In the bustling heart of Islamabad, amidst the heat and humidity, I witnessed a remarkable display of grassroots civil society in action. As I waited for my car to be fixed, I overheard a mechanic's helper proudly announce an election for their association. This small gathering was a microcosm of the vibrant, animated discussions I observed throughout the market. The shopkeepers were discussing their problems, government indifference, and the threat of forced eviction. It was a stark contrast to the air-conditioned comfort of my US embassy office, and it sparked a profound realization: the disconnect between international aid and the real civil society on the ground.
For 25 years, I worked in the development sector, managing millions of dollars in civil society funding. Yet, I never saw a donor fund an organization like the shopkeepers' association. This gap between what we funded and what actually existed tells a tale of missed opportunities and misguided priorities. With USAID now dismantled and the western development assistance model under scrutiny, it's time to reevaluate our approach.
The issue lies in the parallel universe we created: professional NGOs accountable to donors in Washington or London, but not to the communities they serve. These organizations, more like contractors than civil society, lacked a deep commitment to specific causes and were accountable not to their members but to their funders. The ecosystem they created was proposal-driven, with tight deadlines and pressure to disburse quickly, leading to a disconnect between funded organizations and genuine civil society.
Donors' leniency towards NGOs, despite evidence of corruption and misuse of funds, further exacerbated the problem. We invited the same articulate, English-speaking NGOs to meetings with senior officials, ensuring a controlled narrative that avoided uncomfortable truths. The shopkeepers' association, lacking institutional vocabulary, was left unheard.
The consequences are clear: NGOs have become a parallel industry, answerable to external funders rather than internal members. Boards exist only on paper, leadership is permanent or within family networks, and genuine civil society is often overlooked. Donors' intention to strengthen democracy and hold governments accountable has been undermined.
A better approach is needed. Donors should invest in understanding existing civil society, develop mechanisms to reach organizations rooted in communities, and apply the same accountability standards to NGOs as to governments. They should be honest about the difference between implementing partners and genuine civil society actors. By doing so, we can create a more authentic and effective relationship between aid and civil society, one that truly serves the needs of the people.
In the end, the shopkeepers' association, with its messy, loud, and authentic nature, represents the essence of civil society. Perhaps the greatest service we can provide is to leave it alone, allowing it to thrive without the distortion of donor money and priorities.
