Sound and fury over NGOs / Mir Ashfaquzzaman

THERE is little doubt about the merit in the argument of the chairman of the just-commissioned regulatory reforms commission, Akbar Ali Khan, that non-governmental organisations must be put under a stricter regulatory framework and made more accountable to better benefit the poor. On November 6, inaugurating the Small Initiative by Local Innovative NGOs or SMILING project funded by the European Commission, he took exception to NGOs ‘leaning all the more towards business activities.’ Akbar, a former secretary of the government and also a former adviser to the caretaker government that preceded the military-driven interim government of Fakhruddin Ahmed, also made it a point to remind everyone that micro-credit ‘is not the only remedy to poverty alleviation. An overall economic development is a must for eliminating poverty from the country.’

Granted. No one would contest the argument that the NGO sector needs to be better regulated and that micro-credit alone is not the panacea for poverty. In fact, what Akbar said on November 6 has little value in terms of novelty. Politicians, development experts and civil society groups have severally said micro-credit can be an effective component in the overall development matrix, and not the development matrix itself. His observation about the NGOs leaning increasingly towards business activities is also nothing new. It is an allegation that the NGOs (some of whom are making a genuine effort to substitute foreign donor funds with profits from their many enterprises) have learned to live with over the years. This is not to suggest, in any way, that the allegation is unfounded; it is not. What is irrational, however, is such a sweeping characterisation of the entire NGO community. The people in the corridors of power seem to have developed the uncanny habit of undermining the achievement of the NGOs whenever and wherever they get the chance.

There is indeed a strong case for effective monitoring and regulation of the NGOs. A few days back, New Age reported that an NGO continues with its extensive media campaign on multi-million dollar development projects it plans to implement although it is not known to anyone, not even the top hierarchy of the organisation, where the funds will come from. It seems that nothing about the organisation is consistent with the existing rules and regulations. It has started micro-credit operations in 40 districts and already sanctioned credit to 25,000 people without the approval of the micro-credit regulatory authorities of the Bangladesh Bank. It plans to seek external assistance to finance its development projects, which curiously range from distribution of consumer credit cards among people in the rural areas to production and broadcast of a 104-episode drama on the war of independence, but has yet to take clearance from the Bureau of NGO Affairs, the lone regulatory authority for NGOs working in Bangladesh. The NGO is also learnt to have taken money from 200,000 people for membership of its so-called associations. Allegations have already been raised that the NGO, which is headed by a person who was convicted of fraud a few years ago, sentenced to two years in prison and fined, and implicated in 19 other civil and criminal cases, is out to swindle the poor people.

This is just a recent example. There are many. The Bangladesh chapter of the Berlin-based corruption watchdog Transparency International recently released a report, titled ‘Problem of Good Governance in NGO Sector: The Way Out, which highlights some intriguing information and makes some interesting conclusions. The report, according to the Transparency International Bangladesh, is based on a random survey of 20 NGOs – one international, eight national and 11 local – and says 85 per cent of the national and local NGOs do not have financial transparency as their audit and financial reports are usually exaggerated. It also says 65 per cent of the national and local NGOs bribe officials to get projects from different departments of the government. Interestingly still, it claims that the executives of 70 per cent of the NGOs surveyed enjoy undue financial and other benefits while employees of 35 per cent NGOs do not get their salaries regularly. ‘Though the condition of the service-recipients did not change, changes in socio-economic condition of the NGO founders are recognisable,’ it concludes.

That the TIB revelations are valid and observations justified are corroborated by none other than officials of the NGO affairs bureau themselves. As an example of doctored

statement of accounts, one official referred to the case of a particular NGO. Its audit report for 2006 showed Tk 64,183,653 in income and Tk 64,183,653 in expenditure – perfect bookkeeping. Its accountants certainly deserve a pat on their back for making the near-impossible impossible.

The way out? The Transparency International Bangladesh has suggested in its report immediate institution of an independent NGO commission as an umbrella body to supervise the NGO activities in Bangladesh. It has also called for making the NGO laws time-befitting and taking initiatives for social audit under the proposed NGO commission. Here we go again. It is amazing that any deliberation on any irregularities in any sector unfailingly ends with a recommendation for either upgrading the existing laws or enacting new ones and institution of an independent body for monitoring and supervision, as if some new laws and some independent watchdog would do something overnight that existing laws and existing regulation authorities have failed to do in so many years. It is highly likely that even if we did institute an independent NGO commission today and modified the laws related to NGOs, someone would make another case for establishment of another commission and introduction of another set of laws.

The problem seems to be that, while successive governments have scoffed at the NGOs and cried hoarse about stringent monitoring and regulation of the sector, they have never followed up on their words. They have assigned themselves an adversarial role vis-à-vis the NGOs, whereas it should play the facilitator, the monitor and the regulator. The Bureau of NGO Affairs, which started functioning on March 1, 1990, was a good plan badly executed. Had the governments really meant effective monitoring and regulation of the NGOs, they would surely have tried to empower the bureau – legally and logistically. The bureau currently has a 45-strong workforce for more than 3,000 NGOs. Then again, the current director general does not seem to keen on investigating allegations of irregularities by one NGO or the other. As a New Age report says, he has actively dissuaded the audit and inspection wing of the bureau when it sought his approval for investigation into a particular case of alleged irregularities. Therefore, unless there is substantial commitment of the government to meaningfully streamline the NGO sector, whatever regulatory body is commissioned, it will meet the same fate as the NGO affairs bureau.

Now, the NGO community should also realise that it needs an effective regulatory and monitoring authority for its own interest. While it may be true that some NGOs have engaged in unlawful activities over the years in the absence of proper monitoring and regulation, the rest do go by the law and are driven by the ideal of making a difference to the lives of the poor and marginalised. It is the misdeed of the few that eventually taint the image of the many. As the NGOs depend heavily on external assistance, it is imperative that the community projects a credible image to prospective donors. If the rogue NGOs continue to hog the headlines, there will be irreversible erosion of credibility for the entire sector, which may set back whatever socio-economic development the community has been able to achieve. Clearly, the NGOs should, out of self-interest, apply pressure on the government to put in place a meaningful regulatory and monitoring mechanism.

So far, the discourse on NGOs in Bangladesh has been accentuated by a mutual blame game. The government has levelled a wide range of accusations – from profiteering to activities subversive of the state – against the NGOs while the NGOs have complained encroachment by the government upon their operational independence. Both sides need to realise that the blame game has to stop and that they should complement, and not confront, each other. Ultimately, whatever they do will affect the people. One would hope the effect is positive rather than negative.