The identity of international and local NGOs in 2021: taboos and new challenges

For a decade now, we have observed a number of changes in international relations which have had repercussions for NGOs and civil society as a whole. The issues raised include: 1) the emergence of a multipolar world, which has brought opportunities and challenges for the international community, related to the end of the historic domination by ‘white European/North American countries’; 2) the rise of anti-democratic ideologies – which are sometimes violent, racist and nationalistic – throughout the world, which constitutes a real threat in terms of achieving individual and universal Human Rights and ‘true’ democracy, and also in terms of the ability for civil society and NGOs to take action; 3) the recognition and promotion by most international NGOs of the international agenda related to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), approved in 2015 by the United Nations General Assembly, despite certain unresolved limitations and challenges¹; 4) the questioning of the role of states and public institutions as the principle guarantors of freedom, well-being and peace by a growing section of the global population, due to the many unfulfilled (or very partially fulfilled) – or even violated – promises by national states themselves, and due to transnational corporations who, particularly since the 1980s, have sought to bypass, discredit and weaken states in order to build international markets and financial and commercial institutions that are unconstrained by regulations.

In this complex context, there appear to be opportunities for NGOs and civil society to engage in international discussions on these subjects because, despite the growing tensions between CSOs (civil society organisations)/NGOs and numerous governments, recent opinion polls in numerous countries show that public opinion trusts civil society organisations more than state institutions, religions, political personalities or even the media and journalists. The concept of ‘citizenship’ is crucial locally, nationally and globally, but it is difficult to promote among people who are denied citizenship and/or who live in precarious conditions. The role of local people and communities in influencing state institutions and their leaders, and in actively controlling public policies, remains central, and organised civil society needs to continue to be part of this equation. Another major challenge for civil society is to find alternatives to the current international political community (which is currently exclusively ‘inter-governmental’).

NGOs: a complex and paradoxical identity

NGOs are not the only type of organisation within civil society, even though they are a key part of it because they are generally the most visible, and in many countries around the world, they have the most resources among CSOs. Other civil society actors, such as trade unions, social movements, women’s organisations, farmers’ organisations, cooperatives, local and community associations (which are the most numerous of all CSOs, but the least formal and with the least resources), political organisations, etc., tend to see NGOs as a ‘privileged’ sector which monopolises resources and access to institutions, while not being inclusive enough of other CSOs. There have nevertheless been many examples where different sectors of civil society have worked together, but due to the predominance of ‘stereotypes’, there is a lot of distrust of NGOs.

NGOs initially emerged in Western societies and are based on values and a system that are specific to that part of the world (where less than 20% of the world’s population lives). What is more, even though NGOs from the Global North are generally critical about their own institutions and governments, they are still closely tied to the political programmes of rich western countries. Though they have spread widely throughout the world, they are nevertheless, for the most part, organised on the basis of a ‘universalist’ framework (in terms of values, management, practices and governance). Thus, partnerships between NGOs from the North and from the South generally reflect power and working relations from another era, defined by the flow of resources and money, an aspect that remains a taboo subject for numerous NGOs in the Global North.

NGOs have a tendency to align themselves with the international/global agendas of the international community and the United Nations. They are generally well organised at the international level, either via a small number of big, influential international NGOs, or via jointly led campaigns (such as Action4Development), or via networks or platforms that bring together a large number of small and medium NGOs (such as FORUS). What is more, NGOs are often active in promoting international agendas at the national level and in the ‘field’, with local populations, particularly to raise public awareness about four international programmes: ‘Human Rights and Democracy’, ‘Humanitarian Aid’, ‘Development and Poverty Reduction’, and ‘Environment and Climate Change’. Due to the significant financial resources that the international community provides them with (mainly funded by the donor governments of the OECD), NGOs have a tendency to follow and promote the international programmes carried out by the United Nations. But this organisation remains an international assembly of governments within which the leadership is principally in the hands of the world’s most powerful nations (Security Council, G8 and/or G20), and, objectively, many of its members are not very democratic. NGOs officially criticise this situation and this dependency, but they also put up with it: this is another paradox.

