The ‘good times’ may be over for non- governmental organisations, but that doesn’t mean they should just roll over and die, argues Thandi Orleyn
ON a number of occasions over the past two years, and most recently again last week, the Mail & Guardian has published articles highlighting the difficulties facing many non- governmental organisations (NGOs). In many cases the articles have contained pleas for some kind of dramatic intervention to save NGOs from collapse, lest all the good work they do is lost to the Reconstruction and Development Programme and the communities they serve.
The implication, spelt out to a greater or lesser extent, is that NGO funding has been suddenly withdrawn by the (mainly foreign) donors, and that someone, presumably the government, must step in to ensure that the previous levels of funding are maintained.
In 1996, two years after the establishment of the Government of National Unity, this tune is becoming repetitive. We know that a number of NGOs, both large and small, have collapsed despite many of them having played very significant roles in the past. Many others have had to retrench staff and restructure themselves. There may be more NGOs that also fall by the wayside, but it is alarmist in the extreme to suggest, as Helmut Bertelsmann argued (“NGOs walk where others fear to tread”, April 12 to 18), that “even the most productive and inventive” and “even the strongest and biggest” NGOs are about to die.
The demise of some NGOs can be attributed at least in part to changing donor priorities, although other factors also need to be considered. NGOs themselves have in many cases failed to adapt to the changing environment.
We know also that there have been examples of NGO mismanagement, improper accounting and unconventional practices that will undoubtedly have alarmed many of the traditional donors.
However, the new writing has been on the wall for some time now. It was inevitable that donor priorities would change once an accountable and democratic government committed to processes of development was engaging with the international donor community. Donors would naturally prefer to start channelling increasing proportions of their funds (for which they have to account to taxpayers in their own countries) to elected and accountable government structures (elected by the very communities that NGOs often claim to “represent”).
Indeed, it is essential for effective RDP delivery that foreign aid should be integrated into the general strategies of the new government in order to facilitate the integration of programmes and provide much- needed co-ordination. This is why the inter- governmental donor conferences that took place in 1994, and will be taking place again next week, are so important.
Nonetheless, the fact is that many foreign donors have continued to channel funding into the NGO sector, albeit at decreasing levels, and recognise the important role that we play. Not unnaturally, particularly in the light of some of the well-publicised cases of NGO mismanagement referred to above, these donors now need to see greater levels of accountability and evidence of the impact of their funding, and the challenge for the NGO sector is to respond to these new imperatives and to demonstrate that they can deliver effectively.
There is little value in worrying about the problems of trying to find black NGO managers, or feeling betrayed when people who cut their teeth in NGOs take advantage of the new opportunities that are at last opening up for people of all races.
The real issue is not about the credibility of NGOs which have white male leaders, as Bertlesmann implied (there are still well- established NGOs which are led by white men), but rather one of implementing real affirmative action strategies which result in a workforce that is increasingly representative of South African society in terms of race and gender profiles. This is obviously also a critical issue for the public sector and the corporate world.
NGOs should not expect to rely on their past “track record” when seeking new work. The urgency of RDP delivery requires fresh and innovative thinking from organisations and people who are not content simply to rest on past laurels earned in the struggle. At the Independent Mediation Service of South Africa (Imssa) we believe that we are only as good as our last intervention, and we cannot expect favours from anyone.
As NGOs we need to take charge of our own destiny, rather than see-ing ourselves as victims of the new dispensation and as abandoned by former colleagues who are now in government. Critically, we in the NGO sector must work to ensure our long-term survival.
This means examining our organisations internally, as well as repositioning them in a rapidly changing external environment. It is no easy fix and requires considerable hard work. We have to change our organisational mindsets and, critically, our whole organisational culture.
The “good times” are over, and we know that we cannot rely forever on continued foreign funding. So we have to diversify our funding base, tender for work, seek new partnerships and opportunities, refocus our energies on
delivering measurable results and high-quality work, review our budgeting and financial procedures, empower and train our people.
In doing this we need to develop a sharp new vision of what our role as NGOs can be, and a renewed determination to succeed in our vitally important work, so that NGOs, large and small, will be around at the turn of the century to help address the huge challenges that lie ahead as part of a vibrant and lively civil society. The new democracy deserves no less.
Thandi Orleyn is National Director: Independent Mediation Service of South Africa