Dilemmas of civil society in Sudan in concept and practice
By Md. Gamaleldin*
August 24, 2010 —
“It is impossible to have a conversation about politics or public policy these days without someone mentioning the magic words “civil society”, so one might think that people are clear what they mean when they use this term and why it is so important. Unfortunately, clarity and rigor are conspicuous by their absence in the civil society debate, a lack of precision that threatens to submerge this concept completely under a rising tide of criticism and confusion”. Michael Edwards
1- Civil society in theory
“Civil Society” as a term in general is quite controversial in theory and practice. In the situation of Sudan, the confusion even more. I think there are four major reasons that cause such a confusion.
First of all, absolute majority of the people relates “civil society” to good deeds, hopes and dreams such as tolerance, peaceful coexistence, democracy etc., while civil society, to me, could have also some ‘ evil’/ disastrous effects!.
Secondly, the concept is most of the times ideologically abused, especially when monopolized by certain group/s and consequently endowing privileges for specific group/s while disqualifying and discriminating others. The concept was misused to become part and parcel of the conflict on wealth and power in Sudan.
Thirdly, the “term” in its scientific context is new and initially introduced and developed in Western Europe and was meant in the first place to study the relation between citizens and the state in Europe. Given the fact that civil society in Europe manifested differently than in Sudan “Africa”, a through definition of civil society needs indeed to consider the various manifestations of the civil structures in Sudan. Redefining the concept is highly needed in Sudan due to the different nature of the state and its relation with citizens.
I would like here to strongly argue that the current attempts to define the civil society in the Sudan have failed drastically to explain the nature of the civil society and its different manifestations. The current literature on the civil society in the Sudan has overly copied/ imported the term from its western context and failed to a greater extent to pay consideration to the vital structures in the Sudanese society. Most of the studies carried out around the subject tend to deny or shy away to qualify tribes, clans and mystical movements as part and parcel of the civil society. Moreover they recognize only the “rational and/or the modern manifestations” of the civil society, such as NGOs and trade unions. These modern/civil manifestations have been of course dominant in most of the studies of civil society in developed countries.
Fourthly, and last but not least, there is a number of people who tend to consider only one pattern of civil society!. Such assumption deepens the existed confusion. I would like to argue that there is no one “civil society”!. There are many, thousands perhaps; it is actually unlimited sum!. There is no one “pattern” of civil society having same qualities, specifications, and manifestations. All civil manifestations display unique characteristics in different places and times.
Apparently this might explain why the image of “civil society” resembles that of the concept of “god”. Anyone could have different perception for God than the other. The only difference between the two concepts is that some people might deny that God exists while all people on earth seems to be sure that “civil society ” exists in reality; though might not be sure how!.
Civil society does not stand in isolation in regard to others, and/or by its own. There is no essence of civil society, except in its appearances and manifestations. Civil society is just a graphic line, which could be envisioned for the purpose of measuring the situation. Therefore, people in real life could not speak of civil society in an abstract level, unless their consultation is compatible with its manifestations. Thus, civil society is nothing more than its manifestations!. Those manifestations are not only coming in structured patterns such as NGOs in advanced countries or tribes in Africa, but can also be non-structured, as repeated events such as folk-games and marriage ceremonies. All that varied civic manifestations come to reality based on certain goals and roles and depend in its existence on social values, norms and traditions, which as well come unique in every place and time.
It is important here to debunk the “term” from its moral and ideological constraints in order to make it a valid formula being able to practically explain the concerned phenomena in its real context. That is to me the only way we would be able to redefine our own civil societies and its specific relation to the state in Sudan. From there we might be able to perceive the role and the boundaries of civil society in practice in relation to that of the state.
2- Civil Society in practice
Sudanese in the diaspora and inside the country agree unanimously on the significant role played by civil society organizations in peace building, sustainable development and democratization in Sudan. Moreover there are many governments and donor organizations that support effective developmental interventions of Sudanese NGOs in order to improve the quality of life of the mass Sudanese, in particular, and to bring about political and economic stability in Sudan, at large. A fair and effective partnership between the countries of the North and those of the south is indeed of a great demand in order to combat poverty and to maintain a human world.
