How international NGOs killed civil society in developing countries
One of the strangest things about southern Sudan is how weak the local NGO community is. It’s five years after the end of the war, with five years of focused attention from the international community, and five years with an increasing presence of international organisations looking for partners. Yet everybody agrees – particularly the local NGOs themselves – that capacity is as low as ever, and there is still no coherent approach to building that capacity in the near term. There’s an outdated website dedicated to the issue, and an interesting (although slightly opaque) report from May 2009 that comprehensively maps the landscape of organisations, but nothing appears to have been done with any of that information.
This is a similar situation to that in other countries but in a more intense form. It’s taken me a while to come up with any halfway coherent idea as to what’s going on here, but my conclusion is that international NGOs are killing civil society. Here’s a few reasons why this happens and how:
- International NGOs present the only visible models for nationals who want to form an organisation, while the conspicuous wealth of international NGOs creates a strong incentive to emulate them. What is invisible to local people is the range of collective activities -formal and informal – that are present in the home countries of those international NGOs, and the truth that the way in which international NGOs operate in the field would not be seen positively in those home countries.
- The presence of international NGOs forces national governments to adopt legislative frameworks that are far more about controlling NGOs than regulating them – usually with the complicity or active participation of those NGOs (or their enablers in the United Nations). The result is a legislative framework in which international NGOs and the government collaborate in encouraging a public conception of civil society made in their own image.
- International NGOs present themselves as non-profit service providers rather than as the organised expression of a collective will. WorldVision didn’t just spring out of the ground fully formed; it’s a million church groups putting their faith (and money) into the organisation to enact their (admittedly vague) goals, which WorldVision is then supposed to implement. National NGOs usually can’t rely on this base for legitimacy – and so miss the whole “civil society” bit.
- By participating in funding systems and regulatory regimes which emphasises legally-recognised NGOs as the sole vehicle for funding activities in relief and rehabilitation scenarios, we incentivize the registration of local NGOs – frequently as income generation schemes for sole traders – rather than the creation of a range of different organisations that may be more effective in meeting the needs of local people than a formal NGO.
- International NGOs frequently either deny or co-opt faith groups, the most viable non-NGO civil society groups. Sensivity about faith by secular NGOs – particularly in areas where it is a contentious issue, if not a source of conflict – can undermine what is sometimes the only expression of community action. (On the other hand, NGOs with a religious background can also create problems for civil society by attempting to co-opt local faith groups into their own religious community.)
In summary: the presence of international NGOs undermines the development of civil society as we unwittingly remake it in our own image, enabled both by national governments and international donors. We need to break this cycle by recognising the diversity of collective action, revising our engagement strategies to reflect that, and reversing legal and economic frameworks that perpetuate the cycle of NGO creation that leads to bloated and ineffective local NGO communities.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
This puts in words something that has been nagging at me for years. I have seen this weak NGO sector in so many countries, and aid seems to make it worse…
Alanna
2 Feb 10 at 0:12
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by paulcurrion: How international NGOs killed civil society in developing countries at http://bit.ly/bOmgIw...
uberVU - social comments
2 Feb 10 at 8:24
Personally i think alot of this has to do with the types of consultants and TAs associated and working for the government.. I believe alot of them impose what they think is the easiest thing, rather than the right thing.. leading to well.. more work for them..We have an obligation to provide better, more competent personnel & support at all levels, else why are do we try?
Mo
2 Feb 10 at 8:49
Mo – that’s partly true, but you also see it in places where there isn’t that kind of input from external experts (or “experts”, depending on how charitable you’re feeling). I think this trend started in the 1980s and accelerated with the explosion of NGOs in the 1990s – but as far as I know, nobody has really looked at the growth of NGO-ism in historical context.
Paul Currion
2 Feb 10 at 9:15
I agree with Paul’s piece. Too often if not always, the notion of “capacity building” by international NGOs and the UN for that matter is on the basis of a northern based model what is perceived as the only way to do business. In actual fact, national and local civil society in many countries do not follow a template and differ greatly from place to place. The cultural lens is lost and sometimes, the pressure to become “one of us” weakens the civil society org, and trust with the community can even be lost.
