Fwd: [sudans-john-ashworth] If people don’t obey, the rulers cannot rule
4 views
Skip to first unread message
Elisabeth Janaina
Dec 19, 2016, 10:14:56 AM12/19/16
to southsudankob
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "John Ashworth" <ashwor...@gmail.com>
Date: 19 Dec 2016 13:03
Subject: [sudans-john-ashworth] If people don’t obey, the rulers cannot rule
To: "Group" <sudans-joh...@googlegroups.com>
Cc:
If people don’t obey, the rulers cannot rule
An assessment of the non-violent campaign for change in Sudan
By Nico Plooijer FRIDAY 16 DECEMBER 2016
Late last month, many people in Sudan took part in a three-day
campaign of civil disobedience. People stayed home from work, school
or any other activities in order to protest government policies, in
particular the recent lifting of subsidies for fuel and gas. This led
to enormous price hikes. Prices of basic commodities have risen so
much that people can barely afford to pay for food, transportation or
medicine.
Did the campaign of civil disobedience succeed? According to media
coverage of the protest, it did not. There simply was not much to see,
certainly no mass demonstrations in the streets. This was because
Sudanese activists had learned their lesson: in September, 2013, the
government cracked down on mass demonstrations, leading to the deaths
of more than 200 protestors.
However, the media coverage overlooked the impact on the government or
on the country as a whole. As this form of protest is new to Sudan, it
can be difficult to measure its impact. But the campaign did elicit a
reaction from President Omar al-Bashir himself. He called the campaign
a “one million percent failure”.
A non-violent campaign for change
Last month’s protest was only the latest of a number of events
expressing opposition to the government. In April, large scale student
protests erupted at the main universities all over the country,
sparked by the killing of a student. In October, doctors went on
strike citing unpaid wages and the need for improved working
conditions. In November, the pharmacists followed, protesting the
decision to remove a subsidy for imported medicines, leading prices to
double or in some cases triple. Independent of these developments, the
Sudanese Congress Party has been actively pursuing a non-violent
campaign, it’s members giving speeches on buses and trains and at
public markets. The speakers raise awareness of people´s rights and
how these rights are not respected by the government.
The non-violent campaign did not end with last month’s three days
protest, either. Small-scale demonstrations are still going on and an
online campaign using WhatsApp and other similar apps aims to mobilise
more people.
In response, the government has been quietly repressing the nascent
movement. More than 90 people have been arrested, and are being held
in secret locations with no possibility to communicate with the
outside world.
But the question remains, is it successful?
According to the “Checklist to end tyranny” developed by Peter
Ackerman and Hardy Merriman, there are three key capabilities of
successful civil resistance movements: the ability to unify people,
operational planning and nonviolent discipline. How does the current
campaign in Sudan measure up to this checklist?
Unity
To achieve unity, non-violent campaigners need a shared and inclusive
vision, and a leadership that is seen as legitimate. While many see
the need for fundamental reform in the way Sudan is governed, a
unifying and mobilising vision has yet to emerge.
The recent three-day protest was triggered by price hikes, but long
before that it has been clear that many people are unhappy with the
way this government has been running the country for the last 27
years. The government´s stock defence that the US sanctions and the
loss of oil income after South Sudanese independence are the reasons
for the dismissal economic and political situation is no longer
credible. People wonder what happened to the billions of dollars of
oil revenue the government has earned from concessions to oil
companies since the 1990s, since it has not been used to develop the
country. And people who can´t afford to buy food resent the fact that
40 to 70% of the national budget is spend on security, including
ongoing conflicts in Darfur, the Blue Nile region and the Nuba
Mountains. President al-Bashir went even further recently in a speech
at the headquarters of the Sudan Air Force, saying that even if the
entire government budget was spent on security, it still would not be
enough.
Given all of the above, activists confer frequently about formulating
a unifying message to protest the mismanagement of the country.
