Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T06:53:57.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Tradition Co-opted: Participatory Development and Authoritarian Rule in Sudan

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 September 2017

Anne-Laure Mahé
Anne-Laure Mahé*
Affiliation:
Université de Montréal
*
Department of Political Science, Pavillon Lionel-Groulx, 3150, rue Jean-Brillant, Montréal QC, H3 T 1N8, email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The concept of participation is a cornerstone of development and democracy discourses, but studies on participatory development rarely examine the political regimes those policies are embedded in. Yet, in authoritarian contexts, participation is ambiguous, potentially threatening—as it can be connected to democratic ideals—and it also can be used as a resource, a tool for domination. Through an analysis of participatory development projects implemented in Sudan, I explore how power relations are renegotiated at the local level. Relying on data collected during fieldwork in Khartoum and the state of North Kordofan, where the projects are located, I highlight the disconnect between the discourse surrounding the participatory devices, which establishes an horizontal relationship between citizens and the local government, and the actual practices that strengthen the latter's power. In doing so, the article challenges a linear, top-down conception of authoritarian power and reveals the tensions that exist between institutional levels.

Résumé

Le concept de participation est la pierre angulaire des discours sur le développement et la démocratie, mais l'analyse des politiques de développement participatif s'intéresse rarement aux régimes politiques au sein desquels ces dernières prennent place. Les pratiques participatives sont pourtant particulièrement ambiguës dans les contextes autoritaires. Elles peuvent en effet être une menace–étant donné leur lien avec la notion de démocratie–ou une ressource utilisée pour reproduire la domination. A travers l'analyse d'une politique de développement participatif mise en place au Soudan, j'explore comment les relations de pouvoir sont négociées au niveau local. En utilisant les données collectées lors d'une enquête de terrain à Khartoum et dans la province du Nord Kordofan, où les projets sont situés, je met en évidence la déconnexion entre un discours qui décrit les dispositifs participatifs comme relevant d'une relation horizontale entre les citoyens et le gouvernement local et des pratiques concrètes qui renforcent le pouvoir de ce dernier. L'article questionne ainsi les conceptions linéaire du pouvoir autoritaire, qui s'appliquerait du haut vers le bas, du dirigeant à la population, et révèle les tensions qui existent entre les différents niveaux institutionnels.

Type
Research Article/Étude originale
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 51 , Issue 2 , June 2018 , pp. 233 - 252
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The author wishes to thank the Centre for Social, Legal and Economic Studies in Khartoum for its financial and logistical support during the fieldwork this article is based on.