The question however remains what is exactly “civil society organizations” in Sudan ?. Sudanese intellectuals are too much fragmented on this point!. Which structures qualify to be called civil society and which is not?. The answer is for many not that clear. For instance many exclude trade unions from civil society arena while others do. Majority of Sudanese intellectuals disqualify tribes, clans, traditional and religious groupings including Sufi orders, churches, sectarian groups and mystical groups from being part and parcel of the civil society movement. Political parties to be qualified as civil society or not that is good place for controversy. The boundaries between the state and civil society are not well demarked. In fact the relationship between the state and the so called “civil society” is most of the time shaped with shared doubt and sometimes hostility. And, last but not least the role of the “civil society” what should it be in general?. That is also a question!. All those questions are valid for all parts of Sudan and with great concern in North “the political centre”, Southern Sudan and Darfur since it has direct link to peace’s processes.
The controversy over the definition and role of the “civil society” in Sudan is indeed timely and relevant. It needs to be widely discussed in the short run and studied carefully in the long run. There is undoubtedly a need to device policy oriented research that would look into the relation between the civil society and the state, mainly due to the fragile nature of the Sudanese state and the prospects of disintegration. The role of the civil society inside the Sudan and the diaspora is deemed to be paramount in safeguarding the stability of the Sudan and maintaining peace in the country.
Needless to say an academic study on the civil society in the Sudan should investigate the main manifestations of the civil society in the Sudan ; underlying structures, values, roles and potential for socio-political change. It should examine the role and potential of spiritual/religious and ethnic groupings in peace making/building, development and democratization in Sudan. Further studying the possibilities of building valuable and sustainable partnership between international donor institutions and Sudan based on clarity and according to new effective and creative methods.
3- Hypotheses for further studies
At the end of this preamble on the issue of “Sudan Civil Society” I would like to present my own hypotheses on Sudan Civil Society and its relation to the State “in 12 points” hopefully to be an added value to nowadays ongoing debates on Sudan Civil Society and the state in Sudan. These assumptions were deduced from my own age-long observations and reflections on the subject matter.
1 – The word “civil” stands against the word “official”:
“Civil” in the words “civil society” means “unofficial”: The word “civil” in the expression: civil society to stand against official, “State”, on absolute to all. Civil society is an unofficial society, and the State is uncivil society. The word “civil” is used in return for an official. In this way, “civil” in the expression “civil society” does not refer to meanings of discrimination or privilege, such as civilian in the sense of urban, civilization, modern, or secular. In addition, the word “civil” does not refer to any meanings of moral, ethical or ideological obligations. It means only unofficial; any thing, act or a person outside the framework of the State. Civil society in this respect refers to the mobility outcome of events or people, whether it’s structured or unstructured (structured = organized or non-organized = events), outside official system; the “State”, regardless of the significance of that and the form of mobility. And it does not matter that it was described as modern, traditional, progressive, or ossify. Furthermore, it does not matter whether it occurs in the countryside or the city, and regardless of when it happened. It is in all; cases, places, times, an act of “civil”: a civil society.
2 – No essence for “civil society” more than its manifestations, also, every single civil manifestation displays unique characteristics:
The essence of “civil society” is his appearance which can be manifested structurally and non-structurally: In a manner of speaking, if civil society is described as sea, the waves are its manifestation. If we managed to see the sea in its calmness, with our own eyes and praising it with our bodies, “civil society” is the opposite of that, it cannot be felt or perceived pending to its manifestations. That is due to the absence of civil society‘s standing in isolation to others, and by its own. There is no essence of civil society, except only in its appearance and manifestations. Civil society is just a graphic line, which could be envisioned for the purpose of measuring the situation. Therefore, people could not speak of civil society in an abstract level, unless their consultation is compatible with its manifestations; structures and events. Also, there is no civil society having the same qualities, specifications, and manifestations in the same pattern and vein. All civil manifestations display unique characteristics in different countries, places and times.
3 – Civil Society in practice manifested horizontally and vertically:
Civil society manifests horizontally and vertically: Its horizontal is in the form of events and structures; (structured/non-structured). While it manifests vertically in its structured version in two illustrations: original = lower structures, and “ upper = “meta structures” of inherent-generating. The Civil version “lower structures” relies on social system of values which can be divided into three patterns: corporality “knighthood”, spirituality “metaphysical”, and rationality “objectivity”. While upper structures displays system of ideology.
