NGOs need thorough soul searching
Chasing out NGOs from their programme areas by the community members has become an acceptable routine. Opportunist NGOs describe every fatwa, threat, and attack against them with some degree of self-importance if not out right pride. With all the stigma attached to dishonesty and deceit gone, the so-called "allegations" of corruption are no more a matter of shame for the self-appointed representatives in the NGO sector. On the one side are the helpless communities, and on the other are some NGOs cashing on their anger at NGOs' ineffectiveness. Instead of searching for solutions in the vacuum on both sides of the divide, we need to openly discuss the reasons for the anti-NGO sentiments and the NGOs' growing callousness toward any criticism.
NGOs preference for isolation and unwillingness to dialogue with the perceived opponents is one of the major causes of growing chaos. Some NGOs prefer to keep well separated from the communities' religious circles to avoid drawing attention, and therefore local accountability control, to their activities. However, by keeping a low or segregated profile they may actually be making themselves more vulnerable to suspicion and attack. We need to accept the fact that the issue is not as simple to be discussed or resolved in isolated, one-sided, NGOs-only workshops, condemning government policy as "non-committed and ambiguous" and calling for protection of the NGOs. The enemy could not be in the communities outside alone; it could be the NGOs' words and deeds, or the dirty doors of their perceptions.
Although the secular establishment does not readily acknowledge religious leaders and groups as part of the civil society, we cannot exclude them from the debate. The ignorant religious sector only needs proper education about the good and bad practices of the NGOs. They need as much awareness about the NGOs as the NGOs themselves need for realising their limitations. It will be unrealistic to visualize a civil society that ignores the sizeable network of different religious groups, and ethnic minorities who fight with each other as well as coexist for their mutual survival.
Unfortunately, the Pakistani civil society comprehension is glued to the modern NGOs while neglecting the traditional but less conspicuous institutions and organizations of civilian cooperation. Our civil society had non-governmental, voluntary and self-sustaining institutions long before the plethora of new NGOs arrived here. Besides institutions like Hujra and Punchayat, the grassroots services included orphanages, schools, colleges, mosques, temples, churches and places religious instruction. Whenever necessary, the rural leaders also lobby the politicians and bureaucrats for building roads, supplying drinking water, fighting epidemics and relief distribution during natural disaster.
The large, well funded NGOs have undercut those traditional leaders, relationships and organizations; though not democratically chosen and sometimes accused of hostility towards social change and economic development, they command influence in the civil society. Indeed a dichotomy has been unfolding between the traditional forces and the NGOs working as the intermediaries of the Western funding agencies. In the last few years, in several communities, the Ulama have used fatwa to discourage the NGO work, particularly those working for the women rights in the context of western feminist traditions. Similarly, community members themselves have raised voice against corruption in NGOs.
The core disagreements between the religious leaders and the NGOs can surely be resolved through exchange of information and mutual understanding. The Ulama need to know in detail about the messages and work that some organisations intend to do for the suffering women, so that they shall direct their criticism at specific issues rather than criticising the whole NGO sector. Only such clarification of the confusion will increase the NGO capacity to work for a social mobilization where women could participate without any serious hindrance. The problem, however, is not confined to women and religious issues alone as presented. Undoubtedly, the communities are left with no option but to take matters in their hand where the echelons of power refused to heed complaints about the corrupt practices of some NGOs in their midst.
Besides conceptual problems, most NGOs are not self-sufficient, nor do they have any clear accountability mechanism. Their overhead costs, particularly in the mega-poverty alleviation programmes, are certainly higher than their development cost. A cursory look at the NGOs reveal a disastrous combination of factors resulting in their utter ineffectiveness. Many unskilled staff, incoherent structures and systems, no effective management, no accountability or motivation, no communication lead to almost no impact of their decades of work on the ground whatsoever; except mind boggling statistics of their achievements.
The situation could be attributed to twice the number of factors mentioned above. However, by far the major cause of debilitation is lack of strategy. While a general "developmental" vision is commonly held, activities are performed without differentiation, without any sense of strategy. Rather than improving and developing a particular methodology or strategic intervention, NGOs try to correct every "wrong," respond to every need, work with every NGOs, CBOs, community enterprises, attempt to facilitate organisation development and engage in any kind of training activity.