References

Abbas, Ali Abdalla. 1991. “The National Islamic Front and the Politics of Education.” Middle East Report 172: 22–25.Google Scholar
Amselle, Jean-Loup. 2008. “Retour Sur ‘l'invention de La Tradition.” L'Homme 1: 187–94.Google Scholar
Askouri, Ali. 2011. “Investissements Chinois En Afrique: Les Ingrédients D'une Stratégie de Déstabilisation.” Alternatives Sud 18: 133.Google Scholar
Bierschenk, Thomas and Olivier de Sardan, Jean-Pierre. 2014. States at Work: Dynamics of African Bureaucracies. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.Google Scholar
Blundo, Giorgio and Le Meur, Pierre-Yves. 2008. The Governance of Daily Life in Africa: Ethnographic Explorations of Public and Collective Services. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.Google Scholar
Botes, Lucius and van Rensburg, Dingie. 2000. “Community Participation in Development: Nine Plagues and Twelve Commandments.” Community Development Journal 35 (1): 41–58.Google Scholar
Brancati, Dawn. 2014. “Democratic Authoritarianism: Origins and Effects.” Annual Review of Political Science 17: 313–26.Google Scholar
Brownlee, Jason. 2007. Authoritarianism in an Age of Democratization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chambers, Robert. 1983. Rural Development: Putting the Last First. World Development Series. Upper Saddle River NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Cornwall, Andrea and Brock, Karen. 2005. “What Do Buzzwords Do for Development Policy? A Critical Look at ‘Participation,’ ‘Empowerment’ and ‘Poverty Reduction.’” Third World Quarterly 26 (7): 1043–60.Google Scholar
Davidson, Andrew P. 1996. In the Shadow of History: The Passing of Lineage Society. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
Edelman, Murray. 1988. Constructing the Political Spectacle. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ewald, Janet. 1990. Soldiers, Traders, and Slaves: State Formation and Economic Transformation in the Greater Nile Valley, 1700–1885. Madison WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Ferguson, James. 1994. The Anti-Politics Machine: “Development,” Depoliticization and Bureaucratic Power in Lesotho. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 1982. “The Subject and Power.” Critical inquiry 8 (4): 777–95.Google Scholar
Gandhi, Jennifer. 2008. Political Institutions under Dictatorship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gourgues, Guillaume, Rui, Sandrine and Topçu, Sezin. 2013. “Gouvernementalité et Participation.” Participations 2: 5–33.Google Scholar
Henkel, Heiko and Stirrat, Roderick. 2001. “Participation as Spiritual Duty; Empowerment as Secular Subjection.” In Participation: The New Tyranny? ed. Cooke, Bill and Kothari, Uma. Development studies. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
Jouve, Bernard. 2005. “La Démocratie En Métropoles: Gouvernance, Participation et Citoyenneté.” Revue française de science politique 55 (2): 317–37.Google Scholar
Kordofan. State Ministry of Finance and Economy. 2014. Total of Nafîr's Revenues. October 2013-April 2014. El Obeid.Google Scholar
Kordofan. State Government and the Republic of Sudan. 2014. Renaissance convention.Google Scholar
Kothari, Uma. 2001. “Power, Knowledge and Social Control in Participatory Development.” In Participation: The New Tyranny? ed. Cooke, Bill and Kothari, Uma. Development Studies. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
Leal, Pablo Alejandro. 2007. “Participation: The Ascendancy of a Buzzword in the Neoliberal Era.” Development in Practice 17 (4/5): 539–48.Google Scholar
LeVan, Carl. 2015. “Subnational Legislative Politics and African Democratic Development.” In African State Governance: Subnational Politics and National Power, ed. LeVan, Carl, Fashagba, Joseph Olayinka and McMahon, Edward R. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Mann, Laura. 2011. “The Retreat of the State and the Market: Liberalisation and Education Expansion in Sudan under the NCP. Doctoral dissertation. University of Edinburgh, Scotland.Google Scholar
Ostrom, Elinor. 1994. “Constituting Social Capital and Collective Action.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 6 (4): 527–62.Google Scholar
Ostrom, Elinor and Ahn, T.K.. 2009. “The Meaning of Social Capital and Its Link to Collective Action.” In Handbook of Social Capital: The Troika of Sociology, Political Science and Economics, ed. Svendsen, Gert Tinggaard and Haase Svendse, Gunnar Lind. London: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Palomares, Élise and Rabaud, Aude. 2006. “Minoritaires et Citoyens? Faites Vos Preuves!” L'Homme et la société 2: 135–60.Google Scholar
Parizet, Raphaëlle. 2011. “Se rebeller ou participer: les enjeux de la participation comme élément du développement en milieu autochtone.” Paper presented at the Congrès Annuel de l'Association Française de Science Politique, Strasbourg.Google Scholar
Rocha, Daniella. 2013. “Logiques et Pratiques de Participation dans les Périphéries de Brasilia.” Revue Internationale de Politique Comparée 20 (4): 123–43.Google Scholar
Salole, Gerry. 1991. “Participatory Development: The Taxation of the Beneficiary?” Journal of Social Development in Africa 6 (2): 5–18.Google Scholar
Scott, James C. 1998. Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Uehara, Edwina S. 1995. “Reciprocity Reconsidered: Gouldner's Moral Norm of Reciprocity'and Social Support.” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 12 (4): 483–502.Google Scholar
Verhoog, F., Bubtana, A., Abayazid, O. and Kharat, A.. 1993. The New Sudanese Universities. UNESCO.Google Scholar
Wedeen, Lisa. 1999. Ambiguities of Domination: Politics, Rhetoric, and Symbols in Contemporary Syria. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
World Food Programme. 2013. Comprehensive Food Security Assessment, North Kordofan, Sudan.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Mahé supplementary material

Mahé supplementary material 1

Download Mahé supplementary material(File)
File 16.4 KB