THE fourth nationwide road show asking people how the 480 million pounds of UK aid for Pakistan could be best spent was held in London on Monday last. It was led by Mr. Gareth Thomas, the UK’s International Development Minister. The listening tour has been organised by the Department for International Development (DFID), which is responsible for leading the UK government’s global fight against poverty.

In his opening remarks the minister pointed to what he categorised as the steady economic growth that Pakistan has been enjoying in recent years, “but with nearly one in four people living on less than 50 pence a day and one in ten children dying before their fifth birthday, big challenges still remain.”

He said Pakistan was set to become one of the biggest recipients of direct UK aid and, “we want people’s ideas on how best to target our support to ensure it is delivered in the right way and tackles the right problems.”

Indeed, the consultation room in the House of Commons where the road show was launched was brimming with the ‘right’ people. Representatives from almost all the economic and financial sectors were there. But there was a predominance of voluntary and civil society organisations, some of which have earned world-wide reputation for their good work in the fight against poverty. Muslim organisations were also adequately represented.

Some names could be recognised right away. Pfizer Company, Deloitte& Touche LLP, the Muslim Council of Britain, Institute of Banking and Insurance, British Council, Kashmir International Relief Fund, Tearfund, Wateraid, Pakistan Professional Forum, League of British Muslims (UK), the Lady Fatemah Charitable Trust and Garden of Peace.

The officials of Pakistan High Commission were also there in good strength led by the High Commissioner herself. Mr. Yusuf Samiullah, the Chief of DFID, Pakistan conducted the proceedings.

The interest of such a wide variety of organisations in Pakistan and its poverty issues was understandable because the UK has now become the home of over 800,000 people of Pakistani origin. And the earlier three road shows in Birmingham (Jan 30), Bradford (Jan. 31) and Glasgow (Feb.1) had also whetted the interest of most voluntary organisations in the UK.

Those who attended seemed genuinely concerned about the state of poverty in Pakistan which one of the participants reminded is ranked 134th (on a list of 177 countries) behind even Sri Lanka on the UN’s Human Development Index.

Most of the participants focused on the need to help Pakistan improve its educational sector, especially at the primary level in rural areas and among female population. Some who had experience of working in that country read out long lists of hurdles in the way. Most had wanted the DFID to enlist more and more the services of UK based voluntary organisations as they claimed to have much more experience and better -organised than local local NGOs.

The Pakistani High Commissioner, Dr Maleeha Lodhi while responding to a number of what clearly sounded criticisms of her government and its failures sought fair access to western markets so that as she put it her country could trade its way out of poverty.

Dr Lodhi said that for this reason Pakistan was seeking a Free Trade Agreement with the European Union. Contact, she disclosed, had been made at the highest level between Islamabad and London to enlist British support for this initiative for an FTA.

When told that the law and order situation was too bad for undertaking effective socio-economic development activities, Dr Lodhi said, that development and security were closely intertwined; one could not be attained without securing the other, and both goals had to be underpinned by respect for the rule of law. She said Pakistan confronted multiple challenges but was deeply conscious of its responsibilities and of delivering on the social contract with the people.

The thrust of the entire consultation was, however, clearly on conventional approaches and the vote visibly was in favour of using the civil society organisations to combat poverty in the country. But is that approach valid in developing societies like Pakistan?

I posed this question to the UK minister suggesting that in developing countries where the political parties are already weak, still in formative stages and fighting for their life against the well –entrenched, highly organized military and civil establishment, the civil society organisations or the so-called NGOs had further undermined the political parties by replacing them –almost-- in the dialogue between the rulers and the ruled.

It is not like in developed countries where the political parties are very strong, have long drawn traditions and history and in some cases have even attempted to impose party dictatorship over their nations. In such situations, I said, the civil society organisations serve as a check on the political parties by articulating the views and wishes of the civil society effectively and efficiently and compel the political parties to correct their agendas and manifestos and the way of governance.

In developing countries, I said, the establishment feels very comfortable with these NGOs because more often than not they are led and managed by the people of their own class and mostly by their own wives, sons and daughters. In countries like Pakistan only the sons and daughters of the rich could hope to have the kind of education which the donors look for in those who they think could shoulder the responsibility of managing their money and spending it on the right ideas and projects.

And in fact since the early 1980s these so-called NGOs have actually served as a cushion for the civil-military establishment against the wrath of the down trodden and have confused the whole issue of political economy and social development. And then as the famous Indian author Arundhati Roy said these non-government organisations (NGOs) are actually, Western government organisations (WGOs) promoting the agenda of the donors and not that of the recipients.

And then there is this flawed approach as well of the country representatives of the donors. In the first place very few conduct close social and financial audit of their money being spent through these NGOs and more often than not it has been seen that these representatives put more emphasis on getting the NGOs to exhaust the budget no matter on what rather than closely monitoring how that money was being spent.

The response from the UK minister to this poser was too bland and too off the mark, for understandable reasons, to merit a detailed mention in the column. But then one should certainly be grateful to our donors for all the help that they have provided over the last 60 years. Without this help the country would have been in a much worse situation than what it is now. Yes, one should be thankful to God for even the small mercies.