Focus on South-Sudan:- Can the 2018 peace deal serve as a permanent foundation, or is it just another fragile truce?
The 2018 Revitalized Agreement on the Resolution of the Conflict in South Sudan (R-ARCSS) has been central to peace efforts, but its potential as a permanent foundation is highly contested. Here’s a detailed assessment:

1. Strengths of the 2018 Peace Deal-
Inclusive on paper: Unlike earlier deals, it included multiple factions (SPLM-IO, opposition groups, other armed movements).

Power-sharing framework: Allocated government positions to rival leaders, creating incentives to avoid open warfare.

Security arrangements: Proposed integration of forces into a unified national army and reform of the police.

International backing: IGAD, UN, AU, and key donors support the deal with political, technical, and financial assistance.

Transitional government timeline: Provided a roadmap for elections, legislative reform, and national governance institutions.

2. Weaknesses & Fragility-
Elite-centric focus: The deal primarily addresses faction leaders, leaving out civil society, youth, women, and local communities, who bear the brunt of conflict.

Slow implementation: Security sector reform, cantonment of forces, and integration into a unified army are delayed or stalled.

Factionalism within parties: SPLM-IO and other groups remain internally divided; loyalty to leaders often supersedes commitment to the state.

Ethnicized politics: Positions and security arrangements often reinforce ethnic patronage, deepening divisions rather than fostering national unity.

Weak enforcement mechanisms: There is no credible mechanism to punish spoilers; violations often go unchecked.

3. Comparative Lessons-
Mozambique (1992 peace agreement): Integration of armed opposition into politics worked because it included long-term reconciliation, institutional reform, and community-level peacebuilding.

Burundi (1993–2005 agreements): Power-sharing initially reduced violence but entrenched ethnic quotas that later became rigid and politicized.

Sierra Leone (1999 Lome Agreement): Ceasefire and power-sharing reduced immediate conflict but failed to address structural causes; only with DDR programs and international oversight did stability emerge.

Implication for South Sudan: Power-sharing alone is necessary but not sufficient; structural reforms and inclusion are critical.

4. Key Indicators for Durability-
Implementation of security integration: Unified national army and police.

Functioning government institutions: Ministries, courts, and local governance operating without factional obstruction.

Justice and accountability mechanisms: Hybrid court or transitional justice to deter impunity.

Economic reforms: Revenue-sharing, diversification, and service delivery to reduce grievances.

Civil society and grassroots engagement: Peace embedded at local and communal levels, not only among elites.

5. Conclusion-
The 2018 deal can serve as a foundation if:

Delays in army integration, local governance, and transitional justice are resolved.

Power-sharing evolves into institutionalized, not personalist, governance.

Citizens feel tangible benefits: schools, roads, healthcare, markets.

Otherwise, the deal risks being another fragile truce, where elites exchange positions but ordinary South Sudanese continue to experience insecurity, poverty, and marginalization — increasing the likelihood of renewed conflict.