As for leadership, the campaign was instigated by people not directly
connected or representing any institutional group or party. That makes
sense given the history of repression of organized labour. When the
current regime came to power, it moved quickly to dismantle the labour
unions that had been at the forefront of popular uprisings in October
1964 and April 1985. Al-Bashir had learned his lesson, and sought to
prevent labour unions from playing a mobilising role again. In
response, people have organized themselves separately from the unions,
leading to well-organised professional groups. In addition, people
organize around specific issues such as hydroelectric dam projects,
women tea sellers and neighbourhood groups addressing issues of land
grabbing and the lack of basic service delivery.
Sudan also has protest movements such as Grifna and Reform Now that
were at the forefront of protests in 2013 and were keen to join the
recent call for action. The traditional opposition parties and armed
movements have been slower to join the recent campaign. Activist are
cautiously reaching out to these groups in order to ensure their
commitment, although the core of the activist leaders refuse to give
up control of this non-violent movement to these traditional actors.
In the current situation in Sudan, it is strategically wise to keep a
decentralised and multi-layered leadership structure, instead of
relying on one or two leading figures. This makes it more difficult
for the regime to supress the leaders of the protest movement.
Operational planning
The second element in Ackerman and Merriman’s “Checklist to end
tyranny” is operational planning. The current protest movement’s
operational planning is, like its leadership, local and dispersed.
Different activities and initiatives are developed throughout the
country. Despite the prevalence of government monitoring of
communications, people are able to share their thoughts and
initiatives. For instance, lists have been distributed of
pro-government singers and journalists so that people can boycott
them. There have also been calls to boycott the visits of government
officials. These are low risk ways of showing support for the campaign
and are difficult for the government to supress. Planning is mostly
done online. The government does at times manage to infiltrate online
groups, leading to conflicts online between pro-government ´keyboard
warriors´ and anti-government ‘electronic chickens’.
One indication of how well this system of de-centralized planning
works is the relatively quick agreement to hold another day of civil
disobedience on December 19 – the anniversary of Sudan’s declaration
of independence in 1955..
Non-violent discipline
The third element on the “Checklist to end tyranny”, remaining
non-violent even when provoked, is an important indicator of the
success of such a movement. To date, the current campaign has
maintained a disciplined, non-violent, peaceful movement. Even efforts
by the security forces to lure people into violent confrontations in
the streets have been unmasked and ridiculed online. The armed
movements in Sudan have publicly supported the civil disobedience
campaign. The question remains whether the armed groups will continue
to commit to the non-violent action, whether people will have the
patience to continue the non-violent campaign, and whether they will
continue to have confidence in the effectiveness of non-violent
methods. Some may give in to the feeling that they need to use
violence to protect the people and the protests. This would play into
the government´s hand, since the government clearly has the advantage
when it comes to violent clashes.
If people don’t obey, the rulers cannot rule.
In conclusion, the current campaign has all the ingredients to be
successful. It is too soon to say whether or not it will succeed, but
it has more potential than the armed rebellions of the last few
decades. The question remains whether Sudanese activists will be able
to build a campaign that will provide opportunities for broader
support, and whether they can define short-, mid- and long-term
objectives under a united vision while maintaining nonviolent
discipline.
Non-violent struggles are similar to armed struggles in that they are
not won overnight. Last month’s three days of civil disobedience are a
starting point showing that many Sudanese people desperately want
change are willing to run risks to obtain it.
Non-violent action is based on the insight that social, political,
economic and military power is dependent on the consent and obedience
of the people. On December 19, we will see how many people in Sudan
understand this fundamental insight and are willing to voluntarily
engage in a struggle for peaceful change.
The author is PAX programme leader
http://sudantribune.com/spip.php?article61128
END
______________________
John Ashworth
ashwor...@gmail.com
+254 725 926 297 (Kenya mobile)
+211 919 695 362 (South Sudan mobile)
+44 787 976 8030 (UK mobile)
+88 216 4334 0735 (Thuraya satphone)
Skype: jashworth1
PO Box 52002 - 00200, Nairobi, Kenya
This is a personal e-mail address and the contents do not necessarily
reflect the views of any organisation
--
--
The content of this message does not necessarily reflect John Ashworth's views. Unless explicitly stated otherwise, John Ashworth is not the author of the content and the source is always cited.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sudan-john-ashworth" group.
