First there were 10: the case for and against South Sudan's new states using discourse analysis and argumentation theory

Abstract

In 2015, South Sudan increased the number of its states from 10 to 28, followed by four more states in 2017. The redrawing of internal borders came through presidential decree as South Sudan's violent civil war continued to unfold. This development has led to two ardent voices: one arguing to maintain the new states, and another advocating to reverse them. Applying argumentation theory and critical discourse analysis to news articles, analysis pieces, and press releases collected from Gurtong and Sudan Tribune from July 2015 to April 2017, this article assesses the argument advanced by both camps and evaluates their implications for peace in South Sudan. In examining the claim, the counter-claim, and their underlying premises, the article finds areas of contention and convergence between the two camps and argues for the compatibility of the values which undergird both positions.