Farewell to the NGOs: Their days in Bangladesh are over?

Bangladesh has had an image problem right from the days of our Liberation War. While our valiant freedom fighters earned accolades for us with their heroism and patriotism, the poverty of the people often denied us the dignity and respect that we deserved. Henry Kissinger's cruel and rather crude comment about Bangladesh was often quoted by those who wanted to emphasise our poverty and backwardness. Anti-Liberation forces created smoke screens to raise questions about the economic viability of Bangladesh.

Despite such a negative image due mainly to our poverty, the NGOs have been a source of strength and pride for Bangladesh. In their own way they have given the rest of the world a positive image, the image of a nation fighting against poverty at the grass roots level. In fact, the spontaneous growth of the large number of non-governmental organisations to work with the poor people to lift them out of the depth of poverty reflected the deep reservoir of resolve in our society to fight against this scourge. It was self- reliance at its best.

In the light of the density of population and shortage of cultivable land and in response to large-scale landlessness in the villages, the technique of micro credit was developed and popularized in Bangladesh in order to alleviate poverty. In fact, not only the Grameen Bank, organisations such as BRAC, ASA and Proshika are well known around the world as success stories in our struggle against pervasive poverty. Government leaders, experts and professionals and scholars abroad have been paying visits to Bangladesh to learn from our experience in this field. Even some heads of governments made special trips to Bangladesh to benefit from our experience. US President Clinton is reportedly an admirer of the micro-credit idea that he had used in his native Arkansas.

The first micro credit global summit held in Washington in 1997 was chaired by Sheikh Hasina, the then Prime Minister of Bangladesh. This unique honour to Bangladesh was done primarily because of the achievements of our NGOs as pioneers in their fight against poverty and social backwardness. However those days of glory for the NGOs are going to be over soon. The BNP-Jamaat government has decided to take away their independence and subordinate them to almost total government control. The text of the new bill will eloquently explain what the government has in its mind.

In order to regulate the receipts and expenditure of foreign donations for voluntary activities, President Ziaur Rahman passed an ordinance in November 1978 under the title "The Foreign Donations (Voluntary Activities) Regulation Ordinance, 1978." The ordinance provided for registration of NGOs, their inspection and audit. It was comprehensive but not too sweeping. Many people felt that some sort of regulatory framework for the NGOs was necessary. In 1982 some minor revisions were made to the ordinance.

However, what has been proposed in the new bill is an altogether different matter. Obviously the aim of the bill is to establish full control and authority over all the NGOs' personnel, their funds as well as their activities. Obviously the Jamaat is in the driver's seat.

In order to regulate NGO activities and their funds, the term "irregularity" has been defined in the bill to include "incurring expenditure against activities not approved under project, or incurring expenditure against approved activities in excess of budget provision beyond acceptable limits as is determined by government ( Italics added), or violation of the financial discipline of the organization, or any provisions of this ordinance or any rules or orders made there under (Italics added). Definition of the term 'irregularity' clearly indicates that the government intends to assume sweeping powers of regulation and control over the resources of the NGOs. The government will determine whether any irregularity has been committed and in doing so it will decide whether 'acceptable limits' have been exceeded. Who will decide what are 'acceptable limits'? Surely the government will make that determination. In any case, the government will retain the power to make new rules or orders in order to interpret the term 'irregularity'. These funds may have been provided by donors, both foreign and domestic but regardless of its origin, the government will have the ultimate control over its expenditure. I do not know how the donors will view such government control over their funds but there is no doubt that it is the government inspectors and auditors who will impose government's policies and values on the NGOs.

The definition of the term "political activity" has been added to the text of the new bill. It is a most revealing definition. It clearly brings out how the government will ensure that no NGO will dare speak or write directly or indirectly against the BNP-Jamaat Alliance government. The intentions are crystal clear. Let us look at the definition of the term "political activity" as given in the bill.

"Political activity" means "accepting membership of, directly supporting or getting aligned with any political party, and includes any activity which may be interpreted as political or, may affect politics or such other activities which may be interpreted to be detrimental to national independence, sovereignty, culture, ethnic and religious sentiment, etc, and shall not include activities like empowerment of poor and disadvantaged, awareness raising, etc, as long as those are not intended towards giving any direct political gain to any political party."

