When NGOs aren’t the beacons of benevolence they pretend to be

Following the murder of high school teacher Samuel Paty, France’s president Emmanuel Macron has moved swiftly to curb the influence of political Islamism in the country. Amid a growing backlash against his observation that France needs to fight "Islamist separatism", the government dissolved BarakaCity, a major Muslim NGO, over accusations it incites terrorism.

The NGO stands accused of maintaining ties to radical Islamist movements and of having participated in a social media campaign against Paty before the murder, along with another NGO, the Collective against Islamophobia in France (CCIF). BarakaCity quickly condemned Paris’ decision by alleging racist and Islamophobic motives against “a human rights organization” addressing “discrimination and hate crimes against Muslim citizens.”

It’s not only a predictable defensive pattern exhibited by similar NGOs across Europe. Most importantly, it’s drawing attention to the often ambivalent nature of NGOs themselves. For while they’re commonly regarded as upholders of fundamental rights, transparency and charity in society, their motives are not always unambiguously altruistic.

All that glitters is not gold

By serving political agendas of their own, accountable only to themselves, with significant resources and overwhelmingly positive media images, their role as supposedly neutral actors in situations where states are generally mistrusted must be called into question. This is particularly the case for on the ground fact-finding or as consultants on social issues. After all, NGOs can derive considerable influence from these functions in political decision-making, which – in combination with their image as staunchly principled actors – opens the door to political advocacy that is all too often beyond criticism in the popular mind.

Prime examples of this are Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Amnesty International, both of which are so prominent in the human rights sector as to be quasi-formal institutions with authoritative voices on all things related to the subject. Both publish a host of reports that purportedly document violations and that are routinely complemented with intricate media campaigns. Highly influential, these reports are widely cited and inform decision-making procedures in numerous multilateral institutions, thereby replacing the voices of other pertinent topical experts, such as law professors and military specialists, in the process.

One might therefore be forgiven to assume that such NGOs conduct their work according to stead-fast principles based around objectivity and adequate sourcing. However, this is hardly so: a seminal study published in 2005 revealed that NGOs routinely failed to include adequate referencing, disclose their agendas and methodology, including distinguishing between direct evidence and inferences, and provide details of any legal standards employed as baselines.

Thin layers of evidence or slander?

This begs the question: how can information provided by NGOs be trusted without independent verification mechanisms? It’s a pitfall gaining particular urgency in cases where individuals are singled out for supposed wrong-doing, rather than states or corporations. A case in point is Dan Gertler, an Israeli billionaire businessman who, according to the NGOs Platform to Protect Whistleblowers in Africa (PPLAAF) and Global Witness, has used money laundering networks to circumvent US sanctions against him.

However, the investigation at the core of these allegations doesn’t impress with convincing evidence, and shows that fact-finding standards have seemingly not improved since the 2005 study. The report vaguely cites “documents provided by whistleblowers” without going much further into detail. Yet the use of unverified sources is inadmissible in any court under normal circumstances, so when they’re the basis of accusations they’re not only veering into slander, but are effectively eliminating due process. Gertler unsurprisingly filed a defamation lawsuit against the investigation’s authors, alleging that the documents used in the investigation are fraudulent.

And he’s not the only one to push back against dodgy reporting done by NGOs. In 2016, Several hundred Israel Defense Forces (IDF) combat reservists sued Breaking the Silence for allegedly spreading lies and slander about Israeli soldiers. While the topic is generally considered highly controversial in Israel’s politics, the fact that accusations levied against NGOs for slanderous activity are common to this day suggests that there’s a problem beyond political point-scoring in the Israeli parliament.

For all mankind

Indeed, the issue of NGO accountability is a big one, since calling out governments and corporations on their lack of transparency is a key tenet of NGO activism. Yet the credibility of these demands, no matter how righteous and justified, is increasingly undermined by NGOs’ own lack of transparency. The consequence is a self-inflicted wound for the sector: trust in NGOs and their work has fallen in recent years, with 2017 distinguishing itself as the first year in which popular trust had fallen in business, the government, the media and NGOs at the same time.

Since 2019, trust is rebounding across the world, if from a very low level, particularly in the West. However, as long as nongovernmental organizations are not required to report incidences serious enough to threaten the organization, such as fraud or financial losses, it’s difficult to see how the sector can ever fully regain its strength.

It’s true that NGOs can fulfill an important role as a bridge between civil society and the political sphere. However, that doesn’t mean that they should be afforded special treatment and not held accountable like any other organization involved in the political process. That NGOs are not necessarily the principled, blameless and benevolent agents they purport to be is a crucial realization necessary to look behind the veneer. Only then can a truly worthwhile debate to create truly credible organizations for the betterment of civil society begin.

This article does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the editors or management of EconoTimes