On insidious NGOs and civil society-wallahs, meddling diplomats

There is no gainsaying that nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), once perceived as small bands of activists, have, in the wake of the collapse of Communism, which exposed poverty and opened up countries once off limits to these groups, and improved communication via television and the Internet, gained global prominence since the 1990s. In their book The New Global Brands: Non-Government Organizations in the 21st Century (2005), authors Nathalie Laidler-Kylander and John A. Quelch raise several important questions: To what extent should NGOs cooperate with national governments and multinational corporations (MNCs) if doing so will advance their missions? Where is the line between cooperation and co-optation? How can they balance operational and advocacy efforts? There are others, but the first two are crucial in the context of Bangladesh .

A multitude of NGOs, small, medium, and large, are operational in this country. Make no mistake, a sizeable portion of that number is doing sterling work in their own niches in contributing towards the country's development, in however small a way that might be. After all, small efforts together may go towards making for a large outcome. Many of the NGOs are small in size and modest in their scope of operations, and devote themselves to satisfactorily fulfilling their specific limited objectives as well as they are able to. In general, they do not receive much of a media exposure, but that does not in any way detract from the sincerity of their efforts at doing what they are supposed to do.

And NGOs are supposed to be doing what their terms of agreement with the government require them to do. A partial answer to the question about the extent to which NGOs may cooperate with the national government (MNCs do not, as of yet, apply to any degree of significance in the context of this country) may be found here. In Bangladesh , NGOs must act within the parameters set for them by the government, and, accordingly, will cooperate with it to the extent that the combined effort will ideally lead towards the country's welfare. Importantly, they cannot use the government as a convenient tool for advancing their missions. And, most importantly, they cannot arrogate to themselves any pretension at being a supranational, or parallel, government. A vital point to keep in mind is that the Bangladeshi NGOs are run by Bangladeshis, who are endowed with those specific weaknesses of character that much of the population possesses, and they sporadically surface, to the detriment of the nation and its political system. This tendency by a limited number of large NGOs has to be dealt with the firmest of hands.

NGOs are relatively minor contributors to this country's overall development, and they should be made to realize the limits of their domain, however cozy their relations with donors and their preferences (a matter that will be taken up shortly). With regard to the second question posed above, the government just cannot randomly co-opt NGOs for its own end, and should look for ways to bring about cooperation, but it must stamp its unmistakable sign of authority on erring NGOs. The problem here is that certain large NGOs have for some time been venturing into the forbidden (to them) world of engaging in political activities at various levels, including taking pronounced partisan roles come election time.

And there have been credible allegations of some of them engaging in destructive political agitation, as well as in ruinous actions to undermine the country's economy (like the recent cases of sabotage in the RMG industry sector), at the behest of political organizations or, more alarmingly, of foreign interests. One can easily carry out an extensive research study to find out the existence and extent of such an unholy nexus, one that would immensely benefit the nation in so many different ways. Within the confines of this space, however, it can only be said that such a nexus poses a grave danger to the country's economic prosperity, and the growth and development of a healthy political culture and vibrant liberal pluralist democracy.

And these errant NGOs are often aided in their nefarious activities by insidious "civil society"-wallahs, and these creatures are by no means negligible in number. Again, they do so to serve their own narrow interests and, not infrequently and disturbingly, the agenda of foreign governments, individuals and groups. They have contributed in no small way to the political impasse that the country finds itself in. If the country is not yet ready for a full-fledged liberal pluralist democracy, because its spirit has not yet become an integral part of the general citizenry's psyche, then one has to remember that the nation's experience with this difficult polity has been of a very limited duration, and its further development would have to be carefully nurtured and guided through expected choppy waters. One cannot expect miracles overnight, and the necessary amendments for the use of appropriate tools may be written into the country's Constitution to curb the excesses of democracy and the abuse of its liberalism, but the path towards a vibrant liberal democracy as the polity of choice for Bangladesh must be pursued with determination and vision.

One failed politician and "civil society"-wallah was in the forefront of the idea of a so-called "national government" for running the country. It was, and remains, a ghastly idea, fuelled by people often with personal and ascribed agenda to carry out, inevitably at the expense of the nation's broader interest and the development of a healthy political culture as bedrock for the flourishing of the essence of liberal pluralist democracy: an ingrained mindset for its norms, values and, above all, spirit. Presumably, he would have been among the central figures in the outlandish notion of a "national government", with other cohorts to run the country in a distinctly undemocratic setup! And, not surprisingly, that person has declared, in an effort to clarify earlier statements, that, by "national government" he meant the model set up by Nelson Mandela in South Africa, which would entail that the party winning the general election would accommodate representatives from the losing parties into a consensus government (that would open up a nice can of worms with, almost inevitably, the constituent parties bickering and falling out over the composition of the inclusive body!). Really?

Why did you not provide this explanation in the first place? Feeling chastened after a rude shock to your system? For one thing, the promoter of the idea is no Mandela, not even remotely close to being compared with that great statesman's selfless devotion to, and towering vision for, his nation. For another, the national character of Bangladeshis and South Africans are significantly different, and one cannot realistically expect one model to successfully work in another setting. But, really, the underlying objective behind a national government is probably to accommodate failed politicians and motivated "civil society"-wallahs with no chance of winning popular elections in positions of state power.

That is a bad idea, really bad idea.

And several of these NGO and "civil society"-wallahs are themselves not better than the venal politicians they rail against. There have been reports of tax evasion and other irregularities, and at least one think-tank reportedly has recently paid a hefty sum in back taxes after accounts of its negligence in this regard were exposed, and followed up, in a national daily newspaper. In this connection, it was amusing to read the report of the head of a well-known research organization, which itself has been under a cloud of suspicion about its real motives and research methodology, admonishing NGOs not to engage in political activities! Advice certainly is cheap and freely offered in Bangladesh ! And pots think nothing of calling the kettle black! The point is, in hauling up the bad political elements, the caretaker administration might be missing out, for whatever reason, the other murky elements existing in the society. And their numbers are not negligible. They need to be cleaned up with as much urgency as the venal politicians.

he administration has done a sterling job (the one outstanding success story of this government) in clearing the way for the large political parties to democratize internally and clean up their act. Now it has to go after the crass opportunists and insidious string-pullers contributing heavily to the country's abysmal political culture.

And it has to place its foot down firmly on those third-rate diplomats of certain countries who seem so fond of engaging in public diplomacy and unduly interfering in Bangladesh 's internal affairs. Like the British High Commissioner, who chooses to define "internal affair" according to his own choosing and convenience. Or the American ambassador, who engages in talks with politicians of different parties in Rajshahi when a ban is on over even domestic politics.

This is demeaning to the country's pride and honour. It would be a nice thought to contemplate these and other errant diplomats, especially the British High Commissioner, being posted in Harare . President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe would have a field day with his metaphorical boots if they carried on there as they do here. But they would not dare do that there. That would be the resultant of drawing a no-nonsense line between acceptable and permissible diplomatic activities and turning a blind eye to third-rate diplomats engaging in free-for-all diplomacy in the host country.