Development Dynamite
Those who talk about the peoples of our day being given up to robbery and similar vices will find that they are all due to the fact that those who ruled them behaved in like manner.
Yet another report of yet another corrupt NGO in NWFP appeared on page 4 of daily Statesman on April 21. However, many of us may still believe that the time has not come for us to say that the Emperor has no clothes. We have been too tolerant for too long of corruption sympathisers who smugly tell us that corruption happens everywhere. It is human nature. It is ineradicable. It has been at the centre of election campaigns in Italy and the UK, led to the fall of governments in Japan and Indonesia, and resulted in legislative action in Russia and the United States. However, if corruption exists in rich, economically successful countries, why should Pakistan be worried about it in a few NGOs? The answer is simple: Corruption in NGOs has some key characteristics that makes it far more damaging than corruption elsewhere.
First, NGOs are expected to help in fighting corruption in the government. There is a recognition that the civil society has a tremendous potential and can many a time replace some of the functions of the government. Just imagine the impact of widespread corruption when at the top in the government, it distorts fundamental decisions about development priorities, policies, and projects, and at the bottom NGOs embezzle whatever is left out or obtained through other channels.
Second, corruption in NGOs occurs in the name of poor with more than 40 million people in poverty, not with per capita incomes above twenty thousand dollars. While corruption in rich countries may be tolerable, in NGOs of poverty stricken Pakistan, it is a crime against humanity. It is development dynamite when the majority of the population cannot meet their basic needs while a few make fortunes through corruption in funds obtained in their name. Corruption in NGOs does not lead to simply Cabinet portfolio shifts or newspaper headlines, but to massive human deprivation and even more extreme income inequalities. Combating corruption in NGOs is not just about punishing corrupt politicians and bureaucrats but about saving human lives.
Third, undoubtedly, in the areas of development, the environment and human rights, NGOs have added a new dimension to traditional politics and have helped humankind find new forms for addressing our problems. However, corrupt practices of a few are threatening the existence of the whole NGO sector. Unless the corrupt ones are appropriately identified and dealt, all the rest would face the risk of losing funds from overseas companies and donors.
Fourth, it is commonly held that the legitimacy of NGOs is derived from the people. An NGO to enjoy legitimacy must be accountable to democratic control by the people of the concerned community and by the rule of law. It is this legitimacy which gives NGOs the moral standing and the strength to undertake development programme and get involved in government reforms for quelling corruption and enabling it to reach far into people's lives. It is this legitimacy that weakens with each newly unearthed case of corruption in the NGO sector.
NGOs need systems such as clear guidelines and codes of ethics as means of minimising corruption. NGOs should have transparency and honesty so that they gain the trust of the community and avoid running the risk of being irrelevant. Mismanagement cannot be pushed under the rug for far too long. The marginalized people are now getting aware of the corrupt NGOs tactics. The powerful voice of the ordinary people is surely but steadily making an impact on public opinion and decision-making.
In this regard, why is it not possible for the government and the non-government sector to come up with a joint action plan against the corrupt elements? If existing laws and mechanisms languish unenforced or unenforceable, what hope can there be in appealing to the government against corruption in NGOs or appealing to the corrupt NGOs for redressing corruption in the government? Who else has the authority to address the issue of corruption in NGOs if the government has opted to be on the sideline? To find answers to all such questions, it is important to look at the underlying nature of corruption in these sectors rather than brushing reports of corruption aside.
Cases of corruption in the NGO sector are simply brushed aside by the government or addressed in a careful fashion so as not to annoy the donor community. This approach undermines the legitimate interests of those affected by the concerned NGO's corrupt practices. And the legitimacy of not-for-profit organisations is further weakened simply because such instances show their concerns do arise out of self-interested profit-orientation, like others who do not genuinely care about the public interest.
In recent years we have witnessed a powerful reaction against corruption. Often the anger and frustration of society has been spontaneous and unstructured. Corrupt elites have been swept away in Europe, Africa, Asia, and Latin America. "Zero tolerance" with corruption has become the driving force of civil society elsewhere. In Pakistan, however, the NGOs have yet to clearly reflect over their practices and compatriots for cleansing their own ranks of corrupt elements. The challenge to fighting corruption calls for a mobilisation also of technical and professional resources and interests that can form effective partners in coalitions against corruption.
An analysis of corruption in NGOs - from the one-man-show NGOs to the high profile, bureaucratically run organisations -- has identified a number of causes, including the following:
- The limited government power. In the face of international pressures to keep hands off NGOs, the government has no system, regulation, mechanism or even the required will to tackle the challenge of corruption in NGOs effectively.
