the conflict in South Sudan began in December 2013 when former vice president, Riek Machar, was accused of an attempted coup d'?(c)tat by President Salva Kiir. Before independence in 2011, Kiir preferred good relations with Sudan in order to ensure oil wealth; an important pipeline runs from South Sudan into Sudan, and the younger country relies on the older for export and processing of the oil. Other party leaders, including Machar, disagreed; they saw independence as a good opportunity to advocate for regime change in Sudan, by supporting rebels in the North. Additionally, Machar and Kiir disagreed on who should be the candidate in the ruling party in the 2015 election. These divisions and the fear of losing power influenced Kiir to depose Machar and the majority of his cabinet last July, leading to the attempted coup d'?(c)tat which sparked the current war.

The conflict has reignited long-standing ethnic tensions between the Nuer and Dinka ethnic groups. In 1991, a splinter rebel faction of the SPLM known as the "White Army" launched a terrible attack on the city of Bor and the surrounding region, leading to the deaths of thousands of Dinkas. It precipitated violent reprisal against Nuer communities which were in turn, equally deady. Machar led the attack on Bor, and the White Army, though having reorganized since the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement in 2005, continues to fight at his side in the current civil war. 

The violence since December 2013, has killed an estimated 10,000 South Sudanese and displaced more than 800,000 others. It is fought primarily between government forces aligned with Kiir and rebel groups loosely aligned with Machar. Numerous war crimes have been reported in South Sudan, including murder, pillaging, destruction of civilian property and the direct targeting of civilians. Though a cease-fire was signed on Jan. 23, both parties continued to fight, thereby dissolving any plan for peace. The U.N. reported that South Sudan is a Level 3 humanitarian emergency, equal to Syria, the Central African Republic and the Philippines. 

What we see today in South Sudan is the product of a careless government providing very little stability to the country. After seizing power, the SPLM outsourced actual development to humanitarian organizations, and have shown no interest in solving the very pressing problems that their country faces. 

This contrasts with the development other African leaders have taken on after ending violent conflicts. President Paul Kagame of Rwanda managed to pull his country out of genocide 20 years ago, and create a Rwanda that is seen as a success story by the international community. He transformed from a leader in the military to a leader in government.
The key difference between Rwanda and South Sudan is the transition from military to government leadership. Without a central focus on governance, how can we expect the disorganized Sudanese people to develop a new country? However, arguing that the Machar-Kiir conflict alone caused the civil war would be unfair. Their constant disagreements over how the government should function pulled the pin out of the grenade. Years of ethnic tension caused the rest. 

In order to solve the problems in South Sudan, the government and the rebels must end hostilities. After that, with the help of the international community, the leadership and the people of South Sudan need to find strategic solutions to the problems within the SPLM that are impeding adequate governance. 

In a recent trip to South Sudan, John Prendergast of the Enough Project and South Sudan analyst Ted Dagne were told by a pastor in an internally displaced persons camp: "Peace must come soon. If not, the divisions will become devastating to all of us." In the aftermath of this violence, everyone remains a victim: Not just the civilians, but the men wielding the guns. They are victims to a government that simply does not care for the development of society. 

The future for the once hopeful country now appears hazy, as it hard to overcome these fissures in society. Members of a "united" South Sudan were able to once again kill their own- the people of South Sudan. Achieving peace in South Sudan is the first step in the development of a democracy that works.
*