NGOs: A BOOMING BUSINESS

[Taleexi]

NGOs: A BOOMING BUSINESS

 

Ismail Ali Ismail

December 24, 2005

 

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

 

source : wardheernews.com