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

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.

The Mediation of Autocratic Regimes: How Local Officials Shaped Authoritarian Systems in Rwanda and Sudan

“…He stated, for instance, that "we should be the number one wilaya and nothing less." 20 Official videos promoting the development policy claimed that the province had a specific identity, characterized by its peacefulness and its diversity, illustrated by images of various cultural practices (Mahé 2020). In the context of a national regime that had repressed cultural practices deemed outside of the confines of the specific Islamic identity it promoted, this worked to distance Haroun to some extent from the regime and its ideology and legitimized him as someone who belonged in North Kordofan, valued local people and customs, and could consequently properly represent them.…”

“…24 While this reference to tradition made participation locally intelligible, it also stood in continuity with the regime's practices. Indeed, the Inqath had reinterpreted and implemented similar nafir many times since its inception, for instance, to build universities or roads (Mahé 2018). The nafir of the regime, just like that of the Renaissance, were implemented in practice as a form of taxation that implied accrued surveillance and control, usually using the PCs as boots on the ground.…”