To post to this group, send email to sudan-john-ashworth@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sudan-john-ashworth-unsub...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.co.za/group/sudan-john-ashworth
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sudans-john-ashworth" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sudans-john-ashworth+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sudans-john-ashworth.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
From: "John Ashworth" <ashwor...@gmail.com>
Date: 19 Dec 2016 13:03
Subject: [sudans-john-ashworth] If people don’t obey, the rulers cannot rule
To: "Group" <sudans-joh...@googlegroups.com>
Cc:
If people don’t obey, the rulers cannot rule
An assessment of the non-violent campaign for change in Sudan
By Nico Plooijer FRIDAY 16 DECEMBER 2016
Late last month, many people in Sudan took part in a three-day
campaign of civil disobedience. People stayed home from work, school
or any other activities in order to protest government policies, in
particular the recent lifting of subsidies for fuel and gas. This led
to enormous price hikes. Prices of basic commodities have risen so
much that people can barely afford to pay for food, transportation or
medicine.
Did the campaign of civil disobedience succeed? According to media
coverage of the protest, it did not. There simply was not much to see,
certainly no mass demonstrations in the streets. This was because
Sudanese activists had learned their lesson: in September, 2013, the
government cracked down on mass demonstrations, leading to the deaths
of more than 200 protestors.
However, the media coverage overlooked the impact on the government or
on the country as a whole. As this form of protest is new to Sudan, it
can be difficult to measure its impact. But the campaign did elicit a
reaction from President Omar al-Bashir himself. He called the campaign
a “one million percent failure”.
A non-violent campaign for change
Last month’s protest was only the latest of a number of events
expressing opposition to the government. In April, large scale student
protests erupted at the main universities all over the country,
sparked by the killing of a student. In October, doctors went on
strike citing unpaid wages and the need for improved working
conditions. In November, the pharmacists followed, protesting the
decision to remove a subsidy for imported medicines, leading prices to
double or in some cases triple. Independent of these developments, the
Sudanese Congress Party has been actively pursuing a non-violent
campaign, it’s members giving speeches on buses and trains and at
public markets. The speakers raise awareness of people´s rights and
how these rights are not respected by the government.
The non-violent campaign did not end with last month’s three days
protest, either. Small-scale demonstrations are still going on and an
online campaign using WhatsApp and other similar apps aims to mobilise
more people.
In response, the government has been quietly repressing the nascent
movement. More than 90 people have been arrested, and are being held
in secret locations with no possibility to communicate with the
outside world.
But the question remains, is it successful?
According to the “Checklist to end tyranny” developed by Peter
Ackerman and Hardy Merriman, there are three key capabilities of
successful civil resistance movements: the ability to unify people,
operational planning and nonviolent discipline. How does the current
campaign in Sudan measure up to this checklist?
Unity
To achieve unity, non-violent campaigners need a shared and inclusive
vision, and a leadership that is seen as legitimate. While many see
the need for fundamental reform in the way Sudan is governed, a
unifying and mobilising vision has yet to emerge.
The recent three-day protest was triggered by price hikes, but long
before that it has been clear that many people are unhappy with the
way this government has been running the country for the last 27
years. The government´s stock defence that the US sanctions and the
loss of oil income after South Sudanese independence are the reasons
for the dismissal economic and political situation is no longer
credible. People wonder what happened to the billions of dollars of
oil revenue the government has earned from concessions to oil
companies since the 1990s, since it has not been used to develop the
country. And people who can´t afford to buy food resent the fact that
40 to 70% of the national budget is spend on security, including
ongoing conflicts in Darfur, the Blue Nile region and the Nuba
Mountains. President al-Bashir went even further recently in a speech
at the headquarters of the Sudan Air Force, saying that even if the
entire government budget was spent on security, it still would not be
enough.
Given all of the above, activists confer frequently about formulating
a unifying message to protest the mismanagement of the country.
As for leadership, the campaign was instigated by people not directly
connected or representing any institutional group or party. That makes
sense given the history of repression of organized labour. When the
current regime came to power, it moved quickly to dismantle the labour
unions that had been at the forefront of popular uprisings in October
1964 and April 1985. Al-Bashir had learned his lesson, and sought to
prevent labour unions from playing a mobilising role again. In
response, people have organized themselves separately from the unions,
leading to well-organised professional groups. In addition, people
organize around specific issues such as hydroelectric dam projects,
women tea sellers and neighbourhood groups addressing issues of land
grabbing and the lack of basic service delivery.
