What Right Do We Have to Advocate on Darfur - Part 2

This is the second part of a short series looking at some of the more controversial issues facing humanitarian advocacy.

I suggested a number of questions and posed them to Neha Erasmus.  Neha spent a number of years working for NGOs in Sudan, and now works for an advocacy and research institute in London .  For each topic, Neha wrote first, I responded, and then she had the last word.

This is the second part of our debate about what right "western" organizations have to advocate on issues like Darfur. For the earlier part of this discussion, see here.

Neha - This question was recently asked, in a different way, by Bridget Conley-Zilkic her recent blog post: “Is historically and politically informed human rights advocacy in the context of (even in the aftermath of) extreme violence against civilian communities possible?”

Isn’t it logical that the people who have the best understanding of the historical, political, social and economic context of a place, are the people who have lived there their entire lives? I think this was what Anne Bartlett was saying when she advised supporting the Amel Centre, the Khartoum Centre or SUDO in their advocacy efforts. The power and resources that Western agencies have means that they have stronger voices, but couldn’t we try to strengthen Sudanese voices for change, rather than directing change ourselves?

If we look back to some of the most successful rights movements in the 1940s and '50s, most advocacy was undertaken by people who were experiencing issues themselves and was directed as a result of and by their movement and its work, rather than by external agents. This system of advocacy ‘by the people for the people’ also gave people greater agency in changing their circumstances and holding their own leadership accountable, creating long term change internally.

Michael - Under this logic, than the only people who could argue against colonialism were those who suffered any colonialism – supporters of Indian or Kenyan independence in the UK or elsewhere should have simply remained silent. Or, in the context of the States, the only people who could have called for civil rights were African Americans. This seems rather limiting, to say the least.

Also, I think it’s somewhat simplistic to talk about “strengthening Sudanese voices”, on two levels. First, aid agencies spend quite a bit of time trying to do exactly that, thru capacity building and all the rest. Second, and more fundamental, the idea that we should help “strengthen” Sudanese voices seems at best condescending, and at worst no better than a colonial mindset, where we have to help them, because they are unable to help themselves.

Neha - I am definitely not saying that only sufferers can speak out. Indeed all movements have had "outside" or "non-homogenic" participants and supporters. What was different was that they worked within the framework and beliefs of local movements and visions. White Americans lobbying for civil rights went on strikes with black Americans and put themselves in the same positions of danger – a true and equal partnership.

However, the French, let's say, did not decide to run their own campaign for American civil rights (and without taking their cue from civil rights activism in the States I might add). My point was that your best chances of politically, socially, economically informed advocacy will be from local actors. This does not exclude external expertise, but emphasises the need to validate local forms of knowledge.

In terms of the strengthening of Sudanese voices (ouch by the way!), if you look at the Amel Centre or Khartoum Centre – how many people not intimately involved with Sudan have heard about them? How much power do Darfurians have in expressing their vision for the future of Darfur, compared with Save Darfur? There are very real challenges to successfully organise in Darfur and in Sudan in general. A lot of division has been created and manipulated, and civil society is generally very weak, mainly through disunity as well as the international donor community.

In order for Sudanese organisations to be heard, they have to have resources. In order to have resources they have to be very good at playing the organisational game of writing proposals (in a language is not their mother tongue), planning projects, creating up indicators etc. etc. What this does is stymie any real motivation, passion and drive that people have and create bureaucrats who are bent on sustaining their livelihood. If we want Sudanese to solve their problems, we should try to help them face these challenges.

[Photo from Neha Erasmus]