Salva Kiir: A Blessing or a Curse for South Sudan?

An informal online survey cannot measure national opinion. But Dr. Gatluak Ter Thach argues that the overwhelmingly negative responses to his question about President Salva Kiir point toward a larger debate about leadership, institutions, oil wealth, accountability and the legacy South Sudan's current political generation will leave behind.

On September 2, 2026, I asked a provocative question in an online survey: What is President Salva Kiir to South Sudan—a blessing or a curse?

More than 6,500 people viewed the question. More than 100 responded, and approximately 99% of those respondents expressed a negative assessment of President Kiir’s leadership.

Let us be clear: this was not a scientific national opinion poll. The respondents were self-selected, and only a small fraction of those who viewed the question participated. The results therefore cannot be used to claim that 99% of all South Sudanese share the same opinion.

But dismissing the result would also be a mistake.

An overwhelming response of this nature should prompt a serious national conversation: Why are many people so dissatisfied with the direction of their country?

The answer cannot be found in social media alone. It must be examined against South Sudan’s political, economic, security and humanitarian realities.

President Salva Kiir has been at the centre of South Sudan’s political leadership since before independence in 2011. Yet, two years after independence, political conflict within the ruling leadership exploded into civil war in December 2013, accompanied by targeted killings of Nuer civilians in Juba and subsequent atrocities against civilians elsewhere in the country.¹ The consequences were catastrophic: deaths, displacement, destruction, ethnic violence and the fragmentation of communities.

The 2018 Revitalized Peace Agreement offered another opportunity to change course. Yet implementation has repeatedly fallen behind schedule. The transitional period has been extended, while important security, constitutional, governance and electoral reforms remain unfinished.

National elections are scheduled for 22 December 2026.² But the international community and South Sudanese stakeholders continue to raise concerns about whether the necessary political, security and institutional conditions are sufficiently advanced. This raises a question that citizens deserve to ask without fear:

When does a transitional government stop being transitional?

A government cannot continuously postpone the difficult work of building democratic institutions and still expect citizens to believe that transition is taking place.

Then there is the economy

South Sudan possesses enormous oil wealth, yet ordinary citizens continue to experience severe economic hardship. The World Bank reports that by January 2026, civil servants were facing between eight and 13 months of salary arrears, while annual average food inflation reached 234% in FY2025.³

These are not merely economic statistics. Behind every unpaid salary is a family struggling to survive. Behind every dramatic increase in food prices is a parent deciding which necessities the household can no longer afford.

And what about oil?

A World Bank document reproducing findings from the UN Commission on Human Rights in South Sudan states that the government generated more than US$23 billion from oil exports between 2011 and 2024. The same document notes that the Government of South Sudan rejected the UN report’s findings.⁴

Yet the transparency and accountability surrounding the management of national resources remain major concerns.

This is the uncomfortable question:

How can a country with billions of dollars in oil revenue remain unable to consistently provide adequate salaries, healthcare, education, infrastructure, security and economic opportunity?

The problem, therefore, cannot simply be described as a shortage of resources.

It is a question of leadership, governance, institutions, priorities and accountability.

To be fair, President Kiir’s record is not without accomplishments. His government participated in peace negotiations, signed the 2015 and 2018 peace agreements, engaged in regional diplomacy and maintained South Sudan’s sovereignty as an independent nation.

Salva Kiir has also sought to avoid a complete return to nationwide civil war despite repeated political crises. But avoiding disaster is not the same as building a peaceful nation.

Leadership must ultimately be measured by what improves, not merely by what does not collapse.

Five questions for the national leadership debate

1. Are South Sudanese citizens safer today?
2. Are the country’s natural resources improving the lives of ordinary citizens?
3. Are institutions stronger than individual personalities?
4. Can citizens demand accountability without fear?
5. Will the next generation inherit a stronger South Sudan than the generation before it received?

These questions are bigger than President Kiir. They are questions for the entire political establishment.

South Sudan cannot build a prosperous nation through political survival alone. It cannot develop strong institutions when institutions are subordinated to personalities. It cannot achieve lasting peace when political competition repeatedly becomes a struggle for control of the state.

The country needs a different conception of leadership—one that bases leadership on vision, strategic management, accountability, institutional development, national unity and measurable results.

1. Power is not leadership.
2. Longevity is not achievement.
3. Political survival is not nation-building.

Ultimately, President Salva Kiir’s historical legacy will not be determined simply by how long he occupies the presidency. It will be determined by the condition of South Sudan when his leadership chapter ends.

Will he leave behind stronger institutions, a more secure population, a functioning economy, accountable government and greater national unity? Or will future generations inherit the same unresolved political, economic and institutional crises?

That is the real test.

And perhaps that is why the 99% response to my online survey deserves attention—not as scientific proof of what every South Sudanese citizen believes, but as a mirror reflecting the depth of frustration among those who chose to respond about the country’s political leadership.

The question is no longer simply whether Salva Kiir is a blessing or a curse.

The deeper question is:

After years of struggle before independence and years of self-government since independence, what kind of South Sudan are its leaders actually building—and what will they leave behind for the next generation?