We need to learn to trust and listen more to local civil society and accept that there is more than one approach to a problem and eventual solution
Jemilah Mahmood
3 Feb 10 at 22:34
Jemilah – I completely agree with you. Another problem with the current approach is that we lose sight of the rich variety of civil society forms that we would expect to see in different cultures.
Paul Currion
4 Feb 10 at 6:43
Really? THAT is one of the strangest things about Southern Sudan to you? Lack of local NGO capacity and development? Not that there seems to be a serious lack of understanding of the difference between NGOs and civil society both in Sudan and your post? Not lack of donor strategy or coherence? Not why all the money that has been poured into Sudan over the past 5 years has had virtually nil impact on meeting MDGs or reversing terrible indicators? Not why the signers of the CPA thought 6 years was adequate time to build a government from scratch? Not EVEN why there are not enough vegetarian eateries in Juba to quench your endless hunger? Local NGO capacity was the STRANGEST thing you found?
Kelsey
8 Feb 10 at 14:46
It wasn’t the strangest thing I found, it was *one* of the strangest things – lord knows there are many other strange things vying for the crown.
Part of the point of the post was to draw attention to the lack of distinction drawn between NGOs and civil society in Southern Sudan (and not just in Southern Sudan) – the lack of capacity of local NGOs was merely the springboard from which my thoughts sprang. That’s why Point 1 specifically says that one pernicious effect of international NGOs is to present “the NGO” as the vehicle through which “civil society” acts, masking the massive range of activities that you find in countries with a healthy civil society.
The line of thought was set by the Indigenous NGO Forum in Southern Sudan being desperate to register themselves as an NGO. The reasons they gave was that this is the only way to be recognised by the government and to get funding from the donors. That’s not quite true, of course, but it’s quite close to the truth – and that bothered me enough to write this post.
Paul Currion
10 Feb 10 at 15:23
[...] Are NGOs Killing Civil Society? [...]
Links I Liked « The Everyday Idealist
10 Feb 10 at 20:29
If you’re looking for a civil society that is not on the western donor-driven bus (or waiting at the station) you should stop and walk along the road for a while. If you visit communities in Southern Sudan, you can find some very active local groups, working for the better of their communities. In many cases they work with only their own resources, evolving with causes and their own ability to respond and advocate.
Just as a bunch of neighbors working for safer, cleaner neighborhoods in Arkansas might not show up at environmental convention in Washington DC–because of lack of funds, because they have other full time jobs–much of Sudanese civil society is not represented at the NGO forum in Juba.
No question that community organizations have far far fewer resources than their counterparts in richer countries and it is exponentially more difficult to form broader regional/national coalitions.
International, national NGOs and government can do a better job of engaging and encouraging these groups as partners in our work. Often they ARE involved as advisors, participants, beneficiaries. However, their driving influence can be partially or fully obscured by the time the project is distilled into a report because they don’t fit into the dominant development/aid paradigm of aid worker-beneficiary-refugee-IDP-vulnerable women, etc. We see what the donors want to see, which is fundamentally messed up. From both the government’s and donor’s side there should be more flexibility to recognize these groups as key catalysts of positive change.
The reason most international NGOs are here is to provide services that require a huge amount of logistics, coordination and accounting, which even the government has been unable to provide thus far. They also in theory have systems in place to be more accountable with funds (read: trusted by donors). In the medium term, it would be great if national NGOs could be ‘strong enough’ (read: trusted by donors) to take over a part of service provision. This could save time and money and probably improve local responsiveness. In fact, the national NGO sector attracts those who will be running the government themselves if and when the government is more functional, paid better and less corrupt. NGOs that think NGOs will be running services in Southern Sudan until the end of time are either anarchists or just living in the moment.
At the local level, and as conditions stabilize, other forms of civil society should continue to evolve and be active. Before their bus drives away, international NGOs should look for more ways to listen to and partner with these groups.
lisa
13 Feb 10 at 9:12
[...] full version: http://www.humanitarian.info/2010/02/01/how-international-ngos-killed-civil-society-in... [...]