They involved themselves with extensive lobbying and advocacy work and attempt to provide specialist input in a variety of fields. Many of these activities are unrelated to each other, at least so far as staff understand them. Activities are not prioritised and no strategic choices are made for the staff to articulate and relate to. There is no long-term planning and goals setting. Staff works in relative isolation, doing their own thing, mostly unaware of what others are doing. All because there is no coherent strategy or strategic thinking. Although this may read like fiction, it remains an unexaggerated fact. Although it may sound bizarre, it is not unique, nor rare. Most NGOs are debilitated in similar ways, to some extent at least.
We expect an NGO to be both accountable as well as proactive to interpret needs as well as to respect the wisdom of the community. Without expectations of pro-activity and accountability, NGOs would have no "added value," and would be unnecessary. Equating financial audit with accountability is either a sign of consummate inanity or a perfect excuse to avoid public criticism. The tension that results from these opposing claims on NGOs functioning is not one that can be wished away, or avoided. It needs to be taken on board and worked with in a continual effort to maintain a sense of balance, to ensure that they do not slip into one or other of the polarities. NGO strategy formulation is a complex and creative balancing act, and demands due attention at all times.
Moreover, the strategic tension between advocacy, consultancy and capacity building is prevalent in a wide range of NGOs. In almost every case, the three issues are superimposed on each other. There is a genuine contradiction between the three strategies in terms of time, energy, resources and kind of activity, while they are often simultaneously necessary. At the same time, NGOs get seduced by high profile work and resent the long-term "grind" of focused development work which carries too little social recognition or dollars with it. The staff members engaging in the so-called "high profile" work generally gravitate towards leadership positions in the NGO, with resultant negative consequences for the strategy of focused development work. Taken to an extreme, most NGO leadership uses their organisation's work "on the ground" as a coin of exchange for personal power or strategic institutional influence while ignoring the fact, that actual impact of their NGO is minimal. A fact, which plays havoc with staff motivation and accountability.
Another source of tension arising out of incoherent NGOs strategy is the "adding on" of projects. NGOs which are confused about their own strategy, or which are insecure about the choices they are making, are particularly prey to this form of corruption. It comes in the form of a temptation, and entails taking on board new areas of work. The donor thinks it is important (and perhaps it is), and there is no-one else so well placed or experienced as to be able to take it on. The consequence for an NGO may simply lie in an overburdening; the money may be welcome but it does not easily purchase more skills, or the requisite management time, or staff who are committed to the overall organisational vision and values. It may confuse current strategy, warp lines of communication and accountability, and contaminate existing structures. Once this corruption has occurred, and become ingrained, it is extremely difficult for the NGO to correct itself, and often difficult for it to recognise the source of the corruption.
NGOs are not supposed to become a parallel, yet unaccountable, government. Instead of being the mosquito keeping social institutions awake at night, NGOs intend to become social institutions themselves. Instead of being the thorn to cripple the lion, or the mouse, to pull it out, NGOs are trying to become the lion themselves. NGOs can be what they want to be, and do the impossible, so long as they understand the terrain, identify their particular strengths and points of entry, and strategise accordingly. The tragedy is that, instead of becoming what the NGOs need to be, they remain what they are; confused, incoherent, falling so short of their real potential, bastions of vested interests and absolutely unaccountable for their misdeeds.
Finally, there could be many sources for the "allegations" of corruption or the motivation for charging those of other persuasions with corruption in NGOs. The issue of corruption is not that straight forward as taking ransom or bribe. The constant crossing the Line from one organizational role to another for the sake of funds and not development could also be classified as corruption. Such NGOs become a gun for fire. Using NGOs as consultancy firms for personal business or using NGO-resources for personal material gain could be another form of corruption. Lying to the public about utilization of resources and improper reporting could be yet another type of corruption. Raising funds in the name of people, neither consulted, nor participated in the design of the project or its budget, is on the same continuum as purposely carrying out work to the detriment of the people. Each of such types of corruption is confinable if boards of directors, donors and NGO associations take the appropriate measures and stances. The government may help too with an appropriate legal structure.
Instead of getting involved in corrupt practices for becoming what they are not - mainstream institutional players, large conglomerates, policy makers and stubborn advisors to the state - the NGOs need to celebrate and capitalize on what they should be: flexible, innovative, able to manoeuvre, able to go where others cannot; friends of Ulama, Khan and poor alike, champions of moral value and consciousness, proponents of positive change. Let the NGOs accept that the struggle is not about to end; power has always corrupted and probably still will for the foreseeable future. Development work means swimming upstream like the salmon, able to conquer gravity and confound rationality by making their way up waterfalls inside the invisible suction force created by the downward rush of water. Sanity and strategy implies using a given and turning it around, rather than opposing force with force, extremism with yet more extremism.
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.