Governance and the non governmental sector

The war and its woes aside, recent events have highlighted the issue of governance in the non-state sector. There has been the Interim Report of the Parliamentary Select Committee on Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs), the resignation of a leading media rights activist from the Centre for PolicyAlternatives on account of anomalies in a financial transaction for which he was responsible and the Golden Key fiasco with the Central Bank now handing over Seylan Bank to the Bank of Ceylon. The Golden Key fiasco or should one say scandal is said to run into some Rs. 25 billion..

At the heart of the first and third issues cited above is that of regulation, transparency and accountability. In all three cases there can be no categorical denial that greed too has played its part and even on the part of those who are and claim to be victims.

The shenanigans of the regime and of officialdom notwithstanding, civil society too is badly in need of self-reflection and self criticism with regard to putting its own house in order in respect of standard operating procedures of transparency and accountability and most importantly the pivotal issue of ethics.

There are certain fundamentals that need to be integrated into the governance ethos and structure of organisations pertaining to conflict of interest, due diligence and transparency. Furthermore, ends however purportedly noble do not justify means that are patently squalid and shabby.

The ways that the current messes are resolved are therefore of the utmost importance in restoring adherence to basic principles of governance. Nothing less than democracy and public trust and confidence are at stake. Dissent will lack credibility if it is tainted with graft and the ideal of a share and property owning democracy will be fatally compromised if financial institutions are seen as rackets for the rich at the expense of the average citizen.

Right to information

The Parliamentary Select Committee seems to have misunderstood this when dealing with one of the sectors involved – NGOs and INGOs. The issue is not one that demands new laws per se, but rather the proper implementation of existing laws dealing with transparency and accountability.

The new law that is needed is that providing for a Right to Information, and here it is not just non-transparent NGOs that will be made uncomfortable but non-transparent governments that will have to pay the political and electoral costs for systematic plunder, loot and mismanagement of the common wealth.

Fatally blinded by political bias and populist stereotyping – its list of consultants read in the main like the politburo of the NMAT or Hela Urumaya — it went on a witch hunt and reached a pre ordained conclusion that strikes at the heart of the freedom of association provisions of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) – one of the international human rights instruments, the effective implementation of which is one of the subjects of the EU GSP+ investigation.

The Select Committee seems genuinely confused between INGOs and NGOs and is of the opinion that they must merely be service providers for the regime in power.

Stanlist logic

Accordingly, anything defined as being outside the narrow perspective and parameter of the Mahinda Chinthanaya, is classified as suspect and subversive. The cruel and corrupting extension of this Stalinist logic is the Tissainayagam case where the journalist Tissainayagam is accused of amongst other things, of bringing the government into disrepute — precisely what, in a functioning democracy, one would have thought journalists are duty bound to do, when there are the grounds for doing so.

Interestingly, the politicians who signed up to this report seem to have indulged in an inadvertent act of selflessness or sacrifice by subscribing to a definition of NGOs that must surely apply and accordingly restrict the personal and private foundations they have a penchant for establishing in the interests of patronage politics. It reads as:

All organisations formed by an individual or a group of individuals with no state agreement, for the purpose of rendering volunteer service with local and foreign aid, with no expectation of profit but aiming at social security, welfare and development, with a constitution and management system consistent with the domestic legal and policy framework and ethics are defined as voluntary social organisations or non-governmental organisations.

Does this mean that only regime or regime friendly politicians will be able to establish foundations for the distribution of largesse and bounty in the expectation of votes? Did the opposition politicians who signed up read what they were signing up to? Is this really the way in which legislative business is conducted?

NGO commission

Another recommendation appears to be:

NGOs should pay strict attention to national identity, national security, territorial integrity, customs and rituals, values and culture of the country and the commission (the proposed NGO Commission) should compile a set of guidelines restraining NGOs from taking action to destroy or distort them to create a sense of dependant mentality (sic) in the people.

Could this be anything other than a licence for cultural policing? Could a NGO run a campaign against the dowry system, a caste based sangha or discriminatory customary laws?

In order to halt this narrow minded authoritarianism, civil society organisations need to get their act together be it NGOs or corporate bodies. There can be no point in whingeing and whining against regulation if there is no demonstrable evidence of a commitment to self-regulation and a modicum, at least, of self respect.

Courtesy: Morning Leader