INTEL 24

THE VALUE OF COMMON SENSE

SURVIVAL INTERNATIONAL

IN MAKING THINGS WORSE

Word Count: 2276

This INTEL 24 explores conflicts and challenges International Non Governmental Organizations (INGOs) can create due to their limited accountability. By dissecting a number of issues relating to the impactful initiative of Survival International (SI) to undermine the Botswana Government under the pretext of supporting the Bushmen community this paper attempts to demonstrate the dangers that the lack of accountability on part of INGOs pose to the international community, governments and individuals. In specific this paper looks at two key aspects of INGO accountability, “accountability of INGOs to communities and local CSOs” and “accountability of INGOs to the state” (Szporluk 349).

The issue at hand revolves around the Botswana Governments efforts to relocate Bushmen populations from areas allocated to the Diamond industry for mining purposes. Seeing that Diamonds account for a significant portion of GDP, export and government income and that Botswana’s government had a clean track record, it comes as no surprise to see an escalation of violence and tensions due to SI’s involvement. The situation at hand encompasses multiple players and stakeholders, from “regionally based NGOs and human rights groups” to “the Botswana government”, even “celebrities”, “International NGOs” and a number of “lawyers and anthropologists” other than the Bushmen (Solway 334).

THE ROLE OF

While in essence the functions of NGOs and INGOs are to “shape alternative visions of society”, “to mitigate the experience of political authoritarianism” (Stromquist 62), and to provide “a promise for social mutation towards higher ends” (Stromquist 66) these institutions and associations are prone to a large set of limitations. The lack enforced accountability; oversight and transparency are major factors that contribute to disasters such as the one witnessed in Botswana. The way and form in which NGOs provide such altruistic and intangible services vary in scope and approach; however some key aspects can be highlighted.

Nelly Stromquist provides three major categories of functions such organizations can fulfill: “Service delivery”, “Educational provision” and “Public policy advocacy” (Stromquist 62). She points out that these “functions are critical in the absence of stable political parties or organized low-income constituencies to carry out such activities” (Stromquist 63). Understanding this power dynamic it comes as no surprise that a number of agents attempted to get involved with the issue of government relocation of the Bushmen: “the Bushmen’s limited grassroots activism and leadership has opened a space into which many others with varying agendas have stepped” (Solway 334).

And the key word here is agenda: who benefits and how from getting involved? SI has defiantly enjoyed high level of publicity, helping it raise funds, secure contacts and look good for a while. While it is clear that raising funds is a key aspect of NGO life—especially if they are “serving low-income populations” since “NGOs cannot generate sufficient revenues from such groups” (Stromquist 64) it is also important to consider where the money comes from, and for what reasons. In the case of SI we can see that money largely came from a misguided, confused, angry and impatient base who attempted to frame the scenario as to fit their oversimplified and biased world view.

The irresponsible actions of SI might have been the result of a multitude of reasons however it is important to point out that “while INGOs obtain funds from various sources (private fundraising through the internet, intergovernmental organizations, or country donors), those funds do not require activities undertaken by INGOs to be approved by the communities in which they work” (Szporluk 340). Thus it is no surprise to find that in this scenario “SI disparages other organizations working on behalf of the Bushmen and, perhaps most importantly, it seems purposely innocent of the history and reality of the Bushmen’s circumstances in Botswana” (Solway 335). Michael Szporluk points to this danger by claiming that “the individual communities in the ‘Global South’ have little or no influence over which INGO works there and on what sort of project. Thus, there is good reason for caution” (Szporluk 340).

The aims of the SI campaign seem to be coherent with western notions of interventionism, and play on the western stereotypes of Africa as a land of horror: “in one sense, the (SI) campaign to depict Botswana as just another ‘African dictatorship’ may be working in so far as Botswana has become more dictatorial in response to it” (Solway 338). The actions of SI came without consulting and understanding the complexity of the issue at hand and thus almost escalating tensions to a point of no-return. This irresponsible behavior demonstrates the dangers accountability and the lack of it can create.

