Times Of Swaziland: WHEN NGO ACCOUNTABILITY IS ABSENT

WHEN NGO ACCOUNTABILITY IS ABSENT
================================================================================
Son of the Soil on 20/01/2025 07:55:00


NGOs are an extension of governments, in a sense. They play a gap-filling role
by providing, in some cases, some services where governments fall short. They
also educate citizens about their rights and duties and empower them with skills
and knowledge that help them hold their democratically elected governments
accountable and give them a voice in the affairs of their country. Seldom do you
find governments going out of their way to empower citizens in this manner. The
reader is free to think of the political reasons for leaders not to invest too
much into producing a mass of critical thinkers who will constantly challenge
them for one reason or the other. The process of building the capacity of the
people to know, understand and demand their rights often puts civil society on a
collision course with government. In authoritarian states, those civil society
organisations are viewed as agents of foreign interests, hell-bent on
destabilising the countries. For this reason, they are often treated with
suspicion. To militate against the influence of not-for-profits, governments
then put in place policies and laws that limit the scope of operation for these
entities. This puts their activities under the microscope. This is what is
referred to by some others as shrinking of civic space.
Role
In a country such as Eswatini, where political parties do not have a legal
framework to operate under, like in other countries, not-for-profits tend to
play a more pronounced role in addressing political issues. Accountability, as a
political value, is usually one of the most dominant demands of NGOs to
governments. In advocacy campaigns, not-for-profits sometimes come down hard on
governments with accusations of lack of accountability in the use of State power
and resources. Well and good. It becomes an issue, however, when the same cannot
be expected of the NGOs at the forefront of the calls for accountability and
good governance. Not-for-profits (NGOs) should, as agents of change, be leaders
when it comes to embracing and practising the values they demand from the State
and not have double standards. They must, simply put, be the change they want to
see.
Exposed
When NGOs engender a culture of unaccountability within their own organisations,
it is only a matter of time before this is exposed and laid bare. This has the
effect of robbing the entity and by extension, the entire civil society, the one
attribute that should give them the moral high ground to call leaders and
governments out when they fail to be accountable; and that is credibility.  Once
credibility is lost, it is almost impossible to regain it. This is one quality
that NGOs need to guard closely and ensure that in all its dealings, it does not
lose it. While NGOs, unlike governments, are not elected by the people, they do
in fact work for the people and represent their interests in fora where ordinary
citizens would not be afforded the platform to be heard.  In many cases, they
become a bridge between political representatives and governments.  Because they
have access to expertise and resources, they are able to influence legislative
and policy processes in a way many of their directly elected representatives may
not be able to.
This is a lot of power in the hands of NGOs which needs to be handled
responsibly. The platforms where real change is influenced is a very contested
space and not just given on a silver platter. Where through distinction and an
unblemished public image NGOs distinguish themselves, governments will be more
inclined to work closely with those organisations. Proximity with policy-makers
means they are able to perform their functions more effectively and influence
reforms easier. I hasten to clarify that by this, I do not mean being in  the
pockets of government to  the point where they are not able to  hold it
accountable.  The relationship between NGOs and government should not inherently
be adversarial.  In fact, it helps to foster a good working relationship with
government as much as possible. That way, NGOs position themselves to get
information quicker and are able to know and understand government plans in
order to programme better and make relevant interventions. If an NGOs gains
notoriety for lack of accountability, policy-makers will most likely not want to
associate themselves with it. It will then lose relevance and limit its scope of
influence.
Improve
Corruption can, for purposes of our discussion, be seen an antithesis of
accountability. If an NGO, therefore, wants to improve accountability, it must
deal with internal corruption. The best way to deal with internal corruption is
to prevent it. It is imperative that NGOs anticipate corruption and put in place
measures to deal with it. The first step in doing that is putting in place
policies and guidelines to address corruption. One of the corruption hotspots in
NGOs is in procurement, both of services and goods. Many NGOs operate without
policies that deal with procurement. For some who have these in place,
compliance is an issue. Organisations need to exhibit a zero-tolerance attitude
to corruption and have in place clear procedures to deal with such cases when
they surface.  These procedures must be comprehensive and address such matters
as detection, whistle-blowing and discipline. They must respond to the needs of
the organisation and be structured to address every area of its activity. There
must be no impunity or selectiveness in the application of these policies. That
goes a long way in eliminating corruption and improving accountability.