The end of the R-ARCSS transition period and the possibility of elections make this a key moment for peace and stability in South Sudan. In many areas, despite an escalation of incidents of violence after R-ARCSS, increased government control in areas across South Sudan means that many state and county governments are actively pursuing an agenda of stability. Yet, for most South Sudanese, this current state of affairs is not what the Dinka could call ‘dor’ – a deeper, more stable peace that includes a fuller restoration of social and legal relations. The key challenge for aid actors currently is to use the opportunity of government-back stability to create a more stable, resilient peace. Crucial for doing this is increasing the control that communities themselves have, as opposed to just the warring parties and politicians, to make the decision about whether it is a time of war or peace.
Since the 1990s, peace actors in South Sudan have invested in long-term, intricate processes that seek to bring communities together through dialogues and meetings over times. Agreements that emerge from these dialogues, however, have often not been fully implemented because of a lack of government and aid actor will and resources. If implemented, the agreements could have brought dividends and benefits from peace that may have deterred people from engaging in armed conflict or empowered them to be able to resist warring party demands. This raises the question of if and how other aid actors (aid actors primarily involved in humanitarian or development programming) might support peace programming that delivers a peace dividend. If aid actors seek to do this, they must think critically about what aid investments benefit the range of people needed to discourage armed conflict, and how these peace dividends impact conflict and power dynamics in the area.