|
NGOs:
A BOOMING BUSINESS (Ismail Ali Ismail)
Origin
The
term "Non-Governmental Organizations" (NGOs) is
self-explanatory only up to a point, for it does not include
private businesses and other organizations which are in pursuit
of profits. By 'profits' I mean 'pecuniary gains' because
a person, or an establishment for that matter, can profit
in many other ways. NGOs are, therefore, by definition non-profit-making
organizations. They serve or profess to serve much nobler
aims and should on this score draw the support, nay the admiration,
of the rest of us. Although the UN is given credit for their
origin (vide Chapter 10 of the UN Charter) NGOs have actually
been in existence for the last two centuries and the best
known - and perhaps the oldest - NGO which is the International
Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) came into being as early
as 1863. NGOs therefore pre-date the UN which itself was established
as late as 1945. Be that as it may, most of us heard about
or became familiar with NGOs only two or three decades ago.
I have served the UN for 26 years before I retired and there
was but a scant mention of them until the 1990s when circumstances
forced them upon us and, willy-nilly, they featured prominently
in our development programme.
Coming upon the Development Scene
NGOs
have mushroomed so exponentially that we are now all struck
with awe by their ubiquity: it is scarcely likely for anyone
to take a step in any direction without coming face to face
with an NGO of one sort or another. But there are reasons
- and valid ones at that - why NGOs are so many and so varied,
for they are international and local; multi-purpose and single-purpose;
countrywide and limited catchment area. One of the main reasons
for their existence is, without doubt, the disillusionment
of donor countries and organizations with governments characterized
by lack of probity, lack of honesty, and lack of accountability
- qualities which vitiated the intended effects of what is
known as ODA (Official Development Assistance). Africa, in
particular, has become the 'graveyard of foreign aid'. But
things deteriorated even further and the continent (always
South of the Sahara) became associated with nauseating pictures
of drought and famine; emaciated bodies of children; disease;
scenes of massacres; and, inevitably, mass migrations of walking
skeletons seeking refuge in neighbouring countries some of
whom actually fell and died while being filmed. Those pictures
- too graphic to look at - invaded the privacy of relatively
rich people in the developed world while watching television
in their quiet living rooms and shook their conscience to
its foundation. I remember the BBC (World Service) recounting
the story of an old Scottish couple who upon seeing such pictures
from Ethiopia in 1978 were so affected that they sold their
house and furniture and donated the proceeds to charity. It
is because of such pictures coming on television screens almost
on a yearly basis that there are so many NGOs (of which Oxfam
is the most famous) that are based on charity. The frequency
of such tragedies has earned African governments such outrageously,
but deservedly, insulting sobriquets as " rogue states"
or " rogue governments". But African governments
had lost their compunction long before and had long learnt
how to develop - and indeed have developed - thick skin even
to the most excoriating of criticisms. Some of the African
states, like ours, have, as a result become "failed states"
- a term which is applied only to where the state itself has
been wiped out by moral asphyxiation. I believe, however,
that a state which exists only in name because it has ceased
to fulfill its basic functions to its citizenry should also
be pronounced a "failed state". The situation of
African states being beyond redemption, aid was channeled
through NGOs and this gave incentives to create more of them
in an attempt to fill a void left by the states. But, NGOs
also proliferated because there was so much money around (from
ODA and from generous voluntary contributions) which could
be channeled through them because they were mobile and were,
owing to their relative size, unencumbered by bureaucratic
red tape; they could also be brought to account and controlled
unlike governments which were sovereign and did not entirely
depend on bilateral funding.
It
may seem that I veered away from my subject, which is NGOs,
into issues of Governance. But it is also in Governance, not
only in development, that NGOs are asked to play a role within
the context of "Civil Society" - that term which
has so far eluded definition. NGOs are part of a complex network
which we call "Civil Society Organizations" (CSOs
for short). But, what is "Civil Society"? I have
participated in a number of international fora on the role
'Civil Society' should play in Governance but participants
never agreed on a definition. I still vividly recall an encounter
I had with a young Latin American lady in 1996 in an international
symposium on Local Governance which we had in Gothenburg (Sweden)
and I was asked to serve as a resource person for the Working
Group on Civil Society. In the middle of the discussion a
lady from Latvia said that there was no civil society in her
country when it was part of the Soviet Union. I have always
held the view, as I still do, that "Civil Society"
is a term which can only be defined by what it is not. When
you exclude the government, public services and the military
what remains is what we call 'Civil Society'. The Latin American
young lady who was a colleague from a UNDP country office
( I have since forgotten which country) vehemently disagreed
with my definition but could not come up with one of her own.
She simply insisted that NGOs, farmers associations, community
organizations, women's organizations and other PVOs (Private
Voluntary Associations) were what is meant by 'Civil Society'.
I replied that NGOs and PVOs were 'Civil Society Organizations'.
She agreed, but then I asked: if you remove the organizations
are we not then left with 'Civil Society'? My contention was
that 'Civil Society' irrespective of being organized or not
is always there. The young lady stood her ground and would
not budge; and we left it at that. However, although the controversy
still lingers in UN and other fora my definition approximates
the kind of 'Civil Society' Antonio Gramsci (the man who first
came up with the concept of 'Civl Society) had in mind. Gramsci
was a contemporary and a class-mate of Palmiro Togliati, the
illustrious Secretary-General of the Italian Communist Party
of the sixties and father of 'Polycentrism' which represented
then a new line in communist thought.
