What an Activist Should Be: On Mamdani's Critique of Save Darfur

I've come to the defense of the Darfur activist movement more than once on this blog --- and here it goes again:

In his new book by Mahmood Mamdani, goes after the Save Darfur movement for creating an overly-simplified activist campaign that condenses and distorts the complicated history and geopolitics of Darfur, that glorifies suffering with ad campaigns, and that presents "action" in terms of stark moral choices. Even more, Mamdani accuses the movement of the more insidious aims of serving as the "humanitarian face of the War on Terror," of feeding into racial rhetoric of "bad Arabs," and acting as a "war mobilization" force, seeking military intervention as its sole solution, rather than a peace movement.

I have not read the book yet myself, but Mamdani's recent media blitz gives me enough to go on. Bec Hamilton does an excellent job at picking apart Mamdani's many, many factual inaccuracies --- and I would encourage you to read her entire post before jumping on the Mamdani bandwagon. Eric Reeves takes him to task on his analytical history of Darfur.

(A particularly interesting note from Bec's blog: Mamdani claims to look at the "history, organization, and message" of the Save Darfur movement, without bothering to speak to anyone in the movement, at all.)

A few points:

First, "Save Darfur" --- which Mamdani uses interchangeably to refer to the Save Darfur Coalition, and the movement as a whole --- maintains that the credible threat of force must be kept on the table as an option of last resort, but that's exactly what it is: An option of last resort. No one is advocating for American commandos to bust into Darfur, guns blazing, as if there would be no consequences.

Second, "Save Darfur," the coalition nor the movement, is not the monolithic, singularly motivated, top-down structure that Mamdani makes it out to be. The level of coordination it would take to be a tool in the War on Terror...definitely lacking.

But most importantly, to accuse the activist movement of such insidious, imperialistic aims is not only factually inaccurate, but misconstrues the point of activist movements more generally. Have mistakes been made? Yes. Could Save Darfur have run a more sensitive campaign? Absolutely. Nothing is ever perfect, and Save Darfur is constantly faced with trying to build momentum in a country with an incredibly short attention span and an astonishingly low interest in foreign affairs. It's a process of trial and error, and hopefully --- hopefully --- reflection and reevaluation.

We cannot expect every grassroots activist to have a nuanced understanding of Sudanese history --- it's not necessary, and it's not their role, nor is it reason to write off the movement. Lead organizations could do a better job of conveying nuance and encouraging more education, but the role of an activist is to bring sufficient voice and attention to a cause to support and/or pressure those who do understand the complexities and are in a position to address them.

This is by no means, of course, a completely harmonious relationship --- policymakers are tasked with evaluating possible consequences for any sort of action and may have to reject activist demands, but the important, overarching goal is the have those policymakers evaluating the consequences and looking for the best way forward. The point is to put it on the agenda.

A crime against humanity is thus named because it is a crime so egregious, so offensive, that it is an affront to us all. This is what an activist understands, this is what an activist gives voice too, and no amount of political complexity negates the validity of --- and the need for --- that voice. The Save Darfur movement, from top to bottom, is comprised of individuals who believe that no one deserves to suffer as Darfuris have been made to, and who believe that the imperative to seek an end to that suffering is, in fact, unequivocal.

How that end comes about, is a different issue --- and if you bother to speak with anyone at Save Darfur and its allied organizations, you'll find yourself face-to-face with the most intelligent and deliberative advocates who grapple with complexity and nuance every day. Question the method, point out the mistakes, but don't misinterpret the intentions or misconstrue aims.