- The absence of commitment in NGOs. Mid level professionals in NGOs may wish to effect change but are severely restricted by an absence of commitment at the leadership level.
- Overly ambitious promises leading to unrealistic and unachievable expectations. NGOs, which promise what they cannot deliver quickly lose the confidence of those around them and those looking to them for effectiveness.
- Donors' indifference. Some very corrupt NGOs are able to continue to acquire more and more grants despite common knowledge of financial anomalies. This is made possible because donors' coordinators and aid bureaucrats will rarely admit they made a mistake in giving money to a scoundrel because this would suggest incompetence. So in a way, they are blackmailed to continue supporting the corrupt.
- Innocent beginning. Corruption in NGOs starts out quite innocently. People innocently try to protect the boss or a colleague. Eventually though, their own interests are placed on line since they're enmeshed in too many irregularities. For justifying the unethical practices, all kinds of rationalizations creep in.
- Disappointed community. Due to highly publicised cases of corruption and subsequent government inaction, the public has acquired an attitude that there is no point in reporting corruption, as nothing useful will be done about it; there is a fear of both personal and professional retaliation of the perpetrators.
- Concerns about insufficient evidence. In most cases, everything seem so good from outside until there is a revolt in the staff or their accomplices in the community go into a conflict over sharing the proceeds of corruption. The government and outsiders most of the time suffer from the problem of having insufficient evidence.
This analysis is not done from the point of view of those who have long regarded the NGOs with suspicion. Some of the NGOs are beginning to realise it themselves. A recent discussion paper sponsored by the UK Foreign Policy Centre (www.fpc.org.uk), a quasi-official think tank chaired by Britain's Foreign Minister, Robin Cook, and by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, umbrella body of the voluntary sector in England, echoes all the criticisms which are beginning to disturb those genuinely interested in the participation of NGOs in national and global governance.
The problem is that we give more preference to the rights of NGOs than their responsibilities. Michael Edwards, director of the Ford Foundation's governance and civil society unit in New York, writes in his paper, "NGO Rights and Responsibilities", that many of the criticisms of these groups are all too true, and that if they wish to participate in world governance they to have to lift their game.
NGOs are also quick to label any critic as "fundamentalist" and "anti- NGO fanatic." Many of us would, however, surprise to know that the outsiders know all NGO failings more than the "anti-NGO", gullible Maulvis (clerics). Maulvis anti-NGO rhetoric is simply based on hearsay, where as pointing to the three main failings -- in transparency, accountability and accuracy -- Michael Edwards says from experience: "When NGOs claim to 'represent' the poor, they are rarely specific about which poor people they are representing." Second, "NGO accountability is weak and problematic, since there is no clear 'bottom line' for results and no single authority to which NGOs must report on their activities ..."
In the case of developing countries like Pakistan, objective research and reflection are not a high priority for most NGOs. Underlying these problems is "the thorny issue of legitimacy". The UN has already begun to tackle this issue, demanding as a condition of NGO participation in international discussions satisfaction of a number of criteria, "including a democratically adopted constitution, a representative structure (transparent decision-making or formal voting), evidence that they derive most of their resources from national affiliates or members, and a description of their finance and activities".
Whether these criteria are being adequately met, for example by the propagandists of "great" development programmes sitting in their posh offices in Islamabad and having meetings on the fate of the poor, is questionable. Our government must not be reluctant of taking an initiative to look into the corrupt affairs of the NGOs, particularly those where the signs are much clear. The carrion crows are not hovering over some of these organisations for nothing. There is something rotten underneath. The government must not be hesitant because even on international level, a few years ago the Productivity Commission had a look at the NGO aid organisations and, despite a certain amount of cover-up at the insistence of the churches, made it quite clear how wasteful and inefficient they are.
An independent ombudsman to supervise the NGOs would be a good start to take care of the corrupt NGOs, which have become dynamite for the development process in the country. Only when they get their own houses in order will they have a real claim to participate in national affairs, global governance and international civil society. Clearly, therefore, the starting point for any serious work must begin with awareness raising of what constitutes the threshold of acceptable behaviour and the creation of a more informed understanding of the costs of corruption in NGOs.
Nunc auctor bibendum eros. Maecenas porta accumsan mauris.
Manager
Nunc auctor bibendum eros. Maecenas porta accumsan mauris.
Staff
Nunc auctor bibendum eros. Maecenas porta accumsan mauris.
Staff 2
Nunc auctor bibendum eros. Maecenas porta accumsan mauris.