There are few truths in development that I hold to be self-evident and this is one of them: no matter what the problem, stronger civil society is always part of the answer.
If we define development as rapidly rising living standards, some of the fastest growing countries in recent decades, such as China, have been authoritarian regimes with little independent civil society. However, the fruits of that growth have been shared unevenly. Strengthening civil society will lend political power to those parts of society that need to argue for their needs and rights.
Furthermore, if we allow a broader definition of development, one that covers political and civil rights, not just improvements in health, education and income, then one of the central aims of development is to enable poor people to hold the powerful accountable. That, surely, is what civil society does at its best.
So it is good to see that a new coalition of international NGOs, including Frontline Defenders, Freedom House and the Asia Forum for Human Rights and Development, has set up what they are calling the ¨Embattled NGO Assistance Fund¨. The aim of this fund is to help civil society activists withstand crackdowns and pressure, enabling them to continue their work to defend citizens` rights and freedoms.
Many people now agree that gradually direct aid to governments needs to be replaced by support to non-governmental activities, including the strengthening of those necessary parts of an effective and democratic state that are not centralised in the government.
There is, however, one major problem, the same one as ever. Aid is a form of soft power used by rich countries to gain influence abroad. That influence has often been used benignly, but equally often it has been used to shore up the interests of those powerful countries. This is a complex paradox at the heart of the development agenda, and it is often most apparent in work on political freedoms.
Passing money through NGO consortia, as is the case with this new fund, rather than spending it as direct government aid, is generally a good way of reducing the political baggage that comes with it. But the essential conundrum remains: it is hard to separate this kind of funding from the ideology and interests of the giver. Can foreign countries be trusted to support the interest of the poor and voiceless rather than putting their own interest first?
The answer, in short, is no. But there is no better option. The grave situation of human rights defenders in many countries requires concerted action, even if motives turn murky. Examples in the press release for new fund include ¨ a draft law in Cambodia to increase government control over NGOs, government freezes on NGO bank accounts in Ethiopia, the detention and torture of human rights defenders in Bahrain, coordinated attacks against and restrictions on the movement of opposition members in Iran, and the violent dispersal of demostrations in Belarus.
It would be surprise if this new fund was not broadly a force for good in the world, particularly as the NGOs involved have demonstrated their independence and deep concern for human rights regardless of politics. And I am going to stick to my belief, evidenced or not. Whatever the assessment an external actor makes of a country situation, one of the best things it can do is support the growth and development of independent community organisations, NGOs and the media.
