Comments on: Who is afraid of NGOs?

By: sahasamvada

sahasamvada — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 12:30:24 +0000

Oh for another dose of NGO bashing!

The biggest shortcoming as a society is our ability to go overboard in our criticisms while usually failing to provide constructive suggestions on whatever that we are criticising. Needless to say civil society organisations a.k.a NGOs do have a lot of shortcomings, but most of these shortcomings are based on donor driven agendas. Unfortunately for an NGO to function, its overheads and project expenses must be taken care of. Furthermore, in terms of operational obstacles, one of the major issues NGOs face is the brain drain from local NGOs to INGOs. INGOs like the UN organisations attract human resources through monetary coercion. So the struggle to retain staffing for local organisations is immense. Nevertheless, all NGOs must have their accounts audited yearly and any NGO that doesn’t comply cannot be considered an NGO and necessary steps must be taken to pull them up. Also, there are some politically biased NGO’s like Foundation of Co-existence who really do not know what the hell they are doing, and a look into their salary structures will send you reeling.

We should stop conveniently grouping everyone together when we criticise. We need to acknowledge the fact that there are many NGOs who are doing their utmost to make a difference despite shortcomings, both internally as well as externally. Furthermore, the people who openly criticise will not compromise in terms of their careers and are responsible for making a business out of this.

One of the major shortcomings of civil society activism is the lack of new blood and the over dependence on a few key actors, thereby creating a stagnation in terms of new thought and progressiveness. The fault here lies not only in the lack of initiative in the part of these ‘established key actors’ but also in our current generation of youth. Today everything is about making money and there is a sad lack of passion and drive.

We as citizens need to UTILISE civil society organisations to take up our causes in a proactive manner, instead of uttering empty and bland accusations which really result in nothing progressive.

By: sham

sham — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 04:36:14 +0000

if the NGo are so pure, why dont they produce audited accounts , why not disclose where they get the funds from, what the expenditure are like, how much expact salaries.
cos transparancy begins at home. monitor the monitors.

By: Malinda Seneviratne

Malinda Seneviratne — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:52:33 +0000

Are there any ‘normal type of NGOs’ a la Carothers in Sri Lanka? If so, can someone name them?

By: Malinda Seneviratne

Malinda Seneviratne — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:50:29 +0000

Chulani is correct. It is only natural for Governments that believe it’s possible to make peace with the LTTE to mobilize the support of NGOs who also believe the same thing. Like-minded people club together. By the same token, a Government that does not believe that such a ‘partnership’ with the LTTE is possible or realistic in the matter of obtaining a lasting peace would naturally view with suspicion these very same NGOs. The Chandrika regime and the Wickremesinghe regime may have loved the NGOs, glossed over their many flaws or been absolutely ignorant of them; this does not mean that this government or any other should follow suit. Let us not forget that some of the charges leveled at NGOs are valid.

As for a ‘negotiated’ political settlement, the LTTE is simply not interested. They quit peace talks during those happy CFA days when the NGOs were ‘in’ and not ‘out’.

By: Economist

Economist — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 10:51:40 +0000

There is a world of difference between democracy and liberty. In our traditional history we had some of the trappings of democratic decision-making in the Buddhist Sangha. But we never had liberty. It was so in the West as well. Democracy followed liberty in the West. In both Britain and America there was considerable liberty in the 18th 19th century. But there was no democracy. Democracy followed liberty. It was liberty that made democracy possible. In 56 SWRD was able to usher in democracy in the sense of participation of the masses in deciding the government of the day because there was liberty for SWRD to proclaim his political creed of populism and Sinhala Buddhist nationalism. It was so from the dawn of democracy in Periclean Athens. Democracy gives rise to populism and demagogues arise who hoodwink the masses with their rhetoric of hatred on class, creed or other division in society. We have no hope unless we can maintain liberty which has been undermined in the name of patriotism. Just as love of a person cannot exclude love of humanity so patriotism cannot exclude humanity or promote hatred against others branding them as the enemy.

By: Malinda Seneviratne

Malinda Seneviratne — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 17:09:45 +0000

Ok, the argument is, ‘NGOs may be bad, but Government is bad too, so Government has no moral authority to take NGOs to task’. This is debatable. It implies that since there is corruption and financial mismanagement, all manner of criminality is ok. Forget Government, don’t ordinary people have the right to question NGOs? Would the author name those NGOs that collectively constitute the ‘lone voice against abuse of power’? Name them and perhaps someone will prove why they are called villains, or naïve to the max. And by the way, Chulani, could you tell me where North ends and South begins, metaphorically or literally and jot down justification(s) for the demarcation?

By: sahasamvada

sahasamvada — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:48:56 +0000

It is true that the ground realities are not very feasible for a social movement at the present, and as Mario states a more realistic entry point maybe the economical issues that are equally responsible towards the disintegration of Sri Lanka and its society. Nevertheless, it is important to begin processes that will eventually give birth to a strong social movement. For this to take off, there needs to be a strong consensus amongst civil society organisations, which unfortunately might prove to be an obstacle, given the divide that is prevalent amongst these organisations. We need to find means of bridging this divide and working towards stimulating a proactive social movement. It is also imperative that the donor community makes this an essential aspect of their operational plans which might help towards bridging this divide.

By: Mario

Mario — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 06:20:01 +0000

Very inspiring and lucid Chulani. One of the failures of peace and human rights NGOs in SL has been their failure to engage with broader constituencies, including the media and the private sector in a sustained and effective way. This has only recently begun and NGOs will need to refine their strategies of engagement with these broader constituencies if they are to be more effective. Sadly a social movement around the conflict and human rights is unlikely to emerge in the near future. Perhaps we need to look for some other entry point like the cost of living, corruption or mismanagement of the economy, as an entry point for larger social mobilization (which should also include issues of power sharing and human rights)