In
our National Reconciliation Conference at Nairobi some critics,
most of whom were academics, contended that the " Civil
Society" was deliberately and unfairly left out. By 'Civil
Society' they clearly meant civil society organizations of
which the NGOs are obviously the most prominent. I heard and
appreciated a reply given over the BBC by Hussein Aideed.
He hit the hammer on the nail when he said words to the effect
that: " This is a conference of clans and in which all
clans are represented. I have never heard of a clan called
'civil society' but private individuals cannot be admitted
into the Conference under that label; they belong to clans
and should come through their respective clans." I could
not agree more. But if civil society organizations are politicized
the noble purposes for which they had been established will
be lost as their leaders become politicians. In fact, the
trade unions of the United Kingdom (which are, of course civil
society organizations) established the Labour Party which
is now ruling that country. Incidentally, we did have in our
own country "Civil Society Organizations" represented,
albeit nominally, in our regional and district councils at
the time we were toying with "Scientific Socialism".
But such an arrangement which is integral to what is called
a 'comprehensive system of local government', flies in the
face of the role Gramsci visualized for "Civil Society";
for his purpose of advocating 'Civil Society' was to have
a countervailing force to the State - a 'Civil Society' which
would exert pressure on the state from time to time and thus
keep it always on its toes. That, of course, is the best contribution
the 'Civil Society' can make to Good Governance. Gramsci did
not want a 'Civil Society' which would be subsumed in the
State. The position of those who were advocating a role for
civil society in the Somali Reconciliation Conference was
for all intents and purposes a negation of Gramsci's original
idea.
Performance
Record
I
asked a colleague who was retiring several years ago as to
what his plans were for 'life after retirement'. He told me
he would open his own NGO and that would be his post-retirement
business venture. As he showed me the detailed plan of what
he had in mind I realized that he was not joking. But, curiously
enough, all of us who were there laughed about it. Opening
an NGO in countries where control mechanisms do not function
is very easy and it is also easy to fake the mechanisms, such
as a Board of Directors, which international donors or international
NGOs (who sub-contract) stipulate. Procedures, processes,
and accounting systems can beautifully be laid on paper without
applying them at all; they are just for the eyes of visitors.
Such is the situation of the local NGOs which are privately
owned and privately run. It should not be surprising as local
NGOs can never become oases of propriety and virtuous management
in a mileu full of corruption, clanism and greed. I fully
agree that people who are responsible for the management of
an NGO should be given an agreed remuneration but to misappropriate
the funds or material or ration intended to help poor people
is utterly nauseating. The NGOs of course do not make profits
because they are supposedly altruistic; it is the individuals
who run them that profit and grow fat and relatively rich
on resources meant for the neediest of people.
Naturally,
NGOs have to show some ocular evidence for the funds they
receive in order to ensure the flow of more funds. They show
therefore, a clinic here, a well there, a school building
here, a dirt road there and they, of course, exaggerate the
costs. There is little doubt, if any, that the private business
which we call 'NGOs' is really booming. How else can we explain
the ever increasing proliferation of NGOs? I must admit I
have not researched this matter but impressions are important
and there is a lot of literature which is highly critical
of NGOs - not only the local but also international. What
is surely needed is an investigation to expose the culprits
and close their NGOs. I do not know how many NGOs we have
but they are certainly in the hundreds if not thousands and
I believe that if all of them were working properly and at
full capacity they would have been able to transform the country.
The
international NGOs, on the other hand, are of course better
managed and better controlled. Because their rich governments
trust them they manage huge amounts of money. I was looking
at some old statistics and the figures I see are startling.
The aid channeled through international NGOs dramatically
increased from $2.7bn in 1970 to 7.2bn. in 1990. The OECD
estimated that Northern (international) NGOs spend $9-10bn.
annually. I conjecture, for I am no longer au courant, that
the current levels of expenditure have risen to even dizzier
heights. But, those who are interested can of course make
a little research and find the latest figures. International
NGOs have also been severely criticized. Much of the money
they receive is spent on administrative overheads and the
comfort of their international staff, and only a trickle of
it percolates to the ground where the bulk of the money was
supposed to be spent. Nevertheless, all these billions of
dollars are classified as aid money. The result is that international
NGOs also fail miserably on the ground and blame it on the
local people and local conditions.
Conclusion
With
all their imperfections most of the NGOs play a useful part,
however small, in development. With so many of them around
I am sure that they serve to alleviate that terrible problem
of unemployment. And I agree that many of their shortcomings
can be blamed on corrupt individuals, on the donors themselves
whose control is too elastic, on the educated class who do
not lift a voice in defense of the intended beneficiaries,
on the press and websites which are not even aware that they
can play a role, and, last but not least, on a population
which is not vigilant and is largely unaware and uneducated.
I do not doubt for one moment, however, when - rather than
if - we achieve good government those NGOs will be regulated
and held accountable. Until then we can only observe and comment.
It is my considered view that someone adept at field research
should take the role of the NGOs seriously and provide us
a cost-benefit analysis in concrete facts and figures; I suppose
it is a rich field for Ph.D dissertations.
Ismail Ali Ismail
E-Mail:geeldoonia@gmail.com
| |
