Page 32 - EVOLUTION OF THE SUDAN PEOPLE’S LIBERATION MOVEMENT(SPLM),

meant to pauperize the people that are dominated.

It is important we recall that the neocolonial dependence model, as one of the models under the
internationaldependence revolution, holds that underdevelopment is a direct product of Western countries

hegemonic dominance of world politics, using their military and economic power to, deliberately or not
deliberately, to under develop the periphery countries. According to Todaro and Smith (2004), this model
of development views developing countries as beset by institutional, political, and economic rigidities,
both domestic and international, and caught up in a dependence and dominance relationship with countries

(Todaro and Smith, 2004).

Cabral’s work presents a different approach, in a very different context, with some of the same values.
His advice to militants in his organization reflected a commitment to revolutionary democracy: ‘Do not be

afraid of the people and persuade the people to take part in all the decisions which concern them – this is the
basic condition of revolutionary democracy, which little by little we must achieve in accordance with the
development of our struggle and our life.’ He addresses this question in a dialectical way, acknowledging
what our movements have been beginning to understand: that oppression and exploitation rob people of the
capacity to self-govern, both structurally and psychologically, and that building that capacity is a core task

within the revolutionary struggle, and not after.

This very same assessment is built into radical community organizing that seeks to develop working class
leaders who can advance the social justice movement as a whole. Structures of support, capacity-building,
and decision making that we have built in the community organizing sector prioritize people directly

impacted by the problems of capitalism, and are attempts to build that kind of revolutionary democracy
within our progressive movements.

On social movements National liberation movements aim to free a certain geographical territory and its

population (nation) from a regime considered as suppressive and / or foreign-ruled. As the demand for
national liberation radically puts the existing balances of power into question, the resulting encounters
frequently take a violent course. Both the understanding of what a ‘nation’ is and that of what constitutes
‘freedom’ or ‘liberation’ are constructed discursively and are subject to historical and regional changes

(Clins, 2002).

In general, when viewing the history of the Americas there are three paradigms under which national
liberation movements have been constituted. The first phase was based on the paradigm of the struggle
for independence of colonies and their reconstitution as self-sufficient nations. These movements were

ideologically undernourished by the liberal and republican spirit of the Enlightenment; the European
immigrants and their descendants were fundamental actors. In the second half of the 18th century, 13
British colonies in North America refused to pay the taxes imposed by the British Parliament, leading to
the War of Independence (1775-1783), to the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and to the passing of the

constitution of the USA in 1787.

Significantly, at the final meeting on the Declaration of Independence, the passage expressing criticism
of slavery was removed– African Americans only received full, formal civil rights in the USA in 1866,
and only with the Civil Rights Act of 1968 were all forms of discrimination forbidden. In addition, the

displacement of the Native Americans and the appropriation of their territories by European immigrants

26