Civil society in Southern Sudan – an unexploited potential

Little space has been given to civil society in the formal peace process in Southern Sudan. However, the number of civil society organisations has grown considerably in the past two decades and there is an unexploited potential for civil society to play a crucial role in peace building and democratic transformation in the region.

By Don Bosco Malish, Programme Officer, MS Sudan

07. April 2009

Southern Sudan does not have the same strong tradition for civil society organisations as the rest of the country. Still, civil society organisations (CSOs) were active in promoting a peaceful settlement to the conflict in Southern Sudan from an early stage. One example is the fact that the first significant high-level talks involving the SPLM/A, the Koka Dam talks in 1986, were rooted in an initiative by University of Khartoum staff associations and trade unions. However, little space was given to CSOs in the formal peace initiatives.

In more recent years, however, CSOs have found ways to contribute to the broader peacemaking process through public lectures, workshops, newspaper articles and training sessions on peace. Fuelled by the prevalent war fatigue, the initiatives included, among others, Sudan First Forum, Nadwat al-Ameed (Ahfad), Women's Peace Network Initiative, the Group of 10, the el-Sheikh el-Gaali Initiative, and the Sudanese Initiative to Resolve Sudan's Governance Crisis. Peace organisations like the Sudanese Women's Peace Network and the National Civic Forum were among the first to establish direct contact with CSOs in the SPLA/M-held areas and in the Diasporas. Many, however, received external support, for example through Justice Africa's Civic Project, the Dutch government, the Konrad-Adenuer Foundation, the Friedrich Ebert Foundation and the United Nations Development Program.

Civil society influence on the Naivasha process that led to the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) in 2005 was ultimately very limited. Like the northern political opposition parties, civil society was marginalised, perceived by the government as backing SPLA/M on the main stumbling blocks in the negotiations: religion and the state, wealth redistribution, democratic transformation and accountability. Civil society engagement in briefings and informal sessions was only made possible after the wider international community became involved in the negotiations. Various civil society meetings and forums created for civil society actors, such as a series of meetings convened by Justice Africa in Kampala from 1999, were a response to the exclusion of civil society groups from the peace talks.

A reactive and vulnerable civil society

Economic deterioration, debt, political instability and ongoing conflict contribute to diverting CSOs' efforts towards addressing symptoms rather than causes at the expense of influencing policy and legislation. CSOs lack a long-term strategic vision for their programs and the in-depth research needed to guide their plans and priorities. The work is reactive and vulnerable to external influence by the state or donors: the regime has sought to divert civil society attention from important issues such as human rights violations in Southern Sudan and Darfur while oil production and revenues are 'no-go areas' for CSO activity.

The dependence on foreign funding and a lack of specialisation among CSOs has undermined the formation of effective networks, making them competitive rather than cooperative. Donor conditionality is sometimes imposed at the expense of local priorities. Stereotyped and mostly imported methods have been adopted; for example, credit and women's empowerment programs are common throughout Sudan but rarely adapted to its varying local contexts.

Civil society and peace building

Following the CPA, civil society's immediate challenges in Southern Sudan lie in peace building and democratic transformation. Meeting immediate needs must be balanced with engaging in structural change and long-term programming. CSOs can bridge the gap between what the Sudanese people want, and what the negotiating parties and the international community perceived they wanted.

CSOs can contribute in many ways by:

• Promoting civic education, democratic values and a culture of peace and human rights at the community level.
• Encouraging dialogue and promoting peaceful coexistence and cooperation between ethnic and religious groups.
• Assisting community planning and drawing attention to local, national and international problems.
• Promoting regional and local development and more equal distribution of wealth and opportunities between states and social groups.
• Promoting transparency and accountability, and monitoring the use of rehabilitation and reconstruction resources.
• Providing education on the environment, resource use and management, and promoting economic alternatives to reduce the pressure on resources and the likelihood of conflict.
• Reducing pressure on resources through direct service provision (water, medical and veterinary) to returnees and war-affected communities.

CSOs represent the main national forces working with communities to counter the impacts of war, mismanagement of resources and poor policies. Their resources for peace building include external links and extensive experience in negotiation over the last two decades, which have enabled them to survive in a hostile environment.

The way forward

If the peace building potential of CSOs is to be realised, a more effective civil society sector needs to be created. The government should legislate to support civil society – or at least create a more supportive environment. In return, CSOs need to improve their ability to coordinate and cooperate and build new alliances free of political polarisation and dependency. They will need to build their capacity to generate accurate information upon which proper long-term planning of interventions can be made. For this, they must link better with research institutions and persuade donors to finance research and surveys.

Experience from other countries shows that to immunise itself from the state's pre-emptive and restrictive measures, civil society needs self-discipline, ethical codes and an internal commitment to the values of democracy, transparency and accountability it preaches. This will help international donors identify genuine partners. Effective, independent partnerships with international organisations, the private sector and the state should be based on mutual trust and shared experience, not just financial support.