Get Your Facts Straight: A Message to Donor Organizations

Ramazan Bashardost's labelling of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in Afghanistan as promoting "economic terrorism" resonates with our modern understanding of "corporatism" albeit with "not-for-profit" actors. There is some truth in these claims.

The former Afghan Planning Minister called for dismantling over 90 per cent of NGOs including international organizations operating in Afghanistan. Mr. Bashardost argued that he spoke on behalf of Afghans who believe that NGOs have squandered millions of dollars that are supposed to build schools, clinics, roads and meet most basic needs.

According to Mr. Bashardost, more than 2,000 NGOs are currently registered with the government receiving about one third of foreign assistance.

The former minister came under fire for making such blunt remarks both from Karzai administration and the NGO community. Bashardost, who holds a PHD in Law from France, subsequently resigned from the ministerial position and is currently a member of the newly inaugurated parliament.

While Mr. Bashardost probably went too far and too fast to bring down what he calls "NGOism" in Afghanistan, his remarks shed some light on the development process in Afghanistan and the role of NGOs.

The important work of NGOs in any conflict-ravaged society is crucial to rebuilding efforts. NGOs bring significant resources, expertise, knowledge and creativity to the whole process.

In the context of Afghanistan, one can simply assess the effectiveness of these organizations during the 25 years of conflict, drought situations and emergency crisis. Today, some organizations are strong advocates of the aspirations of the Afghan people.

However, recent years have seen growing scepticism of the Afghan populations about the activities of NGOs and their impact on the Afghan society. Skyrocketing of living costs and corruption, for instance, are largely blamed on the NGOs.

However, what Mr. Bashardost and many Afghan analysts fail to highlight is the responsibility of the donor agencies in making sure that a transparent and accountable mechanism is in place within all NGOs.

Accountability, transparency, monitoring and evaluation are merely cosmetic, broad and attractive topics for project proposals. Most NGOs keep 8-12 per cent of the foreign aid for their "administrative costs." This covers rents, salaries, equipment costs, transportation costs, etc. The agony is that many NGOs account for these costs ten times from ten different donor organizations.

There is no way for a donor agency to find out if the office rent, for instance, is covered by another donor organization. NGOs divert these funds for different purposes, from personal accounts to selected projects.

Nepotism is at the heart of realities in NGO circles. Many directors are notorious for hiring their relatives, friends and friends of friends. There is an entire cobweb of relationships that involves employee recruitment. You hire my relatives and I will make sure that you get this project, goes the informal tradition. Both the government and the NGOs are plagued with this cancerous hiring procedure.

The incentive program within the NGO community is another area of concern. If you have a high school diploma, understand English, are computer literate and of course have "a connection", you are most likely to find a job with a monthly salary of $400-$2,000 . While definitely a tremendous economic advantage, the irony is that the salaries of many doctors and teachers, for instance, are usually between $50-$150. This itself promotes inequality at various levels of the Afghan society.

It is beyond the scope of this article to elaborate on the effectiveness and problems with the NGO activities in Afghanistan. However, there is one clear message for the donor agencies: get your facts straight before funding an organization.

By the end of 2001, there were only over 500 registered NGOs. How do we explain the emergence of over 2,000 NGOs today?

Development is a continuous, long-term process not a 4-month project with 10% administration costs. Donor agencies must do more than approve the project proposal of a one-man organization whose director is the chief cook and bottle washer. Foreign aid must be needs-based, transparent, measurable and long-term oriented.

The accountability and legitimacy guidelines should be established by the donor agencies not the recipient organizations themselves. This may minimize, although almost never rule out, the chances of corruption and fraud.

Don't be surprised, then, at why little development is taking place on the ground in Afghanistan. People's disenchantment is both because of the government, NGOs as well as an influential actor emphasized here- the donor agencies.

Just a little attention to the accountability and legitimacy elements would make a huge difference in rebuilding Afghanistan.