Persistent conflict between farmers and pastoralists in Central Equatoria State, South Sudan, has continued despite numerous government and non-governmental intervention attempts, leading to severe human suffering and socio-economic destruction. This study investigates the underlying factors driving this intractable conflict and evaluates the shortcomings of existing resolution strategies. Employing a mixed-methods approach, data were collected from 200 randomly selected respondents in the conflict-prone counties of Juba, Terekeka, Lainya, and Kajokeji. Methods included structured and semi-structured questionnaires, focus group discussions, and interviews, with quantitative data analyzed using SPSS and qualitative data subjected to content and thematic analysis. The findings identify a complex interplay of drivers, including environmental stressors (floods and droughts), unethical behavior, livestock overstocking, human and animal population growth, and critical policy and regulatory weaknesses. While Karl Marx’s conflict theory highlights the role of power in social order, its limitations in this context necessitate a more nuanced approach. The study concludes that a singular strategy is insufficient. Instead, it recommends a context-dependent, hybrid conflict resolution model that strategically combines participatory dialogue with coercive enforcement, where the choice of approach is tailored to the specific nature, timing, and situational dynamics of each conflict incident to achieve sustainable peace.
Adea et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: