The Future Of The Aid Sector
Learning from Southern NGOs
By Jean-Michel Piedagnel
Western NGOs and the humanitarian sector are having a bit of a midlife crisis. They need to open up to the 21st century and to the societies that will shape this 21st century, they happen to be outside of Europe and of the USA. I am not talking about opening the humanitarian system so that it embraces all new and emerging NGOs. The international humanitarian system has become a “bubble” that is largely driven by OECD donors driven (80.9% of the financial contributions comes from OECD’s 23 members). I am talking about learning from the way Southern NGOs engage in political debates to reassert our independence and impartiality.
We, professional western humanitarians, are quick to blame the lack of understanding of “complex humanitarian crises” that Southern NGOs have. In the process, we seem to forget that they are working in places that we wish we could access, and they are connected to the beneficiaries in a way we often no longer are.
Others are quick to stress the political compromises that these NGOs are ready to make, claiming that they are not strictly independent as real humanitarian NGOs are. But coming from Western NGOs who are highly dependent on Western donor money, such accusations are not always easy to accept.
Indeed, Southern NGOs often have a better understanding of the political tension locally and have learned to deal with them like they do at home – they are pragmatic and they are relevant in ways that we are trying to rediscover.
There is a profound misunderstanding of the level of “politicization” of emerging economies (which are on the way to representing 3/5 of human beings). I believe it is this misunderstanding that makes the “political” engagement of most western NGOs irrelevant. We look at politic in emerging economies with our own history of political engagement. We look at the poverty that still prevails and assume that those people are mostly powerless victims. Most of these perceptions are wrong.
For sure in Asian societies the rights of individuals are willingly accepted as more limited where the concern for the group welfare prevails. I won’t dwell on the Asian value of ‘Harmony’, which is often overplayed but it’s true that there is a kind of deal between governments and the people. The political elite are in charge of making the country prosper, and for as long as they deliver, people will happily refrain from challenging the system. In fact, in many countries (Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, even some would say to some extent China but that’s not the point of this article) people willingly give up what is seen as individual freedom in the west, for the benefit of the development and the wealth of their societies.
In the words of Malaysia former Prime Minister, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad (Dr M):
This is one reason India[1] is left behind compared with China who adopted capitalism only in terms of economics but in term of politics they adhere to the authoritarian rules… it can be a hindrance if a country decides to spend more time on democracy rather than develop the country. How can you develop your country when you spend your time politicizing?
(The Sun Daily – Asia will dominate the World: Dr M – 17/11/09)
It doesn’t really matter if I or anyone adheres to these views; it is fair to say that they represent to various degrees the views of many of the leadership, and people, of emerging economies, beyond Asia. In that frame of mind, the direct political confrontation of the system by human rights activists is seen as the best example of attempt to pervert societies with the kind of politicizing of the Western democratic model. In fact that type of action is seen as the perversion itself.
Western Humanitarian NGOs have a long tradition of very vocal public positioning. They have developed in the last years a very principled language as well as communication which is driven by issues of protection and human right bases programming. This is clearly assimilated to that “perversion” by Southern leadership. It inevitably portrays Western NGOs as an agent of Western civilization or even western powers. The broadening of the definition of humanitarian aid to encompass all form of aid and aid actors, including armies and state agencies adds to the confusion.
As many countries will develop further economically, government will be stronger at taking their responsibility, but not always in ways we will like. They will embrace the views of many leaders such as Dr M, that human rights discourse in a very broad sense that comes from the west is an attempt to corrupt their societies with foreign values at best or even to undermine the development of southern countries to keep control of their resources. In that perspective, the call of condemnation, concerns, worries and references to principles and rights will inevitably push Western NGOS back into the human rights agenda and to the western donor driven humanitarian sector: an instrument of Western values dominated globalization.
There is a need to acknowledge other forms of engagement if we want to find some relevance back and with it, the ability to engage in a meaningful dialogue with actors that are suspicious of the Western humanitarian agenda. Western NGOs need to look at the form of political struggle in some of the host societies where they work. The case study of PT Foundation (see case study) is just one of the many good example.
The nature and heritage of Western NGOs makes it extremely challenging for them to find a tone of engagement that will not be dismissed as “politicizing” but be seen as a positive contribution to a debate and to the upholding of positive principles and values in these societies. Many elements tend to converge to make it difficult to take such a step:
- First of all, our communication is too often trying to exert leverage on Northern states to change things in the South. We always seem to be looking for the headline in our home societies. Our communication is donor driven, it might be private donors but we still think very much about them, and our governments, when drafting our papers.
- There is an expectation in Western societies that NGOs should play the role of advocate of individual values and rights that they should engage actively and of course vocally, in the public debate and in policy making. This strengthens the perception of being everything that is wrong with western style democracy.
- We have carved humanitarian aid as “business” sector and have created a machine with its own logic, its university degrees and its own life. In the process, the beneficiaries have turned into statistics and the reality of the field is often learned in the books, something not very real.
- We have successfully opened up our recruitments to staff outside of countries outside of Europe. It is great but we have too often failed to harness their militancy or create space for their kind of militancy to flourish. They have learned to play by our rules and not the opposite.
- Indeed, we encourage people to contribute and speak their voice but it often seems that we demand that these voices should be first in line with the existing ideology and use the right language before they are allowed to express fresh ideas.
Although strong values and principles are still very much needed and welcomed outside of Europe and the US, Western NGOs’ form of public positioning or engagement needs to be more pragmatic, broader and action driven. The humanitarian sector that we have developed in the last 40 years seems ill-suited to engage with the G20 world.
The way to move forward is not easy because it challenges our core identity and functioning, as well as much of our history. It is in the expression of true solidarity that we will be able to redefine independence and impartiality.
True and real solidarity with the most vulnerable is a new mode of activism that is going to go beyond supporting failed state or advocating for policy change when sitting behind computers in Europe or the US trying to tell everyone what to think. At the moment we speak only in the political language of the “Northern” NGO culture, that of confrontation with states and of individualism.
It is not the way to have an impact in the “South” – in fact it marginalizes us in those societies as an alien force. To engage and make a difference for our beneficiaries, we need to work with them and instead of ‘speaking on their behalf’; we need to listen to them more and understand how they defend their own interests and achieve change in their societies. In the 21st century solidarity as an expression of justice, in action on the ground, is the essence of true independence and neutrality, not just a matter of financial independence, policies or rhetoric.
[1] The point of this piece is not to argue about the rights or wrongs of such statements but on this particular comment I believe Tan Mahathir’s views are biased by the prejudice that Indians suffer in Malaysian society. As argued by the great Indian intellectual, Amartya Sen, Indian’s democratic style has as much to do with embracing western modern democracy values as with Indian’s own democratic tradition. Read for example: The Argumentative India: Writings on History Culture and Identity, Amartya Sen
