What Right Do We Have to Advocate on Darfur - Part 2
Published May 28, 2009 @ 08:47PM PT
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]
Share this Post
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
EmailRelated Posts
-
Who Has The Right To Advocate About Darfur?
-
What Right Do We Have to Advocate on Darfur - Part 1
-
And, It Wouldn't Be a Weekend Without Darfur
Comments (13)
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
Author
-
Neha Erasmus spent a number of years working in Sudan with various NGOs, and now works for an advocacy and research institute based in London. She grew up in Kenya and has also lived in India, the United Kingdom and Canada.
Featured War and Peace Actions
-
-
Help Children and Widows In Gaza
288 People
-
Help Children and Widows In Gaza
-
When I saw the title of this post, I groaned loudly. But it wasn't as redundant as I though.
Here's my general take:
Transnational advocacy networks have been around for a century and a half and are not only here to stay, but increasingly important in a world where very little is exclusively local or national anymore.
So, does informed and ethical advocacy boil down to in my opinion?
1) If you're going to do advocacy, know your issue *well.* This doesn't preclude mass involvement, but campaigns should be less sensational and more educational at their outset.
2) Work with local stakeholders, know their positions, amplify their voices, and build capacity.
3) Don't assume you have it all right.
4) Don't make promises you can't keep.
5) Re-evaluate, re-evaluate, re-evaluate. Situations change often, so should advocacy.
Posted by Transitionl... . on 05/29/2009 @ 07:25AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Much as I value Michael's opinions, I'm with Neha all the way on this one. The unpalatable truth is that my opinion on Darfur is almost completely irrelevant; I don't come from there, I don't live there and it doesn't affect me directly. Only the people of Darfur - and more widely of Sudan - can secure their own rights, on their terms, in their own language.
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.
Yeah, that's pretty much true. The decolonisation process had almost nothing to do with people in the imperial countries, and everything to do with colonial peoples realising their own rights. And of course Malcolm X famously said "whites can help us, but they can't join us"; I used to think he was wrong, but now I agree completely.
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.
On the first point, all that capacity building doesn't seem to have much impact, does it? On the second point, I don't see why strengthening Sudanese voices is condescending; it doesn't imply that they are unable to help themselves so much as it implies that those of us in privileged positions with the access to resources have the obligation to make those resources more readily available to them.
Posted by Paul Currion on 05/29/2009 @ 10:21AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Paul - interesting points, and still thinking them through over a gypsy few days
Posted by Michael Bear on 05/30/2009 @ 06:54AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Well said, Paul.
Posted by Charles London on 05/29/2009 @ 01:03PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Paul I'm glad you brought up the point about capacity building: an interesting way to look at capacity building is that it helps people meet an external standard of normality rather than genuinely assisting peopleto meet their needs (see Marianne Gronemeyer's article on Helping).
Posted by Neha Erasmus on 05/29/2009 @ 01:20PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Or..say, meet external reporting standards necessary to maintain funding from external donors, something crucial for a lot of CSOs in the developing world.
Posted by Transitionl... . on 05/29/2009 @ 08:00PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Neha, I'm curious. You work at a Western (London-based) advocacy institute. What is it exactly that you do there?
in several posts here on HR, you've expounded on how, for you, it's prefect advocacy or none at all, so I'm really, really curious about what makes your current employer fall into the former category.
Posted by Transitionl... . on 05/29/2009 @ 06:53PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
@TransitionLand: Or..say, meet external reporting standards necessary to maintain funding from external donors, something crucial for a lot of CSOs in the developing world.
I would argue that this is exactly the sort of "capacity building" that is colonial in mindset.
Posted by Paul Currion on 05/30/2009 @ 12:11AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I hope you're not suggesting that CSOs in the developing world be given money with no strings attached, or be allowed to entirely define their own terms for reporting, evaluation, etc. I think we've all had *that* conversation on this blog before as well.
I don't think it's a colonial mindset. Throwing money at the developing world and hoping for the best without putting in place any means of measuring its effectiveness is, in my mind, pretty condescending.
Posted by Transitionl... . on 05/30/2009 @ 03:56AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
The argument used to be made that beneficiaries shouldn't be given cash directly for similar reasons - with the subtext that they couldn't be trusted to spend the money wisely. Thankfully that convention is in the process of being fairly comprehensively overthrown.
As a donor, if you're giving money to an organisation, then it is your responsibility to do the due diligence and check that they're a solid outfit. Donors are free to attach any strings they like to their grants/loans - that's the prerogative of being a donor - but to demand reporting standards that even western organisations find hard to meet is just self-defeating.
Most of the big donor organisations have ridiculous reporting mechanisms - anybody else remember the logframe obsession that gripped DFID at the end of the 1990s? Far better to set minimal financial reporting standards and develop a mutually-agreed reporting approach that plays to the strength of each organisation recieving funds.
Of course, this would cost money to do, but luckily money is the one thing that donors have.
Posted by Paul Currion on 05/30/2009 @ 06:59AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
@Neha: "an interesting way to look at capacity building is that it helps people meet an external standard of normality rather than genuinely assisting peopleto meet their needs"
This is exactly true, and funnily enough was going to be the subject of my next blog post...
Posted by Paul Currion on 05/30/2009 @ 12:12AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I look forward to your post Paul.
Transitionland:
Meeting external reporting standards are crucial for CSOs to maintain funding from external donors because external donors make those requirements.
I hope I've never said that for me it is perfect advocacy or nothing, because that would be the ultimatum of a fool. In fact if you read the last post about international justice, I said 'working towards' perfection is what we can and should do. I have also posted on the 'Making Sense of Darfur' blog if you are interested to know more of my views: http://www.ssrc.org/blogs/darfur/author/nehae/
I am very fortunate to work for Justice Africa (www.justiceafrica.org). While we have an international base in London (I will soon move to Sudan though) we are a Pan-African organisation. I work for Justice Africa because the organisations' thinking is in line with my own and I am encouraged from our work that such thinking is perfectly practical, possible and resource-effective. In fact many other organisations undertake work in a similar way.
Posted by Neha Erasmus on 05/30/2009 @ 02:24AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I have read your other stuff. I just don't see you proposing many *concrete* ways forward. Moving toward equitably distributed justice sounds all well and good, but you didn't really answer Michael's question about what that might look like.
Until international law applies equally to all states and their leaders, we're going to have inconsistencies, and hypocrisy. I've written before that I'm not sure the Bashir indictment was a good idea, and the bloggers at Wronging Rights make a good argument as to why it wasn't. However, I think it was bad (or possibly bad) because of its humanitarian impact and poor timing, *not* because Putin, Bush, etc aren't facing indictments for their own crimes. I wish they were, and so do many international lawyers, but just because some war criminals get a free pass does not mean all should.
If you're working for progress, the present will always be imperfect.
Posted by Transitionl... . on 05/30/2009 @ 04:07AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.