About the Theme

In this symposium we are not only discussing the problems of terminology (the discourse of development) and what these terms tell us as well as what they obscure, but we will also consider the various approaches to “development” (deconstructing that very term itself and the buzzwords that bolster it); the morality and ethics of development schemes and programs; the efficacy on the ground; the goals; the consideration of human capabilities, i.e., the human development approach as a counter-narrative to the economist approach (based on GDP and other metrics most familiar from the World Bank and IMF); the unintended consequences of various projects; and what we have to say about Sudan in this matrix.  Do we have any “success” stories to put forward about Sudan, many of us scholars and practitioners having written about the failures?  Where can Futures Thinking lead us? Can we have hope?

The most recent Human Development Index (HDI) ranked Sudan at the low end of the scale (2015) and the last available poverty rate puts 46% of the population under the poverty line (2009).  The Sudan Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (2014) shows that more than half the population is without electricity, a third without access to clean water, and two thirds without adequate sanitation. While national rates supposedly allow us Sudanese and Sudanists to see the big picture and compare ourselves with other nations, they do not show the disparity within the nation. For example, UNICEF’s 2015 estimate that over a third of children are out of school further highlighted that these children would most likely live in conflict-stricken regions. The UN estimates that one in every eight Sudanese was in need of humanitarian assistance in 2017, and almost half of these millions are in Darfur. We can argue that, with a national debt of over 50 billion dollars, Sudan accomplished neither construction nor liberation.[i]

We may be drawn to consider the various factors that are seen as contributors to this state of affairs--colonial legacy, protracted wars, marginalization, mismanagement, corruption, etc.--a seemingly never-ending cycle of despair and dependency. We may also want to reflect on different analyses of root causes such as those critical of intellectuals (e.g., Mansour Khalid, 1974, 1998), or those focused on specific issues such as ecological and identity conflicts (e.g., Mohamed Sulieman, 2000), or those stressing marginalization and cultural dimensions (e.g., Mohamed Jalal Hashim, 2014); and on other analyses based on suggested correlations and debated causations. In this symposium we want to debate the contentions, arguments, and alternative development theories, and to compare approaches. We are even keener to explore the theoretical underpinnings (e.g., modernization vs. sustainability, exogenous vs. endogenous change, etc.) of development approaches, using local or global examples to deconstruct how we envision change in the society when we choose a particular approach for our project, that is, an alternative image of the future for people involved.         

We will take our ideas from both Sudanese activists who have worked at a grassroots or ground level and from Sudanese scholars.  We will also consult some of the earlier breakthrough international literature on the subject.  For example, Walter Rodney’s famous charge that Europe underdeveloped Africa (1972) and Julius Nyerere’s Ujamaa experience in Tanzania (1968).  Later, Arturo Escobar writes that development projects have made and unmade the “Third World” (1995).  Amartya Sen equates development and freedom (1999).  William Easterly talks about the tyranny of experts (2014).  Martha Nussbaum (2011 and earlier works) sees development as creating human capabilities.  For her “the key question to ask, when comparing societies and assessing their basic decency or justice is ‘What is each person able to do and to be?’  In other words, the approach takes each person as an end, asking not just about the total or average well-being but about the opportunities available to each person.  It is focused on choice or freedom…It thus commits itself to respect for people’s powers of self-definition.”

Some of the thematic and practical questions, in addition to a discussion of the concept of “development” or related concepts that participants might consider (but should not be limited to) are:  (1) Which development theories are dominant (or less tapped) in Sudanese projects? What does their selection (or omission) reflect about Sudanese notions of social change? (2) What are some of the Sudanese small-scale/neighbourhood projects that we can follow as models? (3) What are some of the qualities within various larger schemes that have worked? (4) Who are some of the Sudanese scholars and activists whose works have provoked us? (5) Are there some regions of Sudan that have fared better in terms of development? (6) What might be the importance of using other lenses to assess development projects, e.g., gender, disability, class, ethnic identities, etc.? (7) What are the fields/disciplines that have gained most from and given most to development projects? (8) What are some local concepts/traditions/customs that cohere with or conflict with development? In what ways? (9) What are some of the lessons we can learn from history or the present? (10) What can Sudanese (or each Sudanese person) do or be 15 years from now?

---

[i] A quote often attributed to Ismail Alazhari (the first prime minister in independent Sudan) “Liberation Not Construction” has been used to argue that Sudan’s development path took the wrong turn at independence (Dawalbait, 2017).