Assessing Revitalized Agreement on The Resolution of The Conflict in The Republic of South Sudan (R-ARCSS) as a Power-Sharing Arrangement for Sustainable Peace in South Sudan.

Abstract

This study aimed to assess the Revitalized Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in the Republic of South Sudan (R-ARCSS) as a power-sharing agreement for bringing about a sense of lasting peace in the nation. The R-ARCSS is an important effort to use power-sharing to address the war and political instability plaguing South Sudan for many years. Its success in bringing about enduring peace is still unknown. The study examined the background and effects that influenced the Agreement and the initial expectations and difficulties encountered in carrying it out. The study’s objectives were to examine the extent of implementation of the R-ARCSS power-sharing agreement on achieving sustainable peace in South Sudan; secondly, to analyze the influence of key stakeholders on implementing the R-ARCSS power-sharing arrangement on sustainable peace in South Sudan, and third, to evaluate the socio-political impacts of the R-ARCSS power-sharing agreement on local populations in South Sudan. This study used a mixed-methods approach, including qualitative and quantitative components. A thorough examination of prior research, official records, and reports about the R-ARCSS was part of the research strategy. In-depth interviews were also carried out with key players, such as party officials, members of civil society, and outside mediators. The sample was purposefully chosen to guarantee that all opinions and experiences are represented. Surveys were also used in the data collection process to acquire quantifiable information on public opinions and views of the R-ARCSS. The results of data collection included 130 structured questionnaires that were completed by members of the public, and 20 key informant interviews (KIIs) were conducted with stakeholders such as government officials, civil society representatives, political party officials, or international partners. Findings from the three objectives reveal that peace treaties contradict each other in terms of fragmented communities: power-sharing reduces short-term hostilities, but poor implementation and exclusion decrease lasting peace. Only 12.3% considered the implementation very effective, with 30.8% deeming it effective, and 27.7% was neutral, possibly due to a lack of firsthand experience of impact or a vague definition of effective implementation. Interestingly, 29.2% (equivalent to ineffective and very ineffective categories combined) were not happy, meaning some significant level of disillusionment or failed expectations. On the second objective, among the respondents, the study sought to understand the perceived influence of stakeholders; the Government of South Sudan had the widest reach, 38% of whom recognized its influence, followed closely by international organizations at 30%. Local voices and grassroots traditional authority are peripheral to the formal implementation process, involving only 4% of community leaders. 53% of interviewees (20% + 33%) describe some level of improvement since the R-ARCSS, a majority, but not an overwhelming one. Meanwhile, 47% describe no change or deterioration (27% no change; 20% deterioration), which means gains are neither universal nor certain. The pattern suggests the distribution of peace dividends. Although this study has shed light on implementation, leverage of stakeholders, and socio-political implications of the R-ARCSS, certain issues are inadequately examined and require more rigorous study.