Challenging the sceptics and leading from the Global South – reflections on the Bond conference and the future of INGOs
26 Mar 2018
Ambika (far r) talks privilege & power at Bond conference, February 2018
Only 1% of official aid and even less humanitarian assistance goes directly to the global south. A session at the recent 2018 Bond conference explored how northern actors – working with their southern counterparts – can begin to address this imbalance of power and resources. The GFCF spoke with Ambika Satkunanathan, Chairperson of the Neelan Tiruchelvam Trust in Sri Lanka and a speaker in the session, about the importance of local, southern institutions and the need to challenge the status quo and sceptics alike. Ambika’s full keynote address to the Bond conference – “Global Perspectives on International Development” – can also be seen at this link.
GFCF: The Bond conference is Europe’s largest gathering of INGOs. As the Chair of NTT, why did you accept the invitation to participate?
Ambika Satkunanathan (AS): I accepted the invitation because if we want to #ShiftThePower and challenge the status quo we have to be in the spaces where these conversations are initiated. BOND seemed to be a perfect space to do that since it is a convening of donors, international development agencies and other non-governmental agencies – and without their engagement, #ShiftThePower would remain as merely a conversation. To move towards action we cannot speak only with the converted, which we can be sometimes faulted for doing because it is comfortable feeling that we are amongst friends. Challenging the status quo, however, requires us to initiate difficult and uncomfortable conversations, even at the risk of making people shift in their chairs – we must therefore focus on speaking with those who might have doubts about the status quo, and especially those who think nothing needs to be changed. The more sceptical or even hostile the listener or audience, the more important it is to engage with them.
GFCF: What was your session about? What were the key messages that you wanted participants to take away from it?
AS: There were two sessions of which I was a part. One was a plenary session titled “Global Perspectives on International Development and Opportunities for Civil Society to Meet Them” at which I spoke of the imperative to tackle inequality, power disparity and inequity not only within society but within the development sector as well. In particular, I pointed out the reluctance to use a rights framework, and the development sector’s constant attempts to re-frame issues in more acceptable forms, which results in diluting the power that the rights framework brings to our work. I also focused on our tendency to “developmentalize” issues and shift the focus to wealth creation and economic growth as the panacea to what ails society and pointed out such a strategy will not help us in tackling deep social issues, such as misogyny and sexual and gender based violence. The second session was titled “Leading from the Global South” which once again had at its core the need to #ShiftThePower and provide space and voice to institutions and activists from the global south. An important part of this is valuing the knowledge and learning they bring to the discourse and sector.
GFCF: Tell us about NTT and where it fits in the eco-system of funders and civil society.
AS: NTT definitely began as a “one-off” at a time when there were no indigenous philanthropic organizations in Sri Lanka. 18 years later it remains a one-off, or one of a kind. Although in the past decade corporate foundations have come into existence, and family foundations have increased in numbers in Sri Lanka, none support human rights and peace-building work. NTT is a grantmaker, but we differ from others in that we cannot leave the country regardless of how bad the situation is. Hence we are deeply invested in our community and country.
We are also quite flexible as we understand that contexts might change, which would require the civil society organizations that we support to change their strategies or activities mid-way through a grant. We also understand that nascent civil organizations may not always know how to write project proposals and need assistance establishing financial systems to ensure accountability and transparency. While we appreciate the need for processes and systems, we also believe it is important not to over-bureaucratize small institutions which will debilitate them – as this will result in them spending more time preparing reports than doing the work. We are not prescriptive in that we believe organizations must identify the needs in their communities which must shape their work, rather than NTT issuing specific calls for proposals that limit the ability of the organizations to work on issues that matter to local communities. Finally, we are not risk-averse and are always willing to take a chance on a new organization or a new idea, and to encourage innovation.
GFCF: The role of INGOs is changing. As they reflect on their long-term / future roles – especially with regards to the current shift towards localization – what, for you, are some of the dos and don’ts that they need to think about, particularly when it comes to power and legitimacy?
AS: INGOs must take time to learn about, and understand, the local eco-systems they are operating in, and respect local organizations (and what they do). Respect can be shown in multiple ways: by not poaching staff from local organizations and reducing their capacities while (ironically) formulating projects to build the capacity of local organizations; by not placing pressure on an increasingly shrinking resource pool at the local level by bidding for funding which local organizations access; by not exacerbating existing tensions and inequalities within civil society by understanding the power dynamics and engaging with all civil society organizations instead of a select few (for instance, do not exacerbate inter-ethnic/religious or urban/rural divides that exist).
Most importantly, they should respect local expertise and knowledge, and not do the equivalent of “mansplaining” (what would we call it in our context? “Humanrightssplaining”? “INGOsplaining”?). In order to do this, INGOs need to acknowledge the privilege and power they hold and be aware that even with the best of intentions, if they do not check their privilege it is possible they will ultimately do more harm than good.
GFCF: Community philanthropy – which has so much to offer in terms of fostering downward accountability and enhancing ownership – is not well-known in mainstream development circles. What do you think it will it take to raise the profile of the sector – or does community philanthropy just not fit into the frameworks and institutional cultures of INGOs? In fact, do you think it represents a threat, which suggests alternative ways of operating and even a reduced role for INGOs in the long-term?
AS: Community philanthropy can be threatening because in one way it challenges the status quo – and no one likes that! It might also mean that certain structures, formations and sectors might have to undergo fundamental changes, and while doing so might disappear. Hence, we have to accept that ours is going to be an arduous journey because it is about changing mind-sets in order to change structures, systems and processes. Changing mind-sets is often difficult when people have something to lose by the proposed change. Fear of a loss of power in particular can lead to hostility towards community philanthropy.
I don’t think we can succeed by shying away from the possible impact of the change we advocate – however, our “selling point” should be the fact that the next natural step of the evolution of the development sector might just be community philanthropy. This doesn’t necessarily mean that some actors and organizations might ultimately have no place, but that their places might be different, and that they might no longer yield the same power over others. Rather, they’d have to get used to a new normal, of sharing power and working in partnership.