6
POLITICAL conservatives worry that NGOs spy, social conservatives fret that they convert and economic conservatives detest their anti-neoliberalism advocacy. International NGOs (INGOs) infuriate conservatives particularly given their Western origins.
There are thousands of INGOs globally, with diverse aims and performances. Hence, mounting a blanket defence of INGOs is risky. However, there is a smaller core of well-respected INGOs governed by the principles of humanitarianism, transparency and independence which one can defend confidently. Such INGOs are distinguishable by their membership of large international consortia, subscription to humanitarian principles and track record. In Pakistan, 50-odd such INGOs populate the Pakistan Humanitarian Forum. Ironically, it is not the rest but the ‘best’ which have attracted Pakistani ire. The government seemingly has concerns even about iconic INGOs like Oxfam and Save the Children (STC) which refused huge USAID contracts in Iraq since they considered America to be an illegal occupying force there.
Critics accuse INGOs of spying. However, since accusing STC of helping the US spy on Osama bin Laden, security agencies have produced no evidence, in fact not even a complete story. STC denies the charges. Until I see credible evidence, I will attach greater credence to the statements of senior STC officials rather than Pakistani officials given their respective track records on veracity. Ironically, STC is not even very close to the US government.
Many development agencies enjoy cosy relations with the US and receive contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars. However, such agencies are generally not NGOs but for-profit development contractors. They look like NGOs but do not subscribe to the principles of transparency and independence. One contractor was accused of facilitating American regime change operations abroad recently. It works in Pakistan, but ironically has not attracted ire while credible INGOs have.
Security agencies resent NGO work in conflict-affected areas. However, the main problem is not NGOs wanting to work there, but government restrictions on them in violation of international laws about unimpeded aid.
As an NGO worker in a previous life, I fought creatively to get aid past government restrictions to people trapped in conflict in Sri Lanka, Sudan etc. I would do the same in Pakistan, if needed. Obviously, the government should restrict NGOs when active combat is under way. However, there was little justification for restricting NGO activities in Awaran after the earthquake and with North Waziristan IDPs when religious charities were given access.
It is the fear of NGOs revealing HR abuses that leads to bans.
It is the fear of NGOs highlighting human rights violations that motivates government bans. Even on topics like women and minority rights and mal-governance, the government resents NGO advocacy work and accuses NGOs of maligning Pakistan even though NGO advocacy in Pakistan is fairly muted due to terrorism and government restrictions. The government should welcome such advocacy as it can help improve its performance.
Critics feel that INGOs contribute little and should be kicked out. Such statements come from well-off people not needing NGO aid. The closer one gets to the ground, the greater is the appreciation of NGO work. Local officials admit that they largely depend on NGOs during disasters while communities find NGO projects far more effective than official ones. Those doubting NGO contributions should visit flood-affected areas to see the thousands of well-marked houses constructed by NGOs.
That said, INGO work quality is often mixed. During large disasters, mismanagement and corruption often mark NGO work, as they increase the size of their teams and programmes manifold almost overnight given the need to save lives. I generally find INGOs to be poorly managed. Still, NGO work is still usually far better than that of government and UN agencies.
Pakistan has kept INGOs in limbo for two to three years, asking them repeatedly to submit registration and other documents without using them meaningfully. It accuses NGOs of being unwilling to share their financial and programme reports. Ironically, credible INGOs display such reports on their websites globally given their emphasis on transparency. What NGOs fear is harassment by inefficient state officials subsequently, much like smaller taxpayers.
Pakistan’s NGO policy should focus primarily on keeping dubious NGOs out, like those registered in Guinea and reportedly working in Pakistan. Subsequently, INGOs should be given a free hand, for their internal accountability mechanisms will exert greater pressure on them to work responsibly than inefficient state departments ever can.
Instead of viewing NGOs suspiciously and disrupting their work, Pakistan should only act based on credible evidence of wrongdoing. The plan to transfer NGO responsibility to the ministry of interior from the Economic Affairs Department is troubling. It will translate a development cooperation relationship into a security-obsessed one where INGOs are asked to prove their innocence constantly.
The writer is a development practitioner.
Published in Dawn, June 21st, 2015
On a mobile phone? Get the Dawn Mobile App: Apple Store | Google Play
