The two principals in the South Sudan crisis, President Salva Kiir and his former deputy Riek Machar, are reported to be receptive to the suggestion of a transitional government but the question of who should lead it dominated the direct talks in Addis Ababa at the weekend.

According to people privy to the talks, President Kiir “suggested that he lead the transitional government. The only compromise is that he could resign as president, but not the position of commander-in-chief.”

On the other hand, Dr Machar suggested that a neutral team be put in place to lead the transitional government and the two men fight it out in an election.

“He lost legitimacy when he failed to implement aspects of the agreed guidelines,” said a Machar aide who was privy to a meeting on Thursday between the rebel leader and Rebecca Garang, the widow of Dr John Garang. “A transition government led by a neutral group of people should be put in place.”

When he met United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in Juba earlier in the week, President Kiir had agreed to an interim arrangement and also gave the government negotiating team in Addis authority to enter into any form of talks with the rebels, including the interim arrangements.

READ: UN chief lands in war-torn South Sudan to push for peace

Diplomatic sources told The EastAfrican that the two principals had been facing concerted pressure from both the UN and the United States to allow humanitarian aid to reach hundreds of thousands of civilians displaced by the conflict or face sanctions.

Marked down

Both President Kiir and Dr Machar have reportedly realised that they have been marked down by the international community for their continued disrespect of the January 23 Cessation of Hostiles Agreement and are now striving to remain relevant.

As a result, the negotiating teams in Addis signed an agreement to silence the guns for a month and also stage a face-to-face meeting between the two leaders that was set for the Ethiopian capital on Friday.

The two were expected to sign a power sharing deal on Friday.

READ: President Kiir and rebel leader Machar sign peace deal

Tigist Hailu, the communications officer for the Conflict Early Warning and Response Mechanism (Cewarn), who is handling the official communications for the Addis talks, said the “one-month tranquillity” is a show of commitment by the two parties to ensure humanitarian assistance is accessed by affected communities.

The issue of an interim government was initially proposed by the Troika countries — the US, the UK and Norway — who had wanted a new arrangement minus President Kiir and Dr Machar on the grounds that both had continued violating the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement and were implicated in war crimes.

Juba had however vehemently opposed that option, arguing that it undermined the mandate of the government, which lasts until April 2015, but was also tantamount to rewarding rebellion.

In the wake of the new developments, there are two options: To either form an interim government in the form of a coalition between President Kiir and Dr Machar or cast aside both parties and form a separate body led by a neutral person.

Political analyst Jervasio Okot argued that, although the first option is desirable as it would bring about healing between the warring parties, it is also fraught with danger because controlling the forces on the ground would be tricky.

Broad unity government

He gave examples of the 1985 talks between then Ugandan guerrilla leader Yoweri Museveni and Gen Tito Okello and those between then Congolese President Mobutu Sese Seko and Laurent Kabila in 1997. In both cases, the principals were in agreement on a peaceful resolution while their forces continued fighting on the ground.

Dr Machar’s suggestion of a neutral power resonated with voices emerging in Juba, which called for the two principals to each relinquish power and a caretaker government to be put in place as the peace is negotiated.

This school of thought suggests that a broad unity government then be allowed to run for two to three years and that, during this period, efforts be made to grow institutions and encourage wider consultation on issues that triggered the conflict.

“The idea of a transitional government with Kiir and Riek together is not welcomed by the majority of citizens,” said Edmund Yakani, a civil society activist in South Sudan.

Prof Jok Madut Jok, founder of the Sudan Institute, a local think-tank and research organisation, noted that a transitional government with the two principals would return the country to the status quo, rewarding the political contenders for the mayhem they have so far caused.

“A transitional government that is charged with creating a permanent constitution, carrying out a census and conducting elections would be more meaningful, but that is out of reach if the mediators do not exert more efforts, threaten sanctions,” said Prof Jok.

“A unity government is the quickest way to end violence, but not one that maintains the political power of these two men.”

He said President Kiir went to Addis with four committees to look into each of the agenda items for the talks mediated by host Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn: The transitional government, the constitution, the possibility of a unity government and cessation of hostilities.

However, while the two belligerents have little incentive to talk, the growing pressure from the global community should ensure that the negotiations come up with practical ways to end the fighting, which started as a political disagreement but quickly degenerated into a tribal war.

The direct talks are taking place at a time when there is growing anger on the ground among the two largest tribes in South Sudan and a strong desire for revenge.

The so-called White Army has vowed to continue with attacks and information indicated that they were heading for the states of Warrap and Lake, both home to the Dinka comunity, to avenge what they call President Kiir’s destruction of Nuer homelands.

President Kiir belongs to the Dinka, the largest ethnic community in South Sudan, and Dr Machar to the Nuer, the second largest.

“I think the warring parties are willing to end the conflict as the suffering is already immense,” said Prof Jok. “But there is still tremendous anger among the young fighters, especially among Machar’s followers, who feel that Kiir’s government had targeted their people in Juba.

“An incentive for them to end violence is an internationally monitored investigation into the atrocities, accountability and justice and even a formal apology from the top leaders for their failure to protect citizens.”

President Kiir has in recent months hardened his position on the idea of peace talks or power sharing with Dr Machar.

In December, he told the media that Dr Machar, whom he sacked last July, should not be rewarded with power sharing for rebelling. Last month, he appointed army generals either from his own tribe or loyal to him to lead the operations against the rebels.

“However, there is pressure mounting on Kiir both regionally and globally,” said David Pulkol, a regional security researcher and former chief of Uganda’s External Security Organisation.

“Also, growing global pressure on President Museveni to stop bombing rebel-held areas in support of Kiir has meant he is losing ground, with the international community going for his neck. He has to talk.”

A commission to look into human rights abuse and other crimes instigated by the principal players has been put in place, headed by former Nigerian president Olusegun Obasanjo.

However, even with the threats of sanctions from world leaders, fighting continued last week. Direct dialogue, even as a mere gesture between President Kiir and rebel leader Dr Machar, would be a game changer in the six-month-old conflict.

READ: US sanctions two South Sudanese leaders

Uphold ceasefire deal

Many believe that a solution boils down to both men agreeing to uphold the January ceasefire deal and persuading their troops to lay down arms.

From the early days of the crisis, the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (Igad) Heads of State Summit has backed an inclusive political process to pull South Sudan back from the brink.

But analysts say forcing the two principals into a unity government without an honest dialogue with all players will not solve the underlying causes of the dispute.

READ: Personality conflicts, proxy wars to blame for South Sudan’s slide toward genocide

“What is being suggested by [US Secretary of State John] Kerry and other players is a patchwork that will only address the surface,” said Simon Mulongo, a Ugandan MP and security analyst. “There is a need to tackle the underlying issues.

“Have the two resolved their differences, have the underlying issues been spelt out and resolved? If not, they will accept a joint government as a result of international pressure but we shall soon see people shooting each other again.”

Additional reporting by Fred Oluoch