This state of affairs is recognised by the majority of NGOs, and accepted by some, but this leads to criticisms on the part of other civil society groups, who see themselves as being part of a broader and more diverse sector. Alternative approaches exist and include initiatives developed with the local population (and/or groups of citizens), operating at the margins of official international or national institutions. It would seem that these alternative strategies are difficult to articulate with the ‘professional’ NGO sector (beyond declarations and good intentions). This is made worse by the fact that alternative approaches (on the margins of the system) are faced with numerous difficulties to secure their funding. Too few NGOs invest in these alternative processes, such as actors invested in the ecological transition, the new commons, recent informal citizen-based movements sometimes based on campaigns via social networks, or initiatives that promote new forms of civil disobedience, new forms of self-organisation, etc.

The NGO community and the other sectors of organised civil society have different theories of change. Given the specific characteristics of NGOs (When, where and why they are created, the roles western societies are prepared to fund them for, the values and frameworks that are given priority, etc.), it is not surprising that the majority of NGOs are trying to ‘improve’ the current system rather than to transform it ‘radically’ (in the etymological sense of the word, that is to say, ‘at the root’). The majority of NGOs apply a theory of change based on ‘gradual change’ (a ‘step-by-step approach’), mainly via public policy reform, while carrying out mitigation work in the field with the population and stimulating social innovation locally. On the one hand, this approach is completely legitimate and provides numerous examples of good practice and short-term progress. On the other, it reinforces the view that NGOs are powerful actors (in terms of resources and potential impact), but who do not have a genuine strategy or the capacity or political weight to transform societies in depth (notably in terms of democratic rules). This criticism appears justified; behind these different theories of change is the question of the impact that NGOs have had in recent decades in their attempts to improve the living conditions of millions of people throughout the world. A broad debate on this topic would no doubt have a positive impact and would stimulate the NGO sector. Care should nevertheless be taken to ensure that the terms and results of such a debate (in the long term) should reflect the nuances and complexities of the issues discussed. The ‘dualistic’ views and ideological biases of different parties could quickly put an end to this kind of initiative.

The main models and principles of NGOs

The most difficult issue for NGOs to address constructively and ‘honestly’ appears to be the question of the models that they export (knowingly or unknowingly) and which they promote throughout the world, at every level of their action (locally, in the field, but also at the national, regional and international levels). This aspect is complex because, on the one hand, NGOs acknowledge that they follow and promote the international reference frameworks that are prevalent within the United Nations system (value systems that are considered to be ‘universal’ and ‘international’ by definition). At the same time, too often they tend to underestimate the fact that these systems and global programmes were created after the Second World War, and are therefore based on the models and cultural principles of white, European and North American societies who were traumatised by the international consequences of a war in which they were the main players.

The main implicit principles on which NGOs base their activities (as do the majority of institutions and actors involved in international cooperation) would appear to be:

• Western representative democracies are not perfect, but they remain the best political system – consequently, such a system should be pursued and applied everywhere;
• Development and progress remain ‘good’ concepts even though they principally depend on economic growth, technological innovations, well-being measured in terms of the capacity to buy goods and services, and to satisfy principally material needs, and extractive economic models;
• Prioritising ‘effectiveness’ via the implementation of western management and governance models which are considered the best suited to run organisations (of all kinds);
• Public services (Education, Health, Police, Justice, etc.) are developed based on the models and principles of western societies (training of staff, western models of education and health, evaluation systems, sector-based specialities, etc.), overlooking other sometimes more holistic or ‘preventative’ approaches;
• The globalisation of the economy, of science, of diplomacy and of culture (standardised culture, melting pot, etc.) are inevitable and/or desirable, including in relation to leadership, and political, scientific and cultural elites.

And yet, these principles are rarely the object of assessments or re-evaluation within the NGO sector. What is more, the increasing constraints imposed by donors since the beginning of the 2000s regarding ‘efficiency/effectiveness’, ‘logical frameworks’, ‘results-based programming’, ‘accountability’, etc., have increased the tendency for NGOs to consider themselves first and foremost as ‘managers’ and not as ‘agents of change’. This development is apparent in the professional profiles of the heads of the main western NGOs, who increasingly are managers (who have often come from the private sector). This has had a clear impact on the sector’s visions and strategies in recent times.