How international NGOs killed civil society in developing countries - Chewy Chunks
15 Feb 10 at 17:00
Paul –
Your analysis that INGOs are responsible for stifling civil society in Sudan but fails to consider any other sources of weak civil society. Let me propose a few alternative thoughts on why civil society is weak in South Sudan – irrespective of the role of INGOs:
1. Perpetual conflict – The South has experienced conflict almost continually since Sudanese independence, with a break of about a decade from 1972-83. Conflict tends to be inimical to civil society development, for a variety of reasons. It inclines social investment in military structures rather than social structures, meaning that more social resources (people, money, effort) flow to the military and less to civil society – the South Sudanese put a lot more social capital into the SPLA than into civil society. Conflict also spurs displacement, breaking up communities and destroying the social fabric that would otherwise underpin civil society strength. Lastly, the Khartoum government has traditionally sought to actively undermine civil society strength in it periphery, creating yet another obstacle to the development of civil society capacity in recent decades.
2. Geography – Southern Sudan is HUGE, with a relatively small population of 9-10 million people (depending on whether you believe the recent census!). The population density is around 15 people/square km. This is much lower than neighboring Kenya (67) or Uganda (137), indicating a much more sparsely populated territory. I don’t know if there is academic research on this, but I would imagine that low population density correlates to low civil society strength. Civil society strength depends on density of social connections – between influential individuals, groups, etc. This is difficult within very geographically dispersed population; even more so when that population has poor transport and communications infrastructure.
3. The Church – In analyzing South Sudanese civil society, it is important not to overlook the role of the church in South Sudan. Religious leaders hold significant influence; the church provides a range of social services; and the church is one of few territory-wide institutions in the South. Thus one could argue that South Sudanese civil society is manifesting itself through this channel rather than through indigenous NGOs.
4. Education – Education and literacy rates in the South are dismal. Around 24% of the population is literate; rates for women are considerably lower. This too complicates civil society organizing.
One could make a plausible case that, given these existing structural constraints, INGOs have made a bad situations worse. But it’s hard to conclude that INGOs are the principal obstacle to indigenous civil society in South Sudan…..
JMK
22 Feb 10 at 20:07
Jem, thanks for the reply:
Your analysis that INGOs are responsible for stifling civil society in Sudan but fails to consider any other sources of weak civil society.
Well, yes – certainly there are other factors, but I wasn’t writing about those factors in this particular blog post.
1. Conflict tends to be inimical to civil society development, for a variety of reasons.
Agreed, but there hasn’t been any conflict in Southern Sudan for the last 5 years, which is the context in which we have to analyse civil society development. My point is that civil society development is being warped by the presence of international NGOs over an extended period.
2. The population density is around 15 people/square km… I would imagine that low population density correlates to low civil society strength.
You could argue that in rural communities where the state doesn’t reach, the concept of civil society is meaningless. Interestingly, if you’re right then all the civil society strengthening in the world won’t make any difference as long as the population density remains low.
3…Thus one could argue that South Sudanese civil society is manifesting itself through [the Church] rather than through indigenous NGOs.
I agree, and one of my points is that the (predominantly secular) NGO community consistently fails to recognise and engage with this.
4. Education and literacy rates in the South are dismal… This too complicates civil society organizing.
Civil society development doesn’t depend on education. Education and literacy rates in India aren’t great, but I don’t think that anybody would argue that civil society is weak there. Can I suggest that it’s a very western perspective to assume that participation in civil society requires a minimum level of education?
… it’s hard to conclude that INGOs are the principal obstacle to indigenous civil society in South Sudan.
Not really. My argument is that INGOs are stifling civil society not just because of their activities – which displace potential local actors – but because of the well-funded model that they present. It is this which – in the absence of alternative models – potential catalysts for civil society in Southern Sudan will copy, thus replicating the failing INGO model.
Paul Currion
2 Mar 10 at 12:58