By Monim El-Jak

June 19, 2013 – Whenever Alex de Waal publishes analysis or reflections, Sudanese intellectuals and activists, and the concerned international institutions and individuals, give it priority attention. The last week of April and first week of May 2013 were for me remarkable weeks, watching de Waal coming with two articles, re-positioning himself as an advocate for “principled” activism and presenting his belief in democratization as the central pillar for resolving Sudan’s multi-layered and multi-dimensional crises. The articles, “Reclaiming Activism” and “Flawed Politicians, Flawed Peace” are writings that signal, as I see it, the rebirth of de Waal’s old “identity”, the activist, who devotes his efforts, in his own words, in “solidarity with suffering and oppressed people.”

What sparked my attention after reading the two articles was the voice of de Waal beneath the text expressing genuine compassion to the Sudan(ese) people and towards their stability and welfare. But at same time, he sounds reluctant to acknowledge some of his shortcomings or failures as an expert during his long engagement in Sudanese politics. I therefore find myself between two feelings or positions in receiving de Waal writings: the first, is to celebrate what I call the rebirth of de Waal, the principled activist, after the abandonment of this identity for about seven/eight years as he notes his first article as he returns to advocate for a holistic national approach to Sudan’s multiple crises, with democratization at the centre, supported by the three activism/advocacy principles that he outlines.

My second feeling or position upon interaction with de Waal’s recent writings is one of questioning. In the context of my personal (in)direct engagement in the same public issues that de Waal has been part of over the years, in addition to reading his intellectual products, I am forced ask: why de Waal is only now debating activism and the fate of Sudan? Is de Waal trying to offer a self-critique, albeit an unexpressed one, about his own engagement on Sudan’s issues over the last seven-eight years?

One major feature in the two pieces is de Waal’s reflection on a ‘wall of failures’ as he reviews his historic ‘principled’ positions across the fields of activism and Sudanese politics. In de Waal’s review of John Young’s book, The Fate of Sudan: The Origins and Consequences of a Flawed Peace Process, he describes the failure of “the inclusive approach championed by Justice Africa, and myself [de Waal], more than a decade ago, to resolve Sudan’s conflicts and engineer a democratic transformation.” This repositioning of himself also comes through in “Reclaiming Activism” when de Waal justifies his withdrawal from the “activist” tribe by saying that “about seven or eight years ago, I became rather uncomfortable with the word [activist]… because a group of people, in whose company I didn’t want to be, were claiming not only to be activists but to define ‘activism’ itself.”

The way I see de Waal presenting histories/events and his own engagement, in particular, make them more than just narratives. It is true that de Waal had tried to lead bright and principled initiatives seven-eight years ago as he said, and these principled efforts are still needed today because of the depth to which Sudan’s crises have reached. But I cannot easily accept the way in which connections are made in the two articles between de Waal’s principled positions of the past (seven-eight year) and of the now. My concern here is not to question the physical whereabouts of de Waal since he became “uncomfortable” with the activist identity. His roles in political negotiations on Sudan’s peacemaking processes are known. My question here is how will be possible to understand (and other “principled” Sudanese activists and victims of atrocities say “forgive”) the role de Waal’s played since he left “activism” in a series of political/“peacemaking” processes which have only deepened Sudan’s ongoing dilemmas, and to accept him now as an advocate for “principled” issues, including his ‘”personal commitment to working in solidarity with suffering and oppressed people.” Between the two narratives is there any self-critique?

In “Reclaiming Activism” Alex de Waal points to what he calls the “arrogation” of “activism” by “designer activists” reflecting on the result as offensive, demeaning and counter-productive, and which has dominated and undermined the space for ‘principled’ activism. While I fully agree and rally with Alex’s three principles of activism as presented in his article, I also fully disagree with the way that he implicitly portrays the period of his voluntary disappearance, jointing “peace platforms,” as untrue activism era. My disagreement indeed goes further to be suspecting about de Waal’s interests of recent writings, and whether it can really be seen as “the rebirth of the principled activist”? Or just laying the ground for a new political soft-landing for new failed initiatives and engagement?

I recall the engagement that was guided by the “principled activism” of de Waal before he abandoned “us” (both Sudanese and international) seven/eight years ago. We have been continuing this work up to now, thousands of principled activists, such as those working with Enough Project, Darfur Consortium, Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, and individuals such as Desmond Tutu, George Clooney, Wangari Maathai, Eric Reeves, etc. During this journey I have never seen what Alex describes as “consensus among national civil society activists viewing our regional and international partners/allies presenting narratives and prescriptions that are simplified, simplistic and pernicious.”

My disagreement with de Waal indeed goes more, coming from both my participant and observer identities, to suggest that de Waal has not been faithful to his own principles. As a result many Sudanese democrats and independent activists do not have much faith in the narrative of de the Waal Project, as it pushes false judgments into our mouths particularly with respect to our longstanding and principled relationships with regional and international activists. For example, in his unjustified enough anger against the Enough Project, de Waal tries to de-validate the views of activists such as Alhaj Warrag, noting that he is “intrigued and concerned” about his confidence in Enough’s capacity to “represent” him. Is de Waal himself organic to his three “principles” which guide an individual or organization aspiring to the honorable term activist? The answer to this I think can be found in an uncovering of choices/interests that de Waal, the public figure not the person, has made over the seven/eight years since abandoning his own activist identity.

I would like to try to trace some of the highlights of these years in order to unveil other identities and tags that de Waal has chosen to wear, which in my opinion are reasons for him to leave (un) principled activism.

In September 2004, Justice Africa, headed by Alex de Waal, was involved in the birth a courageous initiative aimed at making visible the humanitarian and human rights suffering in Darfur, the Darfur Consortium. The Consortium was composed of a diverse group of sub-Sahara African NGOs, Africa-focused international NGOs, Sudanese NGOs and civil society in addition to NGOs from the Arab region, created before Enough Project and Save Darfur. Suddenly de Waal and his Justice Africa team have disappeared from the platform and tried to erase any relationship they have with the consortium. The Darfur Consortium (now transformed as the Sudan Consortium) made notable breakthroughs on justice.

The author is Sudanese activist he can be reached at monimeljak@gmail.com

Article source: http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article47015