Anarchy over order, intervention over sovereignty; a prayer of those opposed to the CSO and NGO bill.

Following the recently enacted “Charities and Societies Proclamation” in Ethiopia there are some speculations being disseminated by some groups claiming that the bill would have an adverse impact on the activities of NGOs and CSOs. This bill was never been a partisan action done under the monopoly of the government. It was passed after a thorough discussion and consultation undertaken by all stakeholders involved and, most importantly, members of the multi-party legislative organ of the government, the Parliament. It was following all this process that the bill was passed in to law by a vote of 327 in favour and 79 against. However, despite the bill was an out come of a serious and inclusive process, as any democratic state functions, there are still some who resist accepting and honouring its importance and what it is meant to address. It would be better to point out the speculations that these groups put forward so as to discuss it line by line. Among others the allegation includes that it “imposes stiff criminal penalties; impedes the activities of NGOs; constitute blow to democracy; heavy handidly control and monitor civil societies” etc... Lets look each points in line with the provisions the bill puts forward.

First Point

Article 2 – “Ethiopian Charities or Ethiopian Societies” shall mean those charities or societies that are formed under the laws of Ethiopia , all of whose members are Ethiopian, generate income from Ethiopia and are wholly controlled by Ethiopians. However, they may be deemed as Ethiopian charities or Ethiopian societies if they are not more than 10% of their funds which is received from foreign sources.”

Basically, the spirit of this article emanates from the constitution of Ethiopia which guarantees the rights of citizens to organize on any issue they find important to them and their community. Issues of political, human rights, gender equality, ethnic and religious harmony etc... They can organize and function without any government interference as long as they legally carry out their activities. This is the right enshrined in the Constitution of Ethiopia and therefore there is no other body that has power to override this right guaranteed to all Ethiopian people. Citizens are entitled to defend their rights from being threatened by the government unconstitutionally through the legal system that is put in place. Such Ethiopian organizations are, however, not allowed to use more than 10% of their budget from sources outside the country. This cap was imposed to avoid the influence of money in the internal political process of the country. Organizations funded by outside sources are easily driven to talk the talk and play the game of those who funded them rather than dealing with and voicing the plight of ordinary Ethiopians.

This kind of system is not peculiar only to Ethiopia . There is no independent nation that allows a direct involvement of foreigners in its domestic political process and neglects what is the sovereign right of citizens. The simple instance is the United States of America where parties (political) are not allowed to receive donations from non-American groups and individuals. Let alone that, the amount individual American citizens contribute to a political campaign in the USA is capped to a certain amount so as to avoid the greater political influence the rich could have relative to the poor. The bottom line is that organizations and societies established and run by Ethiopians and funded 90% of their budget by Ethiopians residing in the country would incline to have a more pro-Ethiopian agenda and are also constitutional. But it does not mean that those organizations and societies funded more than 10% of their budget by foreign sources and are established by foreigners could not function in Ethiopia . Having passed the required registration formality they could be established and function on non-political, non-religious and non-ethnic matters. Among others, they could work on economic, social, environmental issues as long as it is viewed to be useful to societal well being and development. But, by no means are they allowed taking part in matters or issues that are exclusively the rights of a sovereign state.

Second point:

Article 90 (1) “Any charity or society shall allocate not less than 70% of the expenses in the budget year of the implementation of its purposes and an amount not exceeding 30% for its administrative activities”.

Among others, this article was criticized by some corners (including human rights group and Amnesty International) on the alleged ground that it interferes in the activities of NGOs and puts control on and monitors their activities. The very basic and fundamental rational behind this provision is merely related to the need to make sure that funds collected by NGOs from different sources are spent to the right objective. Donations and funds obtained under the premise of helping the poor and needy has to be used in activities and projects that would minimise the agony of the poor. To this end, there must be a system that would properly administer the system in an open and transparent manner so as to ensure development and progress.

In many occasions, however, what has been done by many humanitarian organizations was that the lion’s share of the funds they collected were spent for administrative purposes with only a very small amount being spent to assist and help the people. The administrative spending of many NGOs were too high that much of their funds being used for buying fancy cars, rent expensive offices, paying very high salaries etc…It was to curb this scenario the law puts forward this provision that ensures 70% of the fund is used in solving real problems. Besides, this provision creates an environment where waste is reduced and stakeholder’s interest is protected by making their donation spent on what matters to the people. To implement this on the ground the government would establish an agency that audits NGOs activities whether they have complied or not. This should not be in any way considered as being an impediment to NGOs activities. Any democratic institution or group can not oppose the prevalence of accountability and transparency that this bill intended to bring in to the system. And it is a legal and moral obligation to all to insist that donations and contributions collected in the name of the poor be spent to the poor.

Concluding remark,

It is important to reiterate that this charities and societies law is not supposed to hinder the activities of NGOs and CSOs nor does it has any covert objective as some try to argue. The basic reason emanates from the fact that, so far there was no law that strictly govern the activities of such institutions in Ethiopia . And, therefore, now is the time to give answer and so did the government. We highly value the contribution of many organizations in Ethiopia and we are indebted to many of them. There is no any plausible justification for the Ethiopian government to argue out of reason and stand as a hurdle to the activities of these partner organizations which are striving to help the Ethiopian people. Its sole agenda is to keep order and legal system so that accountability and transparency shall prevail over waste and abuse.

The Ethiopian government will not let anarchy triumph over order nor does it allow intervention prevail over the sovereignty of the nation. There should not be any group dared to oppose this bill, as long as they believe in the respect for democratic principles and the rule of law. As some appear to wrongly speculate, there is no reason why the government supervise NGOs and CSOs activities unless it is to make sure whether or not they are abided by the law. There is no other body in the country to do this other than the government, which is vested with the power to by the people to do that.

 Girma Moges

 02/20/09