Sudan also has protest movements such as Grifna and Reform Now that
were at the forefront of protests in 2013 and were keen to join the
recent call for action. The traditional opposition parties and armed
movements have been slower to join the recent campaign. Activist are
cautiously reaching out to these groups in order to ensure their
commitment, although the core of the activist leaders refuse to give
up control of this non-violent movement to these traditional actors.
In the current situation in Sudan, it is strategically wise to keep a
decentralised and multi-layered leadership structure, instead of
relying on one or two leading figures. This makes it more difficult
for the regime to supress the leaders of the protest movement.
Operational planning
The second element in Ackerman and Merriman’s “Checklist to end
tyranny” is operational planning. The current protest movement’s
operational planning is, like its leadership, local and dispersed.
Different activities and initiatives are developed throughout the
country. Despite the prevalence of government monitoring of
communications, people are able to share their thoughts and
initiatives. For instance, lists have been distributed of
pro-government singers and journalists so that people can boycott
them. There have also been calls to boycott the visits of government
officials. These are low risk ways of showing support for the campaign
and are difficult for the government to supress. Planning is mostly
done online. The government does at times manage to infiltrate online
groups, leading to conflicts online between pro-government ´keyboard
warriors´ and anti-government ‘electronic chickens’.
One indication of how well this system of de-centralized planning
works is the relatively quick agreement to hold another day of civil
disobedience on December 19 – the anniversary of Sudan’s declaration
of independence in 1955..
Non-violent discipline
The third element on the “Checklist to end tyranny”, remaining
non-violent even when provoked, is an important indicator of the
success of such a movement. To date, the current campaign has
maintained a disciplined, non-violent, peaceful movement. Even efforts
by the security forces to lure people into violent confrontations in
the streets have been unmasked and ridiculed online. The armed
movements in Sudan have publicly supported the civil disobedience
campaign. The question remains whether the armed groups will continue
to commit to the non-violent action, whether people will have the
patience to continue the non-violent campaign, and whether they will
continue to have confidence in the effectiveness of non-violent
methods. Some may give in to the feeling that they need to use
violence to protect the people and the protests. This would play into
the government´s hand, since the government clearly has the advantage
when it comes to violent clashes.
If people don’t obey, the rulers cannot rule.
In conclusion, the current campaign has all the ingredients to be
successful. It is too soon to say whether or not it will succeed, but
it has more potential than the armed rebellions of the last few
decades. The question remains whether Sudanese activists will be able
to build a campaign that will provide opportunities for broader
support, and whether they can define short-, mid- and long-term
objectives under a united vision while maintaining nonviolent
discipline.
Non-violent struggles are similar to armed struggles in that they are
not won overnight. Last month’s three days of civil disobedience are a
starting point showing that many Sudanese people desperately want
change are willing to run risks to obtain it.
Non-violent action is based on the insight that social, political,
economic and military power is dependent on the consent and obedience
of the people. On December 19, we will see how many people in Sudan
understand this fundamental insight and are willing to voluntarily
engage in a struggle for peaceful change.
The author is PAX programme leader
http://sudantribune.com/spip.php?article61128
END
______________________
John Ashworth
ashwor...@gmail.com
+254 725 926 297 (Kenya mobile)
+211 919 695 362 (South Sudan mobile)
+44 787 976 8030 (UK mobile)
+88 216 4334 0735 (Thuraya satphone)
Skype: jashworth1
PO Box 52002 - 00200, Nairobi, Kenya
This is a personal e-mail address and the contents do not necessarily
reflect the views of any organisation
--
--
The content of this message does not necessarily reflect John Ashworth's views. Unless explicitly stated otherwise, John Ashworth is not the author of the content and the source is always cited.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sudan-john-ashworth" group.
To post to this group, send email to sudan-john-ashworth@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sudan-john-ashworth-unsub...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.co.za/group/sudan-john-ashworth
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sudans-john-ashworth" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sudans-john-ashworth+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sudans-john-ashworth.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages