BRICS, 28 November 2016
Moin Qazi – TRANSCEND Media Service
23 Nov 2016 – India has tens of thousands of NGOs, including local arms of global charities and homegrown groups, working on a wide range of causes, including poverty, gender rights, urban safety, human rights, microfinance environmental protection, healthcare, agriculture and clean energy. They form the bulwark of India’s vibrant civil society, which is crucial to developing an effective government and an engaged populace. The recent decisions of Indian government imposing stern controls on foreign nongovernmental organizations is deplorable but, sadly, not surprising. Illiberal and authoritarian governments are inherently allergic to civil society and, more broadly, to any institutions they don’t control. India and several other countries have either passed or proposed similar laws to curtail the activities of nongovernmental groups. Research done by the Intelligence Bureau and other agencies into the funding of NGOs active in stalling development projects across the country show that the ultimate source of much of the funds received by them come from commercial and other interests with a direct stake in particular outcomes in India, such as a slowing down of energy self-sufficiency.
But sadly not all NGOs are necessarily formed for altruistic reasons, because in some cases forming an NGO makes good economic sense, to the founder.
“Particularly for those activists who dare to challenge economic and political elites, the environment in which civil society operates has continued to deteriorate,” reported Civicus, the global civil society alliance, in their 2016 State of Civil Society review.
There is a growing tribe of briefcase NGOs .They exists, metaphorically or literally, inside a briefcase. It may have well-written proposals and access to western donors but , any funding it receives for programmes goes into the pockets of those running the NGO.
After all the NGO promoters come from the same society that all of us come from and there is no reason to believe that only the most honest will be involved. “NGO” is now a catchall term that covers agendas like “abolition of child labor “, “promotion of good hygiene and sanitary practices,” “women’s rights, “to international missions like “climate change “and “conflict resolution.” Many briefcase NGOs begin with noble intentions. But international funding agencies often dictate funding and programme priorities, causing cash-strapped NGOs to chase funding and strategize their mission to suit donor objectives.
As a consequence of chasing funding, organizations shift their focus from their core mission, resulting in what is popularly called in NGO discourse as “mission drift”. It is this phenomenon that has given rise to briefcase NGOs.
The civil society is one of the key pillars of national governance serving as an informal watchdog and a key safeguard for human rights and fundamental freedoms. India has, however, been experiencing an exponential growth of this without the commensurate improvement in the quality of their governance. In fact the past few years have seen degeneration and unethical practices creeping into what was once a noble sector. Most NGOs are painfully mired in corruption and misappropriation of funds.
Civil society as a whole, and NGOs as a major part of it, has successfully campaigned to make human rights discourse and environmental issues a part of mainstream political agendas. They have also been instrumental on drawing focus on issues such as gender-based and religiously-driven segregation and discrimination, besides creating public awareness on issues pertaining to health, education and sanitation. But most importantly, they have been leading public opinion on the need to hold public representatives and government officials accountable, and on demanding transparency in governance
NGOs working in the humanitarian and development sectors won official approval in the 1980s and 1990s, but there are signs now that they are losing favor. The NGO sector stands accused by some of complacency and self-interest, on the one hand, and of being ineffectual and irrelevant on the other. NGOs are increasingly challenged to demonstrate their legitimacy as representative voices of civil society. NGOs themselves are taking a hard look at their mandates, their core values, and their role on a changing international stage.
There is abundant anecdotal evidence that suggests that the lacunae in laws have allowed the “family NGOs” where the board of directors and senior staff members all come from either the same family or consist of close relatives and friends. The flaws in the laws have also allowed many NGOs to resurface with new names and under a new registration, but with the same people, after donors or governments blacklisted them for mismanagement or corrupt practices. Absence of accountability sometimes leads NGOs to fund projects, which end up achieving results directly opposed to what they had originally aimed for.
One major weakness of the NGOs is they don’t have a specific mission. A project is announced and new NGOs spring up with their mission aligned with the mission of the project. Once the project is over, the mission is redefined to suit the new project. Some local NGOs do not have the institutional resources to spend even a fraction of the funds they receive. The country director of a leading international charitable organization used to dole out 20 to 30 million rupees to NGOs, which could not use even 20 per cent of the money. The same organization had to cancel agreements with local NGOs when there was incidence of money being swept away without accountability. Several million dollars continue to be called back by the donors every year because the money could not be used due to similar problems.