The idea here is not to define and debate whether these principles and these facts are positive or negative for people, societies or humanity. What is important is to question how diversity and respect for other frames of reference and experience can be encouraged in development cooperation and international aid. NGOs would benefit from being more aware that through their practices, their programmes and their messages, they disseminate and promote a ‘cultural’ and ‘technical’ framework which is primarily that of ‘white European and North American’ societies from the end of the 20^th century. By acting as they do now, NGOs do not sufficiently promote other cultural, democratic or economic practices and models (beyond the ‘folksy’ and ‘anthropological’ discourse that they sometimes use to communicate with their stakeholders and their partners). Thus, even though their intentions may often be good, NGOs reproduce and indirectly add legitimacy to the traditional discourses, terms, values and frameworks of the dominant countries who currently lead the international community.

If NGOs were more conscious, self-critical and careful about their use of soft power, this could radically improve their way of doing things and their partnerships. This would also allow NGOs to support more alternative, radical and demanding initiatives by local communities that exist around the world (such as “Buen Vivir”, “Madre Tierra”, “the Commons”, “the Great Transition”, “Sobriety”, “traditional forms of spirituality”, “unpaid work”, “alternative forms of governance and democracy”, “Asian vegetarian philosophies”, etc.). This would also be a way to reconnect NGOs with other more transformative and innovative currents in civil society. And it would also be a way to continue to innovate and to meet the current and future challenges facing our societies.

What are the roles of NGOs in relation to states and their institutions?

To conclude, let us return to the difficult issue of the relationship between the roles of NGOs within society and the responsibilities and roles of state institutions (locally, nationally and internationally), an issue that is frequently mentioned, but rarely debated in a serious manner. While the vast majority of NGOs officially advocate for effective, transparent and responsible state institutions (and work for them), certain international institutions (such as the World Bank, certain United Nations agencies and the OECD) attribute an important role to NGOs, which consists of compensating in the long term for the deficiencies of numerous states in terms of providing high quality services at the local level.

In the last forty years, NGOs have actively played the following roles: 1) service providers vis-à-vis international donors and national institutions, with the main objective of reaching populations in difficult conditions and/or in remote areas; 2) first responders following natural disasters and armed conflicts (at a relatively reasonable cost and within ‘informal and flexible institutional and political frameworks’); 3) promoters of international values; 4) key interlocutors regarding public policy and decision-making – having established a high level of expertise, they provide analysis and solutions to national and international institutions, and frequently act as whistle-blowers; 5) promoters of innovation through social, political and economic experimentation and creation, based on ‘field work’ at the local level, and with the capacity, in certain conditions, of spreading good practices (such as microcredit in the 1990s); and lastly, 6) builders of solidarity between countries and regions of the world through the development and implementation of aid programmes and the establishment of partnerships between organisations from different regions of the world (North-South, South-South, etc.).

This delegation of certain state responsibilities to NGOs can lead to a dilemma. On the one hand, it can be an opportunity for international and local NGOs to transfer sustainable and sometimes substantial resources to poor and marginalised communities. But on the other hand, it means that fragile states are less likely to take action in isolated areas (often rural areas where ‘minorities’ live). Over time, NGOs therefore become part of a broader ‘public strategy’, which consists of sub-contracting some of a state’s constitutional responsibilities to both non-profit-making entities (CSOs) and profit-making organisations (consultancies, experts and the private sector). What is more, these sub-contracting procedures generally lack mechanisms to ensure there is accountability towards the local populations. We must not forget that the way NGOs define ‘public goods’, ‘public obligations’ and ‘democratic control by citizens’ (including vis-à-vis service providing NGOs) needs to be a central issue in this debate.

1. The SDG agenda has not been appropriated by the majority of national governments and is not the object of political leadership at the international level (in contrast to the Climate agenda, for example). Insufficient resources have been invested, and as a consequence, it is unlikely that it will be fully implemented in line with the objectives. It remains a programme that is oriented towards experts, which reinforces the vision of its detractors who consider it to be a ‘global’ framework imposed by Northern countries on the rest of the world. It is also a non-binding international framework which lacks precise mechanisms to encourage, ensure and control its implementation. And finally, the SDGs do not have the support of the public, who for the most part do not even know that they exist.