A. Civil Society’s non-structured manifestations (events):
The unstructured civil society is manifested in the form of repeated and monotonous events, backed with values, and has objectives, customs, and precedents established in the unconscious and collective mind. For example, these events can be listed in the following; folk-games, marriage ceremonies, wakes, alarmed-troops, zaar, fencing, coffee and tea meetings, card-games, and drinking circles.
B. Civil Society’s structured manifestations (organisations):
Civil society is manifested structurally in the form of long-term community-based groupings, and designates under different names, however, more commonly at the moment is: organization. The Organization here includes primarily the tribe, clan, sects, private sector, and trade-unions, as forms of the different association; trade-unions (refer, here, to urban civil society structures in general). Structured civil society is manifested in the form of membership’ organisations, whether it is legally registered or unregistered, with the view to achieve specific goals, due to regulations, and specific value system, written or unwritten. Organizations may differ in their objectives and the cause of nature of their manifestations; the difference between one’s inception compared to another. Such as urban organizations; trade unions, human right organizations, cultural and sports clubs.. Ethnic organizations such as tribes and clans.. Spiritual and faith organizations; such as Sufis tarigas, mosques, churches, and mystics. And, as well as the private sector “factories”… etc.
C – Fundamental factors behind lower civil manifestations:
Civil society could not be manifested, unless three conditional criteria are be satisfied simultaneously and without jeopardising any of them: goal, system of values, and list of bylaws; this could be in a written form as in the case of trade-unions, or verbal code of practices that initiated by the collective mind of communities, as in the case of the tribe or the clan.
D – Kinds of lower civil structured manifestations:
Every civil structural mobility is an organization of a civil society, regardless of its objectives, format of its membership, and its place and time. in spite of official of unofficial recognitions by the state, it’s a civil society, even if it was a criminal gang; at this point of view, this is very true and logical. The structured and unstructured civil manifestations represent the genuine “original, lower or basic” representations of civil society, which might in turn inherent in other forms; “meta-” with the hullabaloo view with the state, such as political parties and groups.
4 – Value systems:
We can observe that there are three major value systems that stand behind the overall manifestations of civil society in Sudan . These value systems represent a fundamental reason in the diversity of civil society manifestations and differentiation from each other, namely:
-Value system of corporality, “Knighthood”,
-Value system of spirituality, “Metaphysical”, and,
-Value system of rationality, “Objectivity”.
A – system of values of corporality, “Knighthood”, stands behind most of the ethnic manifestations; the most significant ones are the tribes and the clans. The most important values of corporality are: manliness, courage, honesty, dignity, honour, magnanimity, chivalry, and generosity. We can sum it up in one word; “sacrifice”. It is the values of “We.”
B – system of values of spirituality, “Metaphysical”, stands behind most of spiritual manifestations, the most significant ones are the Sufi sects, mosques, churches, and misaims. Among the values of spirituality are: asceticism, humility, reliance on God and belief ( metaphysics) . To sum it up in one word; “integrity”, which also represents the values of “We.”
C – system of values of rationality, “Objectivity”, stands behind most of urban manifestations, which can be exemplified by the trade-union and factory. Among the values of “rationality”: enlightenment, humanity, hygiene, order and savings. In short, it can be represented by the word “objectivity”. These are values of “I” the ego.
5 – Roles and functions of lower and upper civil structures:
The role of the lower (basic) civil structures, primarily, confined on the completion of goals of the group in whole, or in part; (to existence or/and living or/and security or/and well-fare), for the particular civil group to set out in the face of nature, and to stand against the other, in all shapes or forms. Since it is not normally part of the objectives or roles of basic civil structures to initiate direct controversy with the state, it is also not in the interest of the state to embark in direct controversy with those civil structures in a ideal situation. On the contrary, if this clash took place it will lead, on long terms in principle, to a negative effect on their both practical existence. It will be a problem, if those idealistic value systems, collided with the abstract interest “benefits” = “State”. The two fields must always be in two parallel tracks, never intersect, otherwise, there would be a problem. In contrary the main goal of the upper civil structures is to deal with existing state or shape/reshape a state (they are ideologies).