While according to Stromquist “NGOs have taken a crucial role in monitoring government activities” (Stromquist 63) some times such monitoring can backfire: as seen in the case of SI, they attempted to monitor a government they clearly did not understand: “SI and its collaborators have backed Botswana into a corner that has led the country to display some of the most liberal and authoritarian behavior in its history” (Solway 337). Other aspects of NGOs that require attention and strengthen the argument for stronger accountability stem from NGOs role in “setting up new mechanisms to influence national and international decision-making” (Stromquist 64). SI misused this role, by lunching a global marketing campaign that likely did more harm than good: SI “has adopted a confrontational strategy in which they bypass the government in the hope of bringing about change through international media pressure and negative publicity” (Solway 336). While such actions come handy for the international community, and have great potential, it is important to acknowledge that other instances of such aggressive media politics had been internationally coordinated, and as a responses to issues such as Apartheid or Genocide: neither was happening in Botswana at the time.

While acknowledging that such misuses as the SI campaign happen due to unaccountability on parts of INGOs “it should be understood that INGOs are only one stakeholder in the larger system of relief and development” (Szporluk 340). Other stakeholders, including the government and the international community can respond to rouge actions such as the SI campaign by mediating their own perspective, and utilizing their authority and access to resources. Not surprising to find that Botswana started their own counter campaign: “Botswana counters SI’s claim regarding blood diamonds by calling their diamonds ‘diamonds for development’” (Solway 336).

Diamonds for development introduced the basic yet complex notion that other stake holders such as governments carry the bulk of the burden when talking about relief and development, not aggressive advocacy groups such as SI: “Even though a large amount of money goes to relief and development through INGOs, it is still only a small percentage of overall funding for relief and development when one considers contributions from governments and intergovernmental organizations through other channels” (Szporluk 346). And indeed such is the case in Botswana: “diamond revenues have fueled the development of infrastructure of all kinds in the country, including education, transport, social welfare and health, and they have enabled the country to offer free anti-retrovirals to any HIV-positive individual, not an insignificant accomplishment for a country with the second-highest HIV prevalence rate in the world” (Solway 336). These aspects of government involvement of course were not advocated by SI, and since no one had the ability to hold them accountable for their misrepresentation, they continued.

Other instances of misrepresentation such as the one stemming from ‘sub-surface mineral rights’ and regional wealth distribution created new waves of unwanted conflict:

“Sub-surface mineral rights are invested in the state and individual communities have received no special benefit from any of Botswana’s diamond mines; to grant the Bushmen special dispensation would have been especially divisive in the country. Such appeals made SI’s case even less acceptable to Botswana’s government and public” (Solway, 335). No wonder the efforts of SI to empower the Bushmen were treated with great suspicion: “as a non-state institution without the status of being connected to a prestigious international agency such as the United Nations or Amnesty International, it was perceived as a rogue actor” (Solway 336).

Seeing that SI was partly accountable to the media starts and their representatives who invested their image in the promotion of the issue, it becomes clear that SI had no intention in reconciliation: “as Mark Lindenberg and Coralie Bryant observed, ‘Suffice it to say that emphasis on accountability to donors can lead NGOs to focus on their immediate projects without examining the broader economic, social, and political realities having an impact on communities’” (Szporluk 341). Which is exactly what happened: SI ignored the facts and escalated tensions. Seeing that “NGO reliance on external support forces them to oscillate between actions based on ethical convictions and ‘a logic of efficacy, which leads them to submit to the influence of political actors’ ” (Stromquist 65) it is not surprising to find that “NGOs impel the Bushmen to take their place in modern civil society, in part by meeting the demands of accountability and transparency expected by donors” (Solway 340). Such actions further marginalize and/or assimilate targeted groups: “The Bushmen are put in a contradictory situation; ‘pure’ Bushmen don’t make good bureaucrats and vice versa” (Solway 340).

