Originally posted in The Daily Star on 9 August 2021
A few years back, a reputed non-governmental think tank in Europe saw its sad demise after more than two decades of operation. The organisation gained prominence by working on globally important issues and by attracting a pool of experts from around the world. As a result, it was also able to draw the attention of several donors for funding its activities. Many South Asian experts had the opportunity to work with the organisation. The think tank also successfully brought international policymakers on board while discussing issues that affect larger communities, including the global South. So, the closure of the organisation was unfortunate. But what was more unfortunate was the reason for the shutdown. It was closed after the revelation of massive financial irregularities of its founding leader—a person who earned fame as an organisation builder and advocate of a just global order. An inquiry into the organisation found that he was taking an abnormally high salary and benefits, paying for personal travels with office funds, and employing relatives in the office without informing the governing body, among many other allegations.
The reason for citing this example is that civil society organisations (CSOs) around the world have a challenge to play their role with integrity and sincerity. They are under the radar, not only of the government but of everyone else in society as they are engaged in scrutinising the activities of others, particularly policymakers. Clearly, if they are pinpointing limitations of policies and actions of other actors, and suggesting improvements—they themselves have to be on a strong moral footing by being transparent at the highest level.
Bangladesh has a rich history of vibrant CSOs which have come into existence over the years. Broadly, these organisations include policy-oriented think tanks, private development organisations, issue-based advocacy groups, voluntary community-based organisations, and service delivery organisations. The range of their activities is also diverse—these non-governmental, non-profit and non-partisan organisations work on issues that cover economic, social, political, and cultural areas. While promoting various causes in these four broad areas, they focus on raising awareness on public policies and programmes. They also engage themselves in influencing the design, implementation, and management of public policies and programmes. A large number of such CSOs in Bangladesh are funded by foreign donors.
Some CSOs in Bangladesh have gained good reputations and respect for successfully advocating issues of public interest and diligently following up on the implementation of public policies. However, examples of similar stories of CSOs as mentioned above are not uncommon too. The accountability of CSOs regularly comes under inspection, the findings sometimes leading to a negative image of CSOs. This makes the task of credible CSOs difficult, particularly at a time when the space for CSOs for undertaking their activities is shrinking.
Activities of CSOs are rarely appreciated by the government of the day. As these organisations raise the appropriateness of certain policies, the effectiveness of actions, the quality of various government services, and flag the issue of governance attached to its initiatives, the government mostly takes a defensive position. At certain points, such a defensive role ends up in imposition of stringent regulations on CSO activities, making it difficult for them to work meaningfully.
The curtailment of the breadth of their work also affects the people for whom they work—the voiceless marginalised people with limited or no opportunity to change their lives for betterment. The broader objective of CSO activities is to have a society based on equity and justice. Therefore, CSO activities are in fact complementary to what the government does. There is no conflict between the objectives of these two actors.
While the space for CSOs to work must be upheld for making development and democracy meaningful and rewarding for each and every citizen of the country, the accountability of CSOs themselves is critically important. Unfortunately, at times there are reports which do not match with the stated objective and spirit of CSOs. The cause for which they fight is absent in many organisations. If CSOs want to make their engagement with policymakers and communities constructive, their own credibility must be established first. Among several issues, the three most important ones are highlighted below.
First, the internal governance of some organisations is weak and designed in a way to serve the interests of the founders and leaders of these CSOs. A lack of robust administrative and governance structure helps to pursue such objectives and change of leadership is extremely rare in several of these organisations. The heads of the institute—usually the founders—hold onto the position for an indefinite or a long period of time as it is perceived to be their right. The excuse given is the absence of any replacement for the position, which is flawed. Of course, there is a shortage of skilled human resources in Bangladesh. Moreover, CSOs are not considered the most sought-after sector among job-seekers. However, there is also less interest among CSOs themselves to find and groom prospective future leaders for the organisation. Sometimes, leadership is transferred to the next generation of family members—just like in private businesses.
In certain organisations, which have attempted to establish a system of leadership change, the shadow leadership of previous top officials haunts the new leaders as the former continue to interfere in organisational decisions. There is a peculiar system to accommodate the old guard in the mainstream activities of the organisations which undermines independent management and the decision-making process. The idea of taking an advisory role and contributing to the organisation is unusual among CSO leaders.
Second, the lack of a strong financial system gives rise to questions about the financial integrity of some organisations. Audit by reputed firms and independent internal audits are the basic requirements for establishing transparency on financial matters. Organisations sometimes shy away from financial best practices as it might reveal many wrongdoings. Often, salaries and perquisites of the founding and long-lasting leaders are fixed by themselves and at their own will—their taste for high living ignores organisational policies.
Third, the role of the governing bodies of the organisation is also critical. CSOs are usually governed by a board consisting of respected persons in the country. However, at times, the overseeing mechanism does not work well due to low commitment of the board members. Some members only want to be associated with CSOs for self-gratification and name recognition. Some organisations also like to upgrade their image by including big names, but who may not necessarily add real value to the organisation in terms of improving its governance. Ironically, for some organisations, this could be a blessing as they do not want the board to interfere—not only because it can become a pain for the management to run the organisation if the board gets involved in day-to-day affairs, but also because the CSO officials do not want the board to learn about acts which violate the rules. Indeed, maintaining a fine balance between diligently overseeing the governance of the organisation and not interfering in the daily operation of the organisation requires not only skills but also the right attitude of the governing body.
The credibility of an organisation is built over a long period but is destroyed through a small mistake. It sets examples for others. Therefore, CSOs have to continue their arduous journey of advocating for accountable and transparent public policies and programmes by setting good examples for themselves.
Dr Fahmida Khatun is the Executive Director at the Centre for Policy Dialogue.