There has been quite a chorus in the local, regional and international media about the state South Sudan is in, a year since it broke away from Sudan and became a separate country. Analysts have decried the lack of economic progress, the corruption, the tribalism, the absence or fragility of the institutions of the state, and the young country’s tempestuous relationship with its northern neighbour.

It soon became exhausting, reading the same lamentations in report after report. Given the flood of commentaries about what the country has achieved in the past 12 months, one wondered whether in July 2011, when South Sudanese were singing and dancing in the streets, anyone had seriously believed that after a year at the helm, the country’s government would have achieved the one thing that has eluded other African governments in countries that have been independent for up to 50 years: living up to the expectations of their citizens and onlookers eager to see the benefits of Independence.

It seemed as if many of the commentators had actually believed it would. Which poses the question: Were they that naïve? If the story of post-colonial Africa is of many failures and scanty successes, why expect Sudan to be different? What is it about the country that makes the disappointed or surprised analysts think it was predestined to be a massive success within only 12 months?

And, anyway, failures aside, there are many reasons South Sudanese must look back with a sense of satisfaction. After years of suffering under the domination of their former northern compatriots and after years of war, finally they had a country of their own, in which they could be themselves. No longer would they be second- or third-class citizens.

For those who had just returned from years of exile, the nightmare of the refugee experience, with its constant reminder that wherever one lives is not really home, had finally ended. These are not small things.

Second, with Independence came a government they could identify with, in which whoever governed them, at least before divisionism and sectarianism set in, would do so with their general consent and not through external imposition.

For all these things, South Sudanese must be happy. Living in a country where one can practise whatever religion and speak whatever language they choose is not to be minimised. It is probably easy to encounter those whose expectations have not been met, and who therefore grumble about how awful things are.

Disgruntled though they may be, I doubt they would want to revert to the “old Sudan.”

But yes, South Sudan is no roaring success when it comes to those things governments ought to do for their people, particularly in the broad area of public goods provision. Much of the country is a huge wilderness with no roads, schools or even health facilities. For a country that was caught up in more than two decades of warfare and all the nasty things associated with it before it became self-determining, this should surprise or shock no one.

The African continent is littered with countries that have not only been independent for decades, but which have enjoyed political stability throughout. All you have to do to see how much they resemble South Sudan is to leave the capital and other towns and venture off the beaten path.

You will find hardly any health facilities. Where they exist, there is little beyond the physical structures. Where there are roads, few, very few, are motorable. And where there are schools, quite a number will be under trees, not in well-built classrooms.

You will find no sources of safe, clean water. Where they exist, they are likely to be in the form of long-broken boreholes built and left behind by NGOs.

And yes, South Sudan is caught up in massive corruption, as President Salva Kiir’s appeal to thieving officials to return the billions they pocketed attests. But corruption is to be found all over the continent. In many countries it is the oil that lubricates the patronage politics responsible for keeping leaders in power beyond their welcome.

One can attribute some of South Sudan’s economic woes to mismanagement and imprudent decision-making. In the general scheme of things, this should be normal in a young country led by people without prior national-level leadership experience or history to draw from.

Indeed, for every disappointment South Sudan has caused its impatient citizens and watchers, there are numerous equivalents in countries celebrating half a century of self-rule. If there is hope for those countries, there must be for South Sudan too.