6 – Civil society as a technical concept:
Civil society may be look at as a technical concept, and must not incorporate any value or morality; good and evil, modernity or traditionalism, progress or underdevelopment, and secularism or religious idealism. Those words that imbedded certain values, must be acknowledge only according to that specific value systems, they do not refer to, in any shape or form, the word “civil”. Civil society can tantamount to the materialistic field of the conflict, yet it is not in itself the conflict, it is the spatial component for the conflict. Civil society is the space, into which coloured-beautiful-innocent sparrows, buzzards, numerous insects, and mosquitoes, would fly as well. It is just the spatial place, for good deeds as well as evil ones.
7- Good or bad (all forms is civil society):
Civil society shouldn’t be distinguished, with its veracity or its permanent or potential harms due to its structural forms “old or new”, as now it is the case in Sudan , but according to its good or bad deeds, in other words, with its positive or negative acts, which can be seen in the following:
development, peace, good governance, HAN rights (human, Animal and nature rights) , creativity, and socio-cultural open-arena. This can be done by measuring the distance between benevolent criteria and its antithesis such as: development against destruction, peace against war, maturity against tyranny, right against wrong, creativity in return for petrifaction, and closure in return for openness. All is civil, all can do bad or good, no matter which form they take!.
8- Benefit and detriment:
In all circumstances and at all times, the act in the context of civil society, structured or non-structured, leads to specific benefit that finds its expression in material contribution, in cash or in kind as effort, and free or paid, with a view to bringing good or prevent harm for certain social group in the outside space of formal “state” system, according to specific value system that might be judged as detriment and evil in the contemplation of others.
9 – Diaspora organizations:
“Civil” is only in return for “Official” and vice versa, swamped neither precluded the other. There will not be civil society without state nor a state without a civil society. Therefore, any organization that is established outside Sudan , “with its borders as a State”, does not represent a “civil society” for Sudan . That is simply because they are not based in contrast to the State ( Sudan in this case). More precisely, they represent a civil society in a practical level for the State in which they had been launched “e.g. Netherlands “. Consequently, the title of “civil society organizations” in respect to Sudanese Diaspora organizations being counted as part of Sudan civil society, could only be true in a metaphoric sense. Otherwise, they have to be considered as incidental branches for already existing civil manifestations inside the Sudan subsequently their goals, visions and missions should be designed.
10 – Civil Society’s structured manifestations:
“Civil Society” is practically manifested in Sudan, and it seems evident in the structured form in four main types: 1- rational and objective, “modern form “; sample of this is trade-unions, 2- ethnic corporality such as tribes and clans, 3- spiritual metaphysical; as in the Sufis’ groups, mosques, Churches, and mystics. Finally, 4- the private sector (rational manifestations).
11 – State’s structured manifestations:
The State generally manifested in six main forms: 1- the executive body (government), 2- the legislative body (parliament), 3- the Judicial System, 4- the military institution (the army, police and security agencies), 5- the administrative body, and finally, 6- the public sector.
12 –Final hypothesis on civil society and the state:
My final hypothesis, is; the beginning in humans’ gathering is “civil society” in its lower basic infrastructures, then meta-structures, and subsequently the State is formed. Civil society is the seed of the State. The State simply can be described as the point of convergence of interests/opposed. Any point of convergence interests/opposed to the interests of the whole lower civil structures inherent into temporal and geographical specific, and prerequisite and inevitable system so-called in generality: the State. civil society is raised in “values” with regards to the original structures, and in “ideologies” in meta-structures. The State is established, in abstract level, on the system of “beneficial/interests “, in its idealistic version; without values or ideologies. Otherwise, the State would continuously conflict and collide with many civil structures, leading eventually to two possibilities, with no third option,: the demise of the State permanently and, consequently, the death of civil society; “the death of the prevailing values “, or the re-construction of the State in a new model and, consequently, the manifestations of civil society in a new form; “new values”.
*Md Gamaleldin, Sudanese national by birth and Dutch by naturalization, activist , and expert in Sudan’s politics and culture, coordinator NSON foundation, Sudan Forum and Sudan Civil Society Axis. He can be reached at [email protected]