NGO-Govt relations - Collaboration or confrontation

In our decade-long work with development organisations one significant issue on which we saw a range of different responses has been the attitude of NGOs towards government and its financial resources. While we ourselves were part of some of these situations, some others, we have been able to observe from a distance. This note is an effort to develop an understanding of the causes and consequences of such positions.

Through the 90s there has been an increasing acknowledgement by the government of the role of NGOs, especially in areas where there are gaps in delivery of basic services. These are manifest in government policies, programmes and schemes, which have to varying degrees tried to incorporate NGOs, especially in building the social interface with communities. The acknowledgement of NGOs ability to deliver technically sound products on a reasonable scale has been more recent. These grudging responses have been precipitated by the evidence of significant local action by several NGOs, but also perhaps growing international pressure, especially from multilateral and bilateral aid agencies to incorporate NGOs into the formal development space. Interestingly, the government also come into the ‘business’ of forming NGOs – the DRDA, etc., extended arms of the government really, but constitution-wise NGOs.

In this climate, NGOs which were established through the 70s and 80s and which came to have significant local presence and community support, especially, have in recent times been forced to reassess their positions vis-à-vis the constituencies they serve. The values they espoused – participation, democracy, rights, sustainability – are today articulated with as much fervour by quasi-government NGOs, and are common parlance in CSR espousal of corporations. The greatest challenge, and potential arena of conflict, though, is with Panchayats which are, at least on paper, given responsibility for fulfilment of basic services –running schools, developing watersheds, managing commons, establishing water supply and sanitation, building roads, setting up markets, etc.

NGO responses to working “with the government” have varied. Among organisations engaged in constructive development action, there are those who make efforts to leverage government resources, directly, or through community based organisations. These organisations acknowledge that resources available are scarce, that resources allocated by the government must be spent wisely with the maximum benefits reaching the targeted people.

For these organisations, the process of working “with the government” has been, at best a challenge, at worst a humiliating nightmare. Negotiating through the labyrinth of political patronage and bureaucratic concession, often coming into direct competition with ‘born yesterday’ NGOs (often promoted by local politicians for obvious reasons), require them to develop a very special kind of ability to negotiate. Often established NGOs find years of work in nurturing communities being taken over by some other NGO or government department, which has been allocated a certain “watershed” to be implemented. For most communities and their leaders, however ‘mature’, the choice is difficult to make and the lure of short term gains very powerful. Unfortunately there is no level playing field. It is pure muscle and acumen and on occasion, strings at a ‘higher level’ which need to be pulled.

Not all is bleak though. There is an occasional bureaucrat, who is sensitive and understanding and is able to identify the grain from the chaff. A lot has depended on the capacity of NGOs to build rapport with such officers, investing time and effort in the process, to be able to influence programme implementation processes. Most often though these don’t sustain beyond the particular officer and die out with his/ her transfer.

Some recurring problems of working with the government, whatever the programme or scheme, include -
- Standardised pre-determined approaches, with little or no room for innovation or negotiation to suit local contexts
- Erratic fund flows, wherein there is either too much to spend within the stipulated time or too little, but never enough when it is needed the most
- Government departments which sanction and monitor the programmes are often in competition for the same projects. This places NGOs at a distinct disadvantage and reinforces their subservient status.
- Corruption, in a variety of forms. Where NGOs have resisted bribes, or sharing a fraction of the sanctioned funds, they are punished by delays in sanction/ release of funds.

For these reasons, among others, a large number of organisations engaged in the constructive development approach choose not to collaborate with the government, even though these spaces are there. Many have tried a few times and scarred by the experience have chosen to leverage other resources, typically foreign aid, which evidently is a dwindling resource.

For these reasons too, organisations which leverage substantial government funds are often looked at with suspicion and labelled variously as ‘government contractors’, ‘co-opted by the government’, etc.

Those working in the ‘activist’ mode of mobilising communities to claim rights from the government feel that any form of collaboration by NGOs will be construed as co-option. There is a sense of belligerence in their approach, and a belief that community based organisations will be able to stake claims and play an integral role in implementation of schemes (or at least ensure wise use of resources using instruments such as the Right to Information) once they are adequately aware of rights.

These same organisations have a different form of working “with the government”. In their effort to influence policies, they consistently lobby with and actively seek support of politicians – Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly who will determine the destiny of legislations and policies. Laudable as these efforts are, there is a creeping sense of a different form of ‘co-option’, when such support is used as a measure of success or validity of efforts by such NGOs.

Irrespective of the branding accrued – contractor or co-opted – a more urgent situation requires the NGO sector to seek stronger ways to work with the government. Traditional sources of development finances (foreign donor funds) are fast drying up. Corporate philanthropy in India has not assumed a scale where it can be considered serious or pan-Indian. At the same time, allocations for NGO-facilitated development schemes within the governmental system have increased. The balance is firmly tilting towards this end. There are already a large number of organisations created for the express and exclusive purpose of garnering these funds. Very little of the resources routed through such NGOs ever reach the intended target. Caught between these two contradictions, should the established, credible organisations take a ‘holier-than-thou’ attitude towards government funds or build up capacities, within and with the constituency, to use these resources in a credible manner?