As the case of SI demonstrates there are a multitude of key issues at play; how to reign in rouge actors, while ensuring that communities who are receiving assistance don’t become fully reliant on outside forces: “unlike their counterparts in the private and public sectors, INGOs and CSOs do not have shareholders and are not elected. Moreover, in the case of INGOs, most of their work is takes place outside of their country of origin” (Szporluk 340). Thus we can see that INGOs act outside of the limiting framework of diplomacy while at the same time they can amass support, gain a loud voice and maintain the force to shake up governments and the corporate world —“from the perspective of profound thinkers of our social world such as Alain Touraine and Claus Offe, these movements—and their organizations—push the limits of politics by disturbing the existing order when necessary” (Stromquist 63). And exactly these abilities of SI—to push limits and disturb politics—made it such a key player. Since “there is considerable historical legacy dating back to pre-colonial times of outsiders who have taken up the bushman cause in order to scold and embarrass the Botswana government and Tswana chiefs” (Solway 337) it comes as no surprise that “international donors and INGOs may be perceived as threats because of their potential to unsettle the status quo” (Szporluk 349).

This notion of espionage, and interference in a sovereign states private matters played out in a predictable way: “The country’s intelligence service had identified the blood diamond campaign and those supporting it, especially NGOs, as the country’s greatest security threat” (Solway 338). Such action on part of the government demonstrates the kind of impact INGOs can have on individual countries. The allocation of natural resources that went into the whole process seem unjustified in the face of global priorities, however, there is no one to hold accountable for it: while according to Stromquist “the successful negotiation of priorities will be a function of the integrity of the recipient party” (Stromquist 64) we can clearly see that integrity on part of the INGOS are just as important. SI according to Solway “by flouting the states authority and integrity, has brought out the worst in the state” (Solway 338) further demonstrating this point.

This brings forth the notion of accountability, stemming from integrity. How should INGOs communicate with other stakeholders? According to Szporluk;

“INGOs and donors must perform two balancing acts. First, they must work with governments in a way that builds capacity to govern and yet avoids complicity in any abuses. Second, they must work with communities in a way that genuinely empowers and yet does not pose a threat to the government or endanger the lives of those with whom they are working” (Szporluk 349)

However, SI done the opposite: “SI brazenly flouts Botsowana’s normal legal procedures and pays scant attention to Botswana’s constitution, laws, precedents, policies, the international instruments to which Botswana has and has not been signatory, or its sovereignty.” (Solway 335) These issues continue to highlight the impact that individuals working for INGOs marketing and public relations department have: “INGOs need to ensure proper measures are in place to ensure that staff members behave with proper degree of professionalism and respect for local and national laws, customs, traditions, and culture” (Szporluk 358). Clearly the cahin of events could have been avoided if SI would have hired people who hold high standards, and thus are ‘more accountable’.

Considering that “there are too many accounts of reckless behavior that put people in harms way and damaged the effectiveness of INGO work” (Szporluk 358) it becomes clear that “that international donors, intergovernmental organizations, and INGOs develop more genuine partnerships with CSOs and take steps to ensure that their standing in the community remains legitimate” (Szporluk347). And I agree: “Once the principle of active participation is made explicit in ones understanding of democratic accountability, we can see that this form of accountability supports other processes valuable for democracy, including transparency, freedom of speech, and a more robust civil society” (Szporluk 343). While the principle of active participation and the through engagement of context and community are essential for global governance, it is visible how even minor interest groups can destabilize entire economies and delegitimize entire countries by hiding behind the disputed notion of INGOs.

In all scenarios the Botswana scenario demonstrates the importance of accountability, both on regional level and international level. Precedents should be set, so to avoid unnecessary escalation of conflict between young democracies and western civilization.

Solway, Jacqueline. “Human Rights and NGO ‘wrongs’: Conflict Dimonds, Culture Wars and the ‘Bushman Question’.” Africa. 79.3 (2009): 321-334. Print.

Stromquist, Nelly. “NGOs in New Paradigm of Civil Society.” Comparative Education. 1.1 (1998): 62-67. Print.

Szporluk, Michael. “A framework for Understanding Accountability of International NGOs and Global Good Governance.” Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies. 16.1 (2009): 339-361. Print.