|
|
|
  |
| Sunday, 8 May 2005 |
 |
|
 |
Features |  |
| News Business Features Editorial
|
NGOs or New Gods Overseas? by Lionel Wijesiri There are reports about Government plans to introduce a monitoring system to non-governmental organisations shortly. The reason behind this move, it has been stated, is because there are no laws in Sri Lanka at present to directly monitor the work of NGOs. It was found that they work on the projects designed by themselves. In response to public request, the Ministry of Social Services has decided to get the NGOs to work on National Plans formulated by the Government. The registration procedure of NGOs has also been changed. The Finance Ministry will hereafter give clearance for local NGOs and foreign NGOs only if they can show Rs. 3 million and US Dollars 1 million contribution respectively in three years. There are quite a number of sincere individuals working in NGOs or associated with NGOs. Many such persons are moved by a desire to reach some immediate assistance to needy people. Seen in specific contexts, they do in fact reach some relief to sections of people. Without questioning the commitment and genuineness of such individuals, our concern should be to consider the broader social significance of the NGO institutional phenomenon. The 1980s and 1990s witnessed an extraordinary proliferation of foreign-funded NGOs in Sri Lanka. We can see them active in politics, literature, cinema, culture in general, development of the villages, environment, media, human rights and women's movement. According to the National Secretariat for NGOs 945 organisations have been registered as NGOs and 200 pending approval. However, conservative estimates believe that over 7,000 different types of NGOs do exist in Sri Lanka today. I do not think anybody knows how many of them are foreign-funded and how many are home grown. NGOs make out that they have spontaneously emerged from society, hence the earlier term 'voluntary agency' and the now-favoured term 'civil society organisation'. In fact, however, international funding agencies (from which smaller NGOs in various countries in the third world receive their funds) depend heavily on funds from government, corporate and institutional sources. For example, according to a recent World Bank document, more than 70 per cent of projects approved by the World Bank included the participation of NGOs and representatives of 'civil society.' As a general rule, there are a number of characteristics of NGOs that have made them ideal and popular 'agents of change'. Most important of all is their ability to experiment freely with innovative approaches and, if necessary, to take risks. They have their flexibility in adapting to local situations and responding to local needs, which make it easier for them to develop integrated. They have good rapport with people, rendering micro-assistance to very poor people as those who are most in need, and tailor assistance to their needs. They have the ability to communicate at all levels, from the neighbourhood to the top levels of government. They have their developed talents to facilitate active participation and to recruit both experts and highly motivated staff with fewer restrictions than the government. Naturally, such advantages enable NGOs to reach people and communities far more effectively than government departments or programmes. Components When it comes to foreign NGOs, they all have two in-built components. There is the foreign funding principal and the local NGO agent. The donor functions from overseas and provides the money. The agent is engaged in the operations which could vary from building a campus for physically handicapped men and women to conducting seminars (mainly in English) five star hotels. One of the most important aspects about these foreign donors is that the donor NGOs are not always non-governmental. For example, in Europe, some Dutch NGOs receive 100 per cent of their funds from the Dutch government. A Canadian study, 'Bridges of Hope' brought out the fact that the Government of Canada, has increasingly taken over the funding of Canadian NGOs. In Germany there are 'foundations' linked with the political parties. Invariably, all of them thus have definite political agendas of their own. In many occasions foreign NGO-clout has caused deep annoyance to the Sri Lankan Government. We can take comfort because such experiences are not confined to Sri Lanka only. Some time ago, a Foreign Minister in Australia berated NGOs supporting Aborigines for ignoring the "primary role of democratically elected Governments and the subordinate role of non-governmental organisations." There is marked difference between local voluntary movements and foreign NGOs. Traditionally, people's movements are self-reliant: they have to raise their own resources, and are led by representatives from among the people. These representatives, to one extent or another, thus have to be accountable to the people. By contrast, NGO-led movements, while claiming to represent the people, are led by officers of the NGOs, who are paid by funding agencies to carry on activity. Naturally, they are not accountable to the people, nor can they be removed by them; so they are also free to act without regard for people's opinions. On the other hand, NGOs are accountable to their funding principals, and cannot afford to stray beyond certain bounds. Common goals However, when it comes to national development, the Government and NGOs share common goals e.g. poverty alleviation, human resources development, women's development, protecting the environment and sustainable resource management and building a democratic civil society and others. The institutional approach to address the issues may differ due to variations in perceptions as well as responsibilities, expertise, experience, resource base and administrative and management structure. An effective collaboration should recognise these differences and exploit the full potentiality of respective advantages. Over the years, the vast network of NGOs that were involved in development programmes would have gained a tremendous experience in poverty alleviation efforts. The Government, while providing the general policy directions of development, has also recognised its limitations in bringing about sustained improvements in the lives of the poor through its own efforts. The effective involvement of NGOs in areas where they have comparative strengths and support, and capacity enhancement should form the basis for Government - NGO collaboration. However, it is important to realise that there are limitations of the NGOs in promoting such collaboration. Some of these limitations are the outcome of weak institutional capacity while others are conditioned by low management potential, e.g. good leadership. Moreover, such limitations may be the outcome of differing perceptions, between the Government and NGOs, of success in poverty alleviation and its measurement. What is important in promoting Government-NGO collaboration is to address the issues in an integrated manner to create an environment of mutual trust and understanding to harness the potentialities and advantages. In essence, NGOs are not expected to function in isolation from the mainstream of political, economic and social life in this country. They must conform to certain standards, adhere to Government regulations and have their work coordinated at the State level. NGOs can only complement the Government's planned activity. Through the State platform, NGOs will have the opportunity to legitimise themselves as a respectable social force and expand their influence among sections to which they earlier had little access.
|
|
| News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security
| Produced by Lake House |
