Paper short abstract:

A comparative analysis of two contrasting approaches to aid in Sudan: the international humanitarian aid system's traditional top-down model and new communal mutual aid structures. The paper applies a people-centered research approach, using insights from contributors and beneficiaries.

Paper long abstract:

The ongoing military conflict between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces destroyed Sudan’s population, administrative, and industrial centers. This has resulted in unprecedented displacement, food insecurity, and health crises for the civilian population. The international humanitarian aid system has largely failed to deliver assistance to affected communities, with many organizations unable to access conflict zones or respond effectively to the displacement crisis.

In this context, Sudanese civil society has leveraged its organizational experience, notably through the Resistance Committees, to develop mutual aid initiatives that address urgent public needs. These grassroots efforts, including emergency rooms and similar organizations, have demonstrated remarkable efficiency and resilience despite limited financial and institutional support. This contrast highlights the need for a critical examination of the shortcomings of conventional international humanitarian aid systems.

This paper offers a people-centered critique of current approaches, drawing on insights from practitioners, professionals and beneficiaries of mutual aid initiatives and humanitarian assistance programs. Their contextualized and well-informed perspectives underscore the potential of mutual aid models to provide sustainable and efficient alternatives. This research contributes to broader discussions on reimagining aid and service provision to better address the needs of conflict-affected populations