By William Sunday D. Tor
The true measure of a state is not the size of its army nor the symbolism of sovereignty, but its capacity to safeguard the lives and dignity of those who live within its borders. Civilian protection is neither a political favor nor a discretionary policy choice; it is a binding legal and moral obligation rooted in the social contract that confers legitimacy upon those who govern. When that protection weakens, the foundations of the state itself begin to erode.
The theory of the social contract, advanced by thinkers such as John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, rests on a simple but powerful premise: citizens cede certain freedoms to a governing authority in exchange for security, order, and the protection of their fundamental rights. Under this framework, government is not the proprietor of the state, but its trustee — entrusted with power to serve the public good.
Human security, therefore, stands at the core of state responsibility. It encompasses not only protection from armed violence but also the safeguarding of property, dignity, and equal citizenship, free from ethnic, political, or regional discrimination. When the state fails in this primary duty, it does more than neglect an obligation — it breaches the very covenant from which its authority derives.
The history of armed struggle in South Sudan reflects the consequences of a collapsed social contract. The TorIt Mutiny of 1955 was driven by deep grievances over marginalization and the absence of credible security guarantees. Decades later, the May 16, 1983 uprising led by John Garang, which gave rise to the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement, emerged in response to the abrogation of political and security arrangements intended to preserve southern autonomy.
These movements ultimately culminated in the independence of South Sudan in 2011 — a moment heralded as the dawn of a new political order founded on justice, equality, and self-determination.
Yet independence did not automatically resolve the structural weaknesses that had long undermined security and trust. Instead, troubling patterns have re-emerged. In several regions, civilians have reportedly been targeted along ethnic lines, with incidents of massacre, displacement, and property destruction occurring without consistent or credible accountability.
This recurrence represents a profound paradox: a nation born from resistance to insecurity now confronts renewed questions about its ability to protect its own citizens.
The massacres in Abiemnom and Adong illustrate the fragility of human security in contemporary South Sudan. Civilians were attacked, lives were lost, and property was looted — events that demand more than expressions of regret. They require decisive institutional response.
The gravity of such incidents lies not only in their human toll but also in the precedent they establish. When perpetrators are widely believed to be known within local administrative and community structures — including representatives in the national government, county authorities, and traditional leadership — yet no visible legal action follows, public confidence in the rule of law diminishes sharply.
Impunity, whether real or perceived, is corrosive. It signals that accountability may be selective and that justice may yield to political or communal considerations.
The restoration of public trust requires more than rhetoric. It demands prompt arrests where evidence permits, independent and transparent investigations, and fair judicial proceedings conducted in accordance with national and international legal standards. Justice must be impartial, consistent, and insulated from political interference.
Human security cannot be secured through force alone; it depends upon professional security institutions, an independent judiciary, and leadership willing to uphold the law without fear or favor. Silence from influential actors — whether in government or opposition — when members of their constituencies are implicated in violence only deepens division and weakens national cohesion.
South Sudan stands at a critical juncture. Continued civilian targeting without meaningful accountability risks normalizing violence and eroding the legitimacy of the state. Conversely, decisive reform — grounded in the restoration of the social contract and the impartial application of justice — offers a pathway toward stability.
A state that does not protect its people forfeits the moral and political justification for its authority. A government that fails to hold perpetrators accountable compromises its own credibility. The challenge confronting South Sudan is therefore not merely one of security management, but of governance and legitimacy.
Protecting civilians is not an abstract principle; it is the condition upon which the survival of the state ultimately depends.
Date: 4 March 2026
William Sunday D. Tor is political researcher and currently a Lecturer in Security Studies and International Development at Starford International University, Juba. He can be reached at: williamtor2011@gmail.com.
Disclaimer
Opinions expressed by guest writers and contributors are their own and do not represent the views of Nile Gazette