The key point in this definition is: Who will 'interpret' what constitutes 'alignment' with any political party and who will decide what activities are detrimental to national independence and sovereignty? The party in power will be the judge and jury. How will the NGOs retain their character as non-governmental bodies? The law will make them subservient to government fiat. The significant words used in the definition are: `culture, ethnic and religious sentiment, etc.' It is well known that the NGOs have been fighting against gender discrimination that has both cultural and religious implications. One of the political parties in the 4-party alliance, the Jamaate Islami is known to be against involvement of women in many of the traditional NGO activities including micro-credit. Obviously, the new law is intended to give them the handle to put an end to all these activities. Clearly, the Talibani culture is being introduced but not through the back door but the front door.

As regards 'awareness raising' activities from which no political party will gain direct political gain, it is quite clearly a licence to the government to intervene whenever it feels that its activities are not favouring it or favouring its political opponent. It is just a matter of its interpretation and judgment. What will be the NGOs' protection if the government makes an unfair interpretation? None. Of course, one may go to the court for redress but going to the court against the government, for a mere NGO, is a rather unequal struggle. In other words, the NGOs are doomed. If the government determines that the a particular NGO is "aligned" with any political party and takes punitive action under the provisions of the law, there is nothing that NGO can do. Or, if the government takes the view that some of the activities of an NGO in favour of the poor and disadvantaged are in fact causing direct political gain to any political party, it can come down with a heavy hand not only on its operation but also in its management.

Needless to say, the government will have the power to cancel its registration and dissolve it. The bill provides for the consequences of the dissolution of the NGO. After registration is cancelled, assets can be frozen and liquidator can be appointed to take care of the NGOs' financial and legal affairs. In other words, the NGOs are being brought under the thumb of the government. They will be termed 'non-governmental' by mere courtesy because they will be subject to practically all those administrative controls as are exercised by the government over its own subordinate bodies.

The bill has provided for the government to have the power to remove the chief executive or any other official of the registered NGOs. On what ground can they be removed? The list of the grounds is indeed long. The government may remove the chief executive or official if it is satisfied that they have been responsible for any irregularity in respect of its funds or for any mal-administration in the conduct of its affairs, or has failed to comply with the provisions of this ordinance, or the rules made there under, or any order issued by the government in this regard, or has caused the organisation to be involved in any political activity, or any activity influencing politics directly. No government or authority can possibly ask for more sweeping powers over the chief executives of NGOs who are supposed to be non-governmental!

The government's power of dismissal will be absolute. The protection that even a government servant enjoys under the government's internal rules will not be available to the officials of the NGOs whose actions and conduct will be judged on other grounds for which the government does not seem to be responsible to any body. Of course the officials will be given reasonable opportunity to be heard. So what? They will be heard and then dismissed. That will be the end of the story.

Today the NGO community in Bangladesh is divided and demoralised. This was one of the first things that were done. The ADAB was split. I do not know how the NGOs will react to the new bill. If the NGOs submit tamely to the draconian law and the absolute authority of the government is established over their policies and activities, that will be the end of their independence as well as their image as a modernising progressive force for the society. An ultra conservative and fundamentalist political party such as Jamaate Islami will impose its ideas and values on them. What about the policies of BNP? Increasingly the BNP looks like the other side of the Jamaat coin. What about the foreign donors? How will they view such a development? What about the civil society? Do they have a role in protecting this sector? Let us see how the different sections of the society react to this most negative and backward-looking piece of legislation. Bangladesh will obviously take not one step but several steps backward if the bill is passed into law.

It has been learned that an Asia/Pacific Regional Micro Credit Summit will be held in Dhaka on February16-19, 2004. This is certainly a matter of pride and pleasure for Bangladesh that, once again, the international community will acknowledge the pioneering role of this country in this field. And yet a new law has been just now tabled that will virtually put an end to the independence and freedom of operation of the sector that will be the main actor on the regional stage. It is rather ironic that such a drastic measure is being taken when the participants at the Summit will be witness to the way in which the BNP-Jamaat will impose the government's authority and control over this dynamic and vibrant group of organisations. Their diversity and freedom action are their strength that will be snuffed out once they go under the government's thumb. When the bill is passed into law, the Jamaate Islami, with the support of the pliant BNP, will have the last laugh. The rest of the nation will have to exercise its options: either it may resist this repressive and backward looking bill or join the Jamaat in celebrating its march to the past. What path will we choose?

Shah A M S Kibria is an AL MP and former finance minister.