In a recent Washington Post article titled, “Reforming Foreign Assistance” it was stated that, “reliance on U.S. organizations undermined poor countries’ sense of ownership of their development programs, damaging the long-term struggle to foster self-sufficiency.” The same point can be made on the micro-level, as organizations become dependent on donors, compromising a sense of local ownership. It seems that there is a direct relationship between the international development community’s failure to establish genuine grass-roots development, and the current wave of suspicion coming from developing country governments towards local civil society groups.
Countries like Uzbekistan and Russia are attempting to exert greater control over local civil society organizations, fearing that they serve as pawns for international or western intervention. In several former Soviet countries, governments fear that civil society groups are the pawns of shadowy forces seeking pro-western revolutions. In Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, government formed NGOs are becoming more common, while genuine, grass-roots, independent organizations are repressed. While the nature of international involvement in developing civil society is often misunderstood by government officials, the fact that these organizations are becoming targets of repression and control is yet another sign that the international development community is failing to create genuine civil societies. One of the reasons that many organizations are victims of official suspicion is the fact that they continue to rely on international donor funds. This not only creates the impression that they are serving the interests of foreigners, but it also inhibits the development of local demand and initiative for needed development measures. Instead, local NGOs enter into a “grant-eater” syndrome, where they will implement projects that they think donors want. In other words, they often exist to receive international money. Rarely do they generate local sources of income, rarely are they sustainable, and rarely are they mission-driven.
The sad result of this in countries like Uzbekistan is that since its authoritarian government effectively cut civil society groups off from sources of international donor funds, civil society in Uzbekistan has grown deafeningly quiet. The only groups that are likely to continue seeking an improved political, human rights, and economic environment are those organizations that consider their own goals, and seek to achieve them (either now or even later), through local resources.
Published Date: January 19, 2006