Some fundamental attributes of good and committed NGOs are:
The flip side of the problem of mismanagement is over-bureaucratization of NGOs, which results in inefficiency and inertia. Many donors and their local partners sometimes incorrectly overemphasize institutionalization over effective service delivery. Some of them actually want NGOs to replicate corporate administrative structures so as to effectively take care of cash flows and other human resource problems. Such bureaucratization and corporatization of NGOs has entrenched new bureaucracies similar to the ones that the state has and which are equally cumbersome and inefficient.
NGOs engaged in service delivery are taking up the role of the state and thus enabling the state to abdicate its responsibility towards its citizens. Several NGOs are playing a big role in delivering services such as health and education belie the distinction between voicing the concerns of citizens – which is the function of civil society – and taking care of citizens, which is the responsibility of the government. An active civil society and a responsible government are both features of a democratic and forward-looking society. When NGOs are seen to possess more resources to deliver services, while at the same time still claiming to be a part of civil society, they are mixing the two factors and produce outcomes, which are not always helpful. One obvious result of the over-resourcefulness of NGOs is that the state itself starts relying upon them, for example, to carry out research or data collection.
My involvement with the NGO sector for almost four decades has been a story of disillusionment. I have seen so many NGOs existing only in eye-popping websites and fancy brochures. There is often a total lack of professionalism and transparency, exploitation of staff which is underpaid and much of the grant money is often siphoned off to the personal coffers of NGO promoters.
The Indian laws that govern NGOs are very weak and since most NGOs have political affiliations, political parties have a vested interest in not arming them with stronger teeth. The two laws that govern them were framed over a century ago by the British, when social and political ethics were of the highest order and the administration of laws was very stringent. These two legal regulations are: Societies Registration Act, 1860 and The Indian Trusts Act, 1882.
With a mammoth size of the NGO sector, it is impossible for the State to effectively monitor and supervise these. The corporatized NGOs are subject to stringent supervision by the RBI, whereas the ordinary NGOs, which account for 90%, operate almost without any supervision. Critics are quick to point out that NGOs don’t practice what they preach, avoid accountability and transparency and are quite averse to any form of regulation which they feel could be intrusive to their autonomy. Financial management and accounting is one area where they will fiercely resist external scrutiny.
The idea that NGOs constitute a middle space between the public sector on the one hand and the private sector on the other is problematic. It was thought that they would be free of the profiteering and corporate methods of the private sector and the corruption of the public one. But in reality, NGOs have both features, a tendency to go after corporate salaries and perks as well as the tendency towards less transparency and accountability than is desirable.”
With some large NGOs having become heavily corporatized entities, where staffs earn above market-based salaries and where foreign money flows affluently, it is natural to expect some kind of transparency and accountability. This includes accountability for salaries being paid to the right people and for the right purposes as well as ensuring that foreign funds are spent on the projects they are meant for.
The non-corporate NGO sector, which is still huge, continues to attract huge grants, but continues to be plagued by inept financial management, poor transparency, and weak governance. When, in the past, governments have talked about bringing in new and broader legislation in this regard, NGOs have been quick to term such efforts as politically motivated curbs on their freedom to act. There may be some truth in their argument. Many NGOs are working on projects – such as reproductive health, the education of girls, etc. – which some political parties or the government may not endorse due to ideological reasons. If there exists a strong government regulatory body to oversee the working of NGOs, the fate of such projects and the NGOs working on them will heavily depend on whether a government approves of their work or not.
The burgeoning NGO sector is thus not a welcome sign. It signals continuing manifestation of corruption and embezzlement of precious grants and donor funds meant for the poor and marginalized sections of society. These groups still languish even when huge funds continue to be deployed in the system for their welfare.
The message here isn’t to cut funding of NGOs in the developing world, but to encourage funders to work more with local communities to understand how capabilities, needs, and aspirations can be reflected in NGO presence and funding needs. While community partners sometimes have different priorities, this doesn’t inherently have to be in tension with the idea of doing good. Understanding how to develop positive, mutually-beneficial relationships between local organizations and funders is key to preventing misuse of precious money by NGOs.
Moin Qazi, PhD Economics, PhD English, is the author of the bestselling book, Village Diary of a Heretic Banker. He has worked in the development finance sector for almost four decades in India and can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.