Strong civil society organizations have developed worldwide to combat injustices and support humanity, particularly so with the advent of democracy in recent decades. People all around the world have recognized the power of asserting their own agency and are looking to address their concerns and promote human development more than ever before in history. However, this movement has reached varying success across the world due to the diversity of regimes and situations the civil society finds itself in. For example, there is a particular difference between the so-called northern NGOs (NNGOs) usually located in the more economically stable and institutionally integrated parts of the world and the southern NGOs (SNGOs) which are usually located in areas where there is a greater struggle for economic and institutional stability. The latter often faces additional funding, operational, and participation issues precisely because of the environment it finds itself in. In the end, only about 1% of all official aid and an even smaller portion of humanitarian assistance becomes delivered to local organizations of the so-called global south and input of these organizations is similarly downgraded and misunderstood in spite of their direct connection to communities served by humanitarian interventions and NGO assistance.
Just like with the general interaction between the “North” and “South” in which the so-called developed countries wield, or attempt to wield, greater economic and political influence over the so-called developing world, SNGOs often find themselves, due to the nature of world order today as a consequence of history, colonization, and modern developments, in a subordinate position to NNGOs. This is exemplified in the disproportionate funding that is usually delivered mostly to NNGOs, lack of connection to funding sources, lack of presentation on negotiating tables, and lack of attention from mainstream media and the rest of civil society. What adds irony to this arrangement is that humanitarian and peacebuilding work that is often the focus of NGO work is most often delivered precisely in the areas in which SNGOs operate and that they are most familiar with, and thus best suited to interact with and implement projects in.
This problem has been mitigated to an extent with the focus of NNGOs being shifted away from simple intervention in faraway lands. This approach often resulted in major confusion and misallocation of resources and trainings because of misunderstandings arising due to NNGOs distance from the area of intervention and the problem at hand. Real life results of these shortcomings can range from focus on unnecessary desk over training and capacity-building delivery to actually endangering lives by allowing unqualified personnel to provide medical treatment. Recognizing the gravity of these issues, NNGOs have since recognized the need to partner with their counterparts in the regions the intervention is occurring to make their program more adjusted to the locality they are working with. In this way, small local NGOs of the so-called developing world get a chance to take their slice of the pie with a portion of funding being allocated to them and they are allowed an extent of autonomy and agency in program implementation. Major hiccups and programming disasters arising from the developed world’s presumed ability to properly address issues everywhere are thus being alleviated to an extent, but certainly not yet eliminated.
However, it should be noted that the funding and intervention opportunities SNGOs now get are being filtered through NNGOs’ funding allocation choices and programming preferences. There is still an underlying assumption that NNGOs are most capable of deciding where capacities and resources are missing and most appropriately design an intervention, with the local SNGOs serving as an additional player, in worst cases to be merely of service to the funder and an instrument of the NNGOs’ agenda. In the best case there is a somewhat honest attempt to allow for “empowerment” of the SNGO because at least some funds and attention are now getting to the deprived counterpart thus making both the funder and the NNGO feeling more confident about their success albeit actual agency of SNGO was lifted to a very limited degree. In reality, however, SNGOs continue to lack direct involvement with funders and donors, often have limited autonomy in project planning and funding allocation as a consequence of being in a contractual and subordinate relationship to the NNGOs that are inviting them to join the project, and remain in a position where, even when their empowerment is supposedly promoted, they continue to be deprived of actual power and agency.
Towards Solutions
In order to allow for a more appropriate intervention and begin tackling the underlying inequities of the current world order as it pertains to civil society, it is crucial to address these disparities in the relationship between NGOs from varying backgrounds. This issue should be addressed in a way that not merely empowers SNGOs but also facilitates their grand entrance to the mainstream rhetoric, incorporates their ideas in the funding and project planning processes, and cements their independence through acknowledging their power and agency that they already possess and are able to develop without explicit interference of the “northern” counterparts. In order to allow these processes to occur, it is instrumental to recognize the difference between merely empowering SNGOs and move the rhetoric towards more explicitly acknowledging their existing power as well as the need for existing power structures to make space for manifestation of this power to maximize impact and importance of SNGOs. A clear example of manifestation of such power would be allowing greater agency in funding allocation, greater access to funding, and a more direct contact with donor in accordance with greater economic autonomy. In addition to this, SNGOs should be allowed greater autonomy and agency in creation of locally-applicable projects and they should be the first to present an idea so that NNGOs’ possible intervention is influenced by the local perspective as opposed to the local perspective continuously being influenced by outside forces. In order to maximize effectiveness and understanding of SNGOs, appropriate translators and social and cultural professionals should be allocated to the initiative as needed to avoid misunderstandings amongst any of the parties involved and improve everyone’s ability to collaborate.
To come back to the very definitions of issues at play, two definitions of empowerment are: 1) “making someone stronger and more confident, especially in controlling their life and claiming their rights” and 2) “giving someone the authority or power to do something.” In either of these definitions, there is an underlying assumption of the passivity of the actor empowerment is intended for and there is a need for someone else to step in and “activate” this actor. In the long run, this can justify continuous involvement of NNGOs in the development of SNGOs’ worldview and lived experience as NNGOs appear even necessary as a means of motivating the SNGO to become motivated and able to engage and cause positive change. Power, on the other hand, is usually seen as “the ability or capacity to do something or act in a particular way.” This positioning emphasizes the existing power within the SNGOs so giving power as opposed to empowerment to SNGOs should be a more desirable framing that would also draw further considerations and actions towards a more positive change and enabling of greater agency and space for SNGOs so that there is an ability for SNGOs to stand on equal footing with NNGOs, funders, and other actors involved in the civil society world.
Acknowledging that SNGOs already have power and do not need a mere “helping hand” so they can be able to only assist in the intervention down the road as it becomes needed for funders and NNGO counterparts as is presently happening would change the way that SNGOs are treated and enable actual agency and a more effective intervention. CSOs have already seen that interventions are more effective when SNGOs are involved in the process, at least as local consultants and subcontractors. Allowing even greater agency and placing NNGOs in a position of support to SNGOs would only maximize these already important achievements CSOs have made ever since entering the stage of greater cooperation across geographic, political, economic, and cultural lines. NGO intervention, when the local organizations are brought to the center, will be equipped to: 1) tailor an intervention approach that is more cognisant of the local context, 2) understand risks and contingencies at a deeper level, 3) be able to sustain its impact for years and possibly generations to come due to a more direct organizational involvement, 4) waste less time and timing due to bureaucratic constraints being eased as the local organization’s road towards implementation is cleared, and 5) establish better accountability towards both the local community and donors as bigger NGOs and international organizations can still help monitor the process and take charge in auditing and reporting while local organizations focus on actual implementation, interaction with local society, and continuation of the project and its impacts.
Of course, there is already a movement towards greater inclusion of SNGOs, and smaller local organizations for that matter. The difference in centering power over empowerment is crucial because it allows for a proper positioning of the SNGOs and paves a way towards a more radical step in placing the various CSO actors in the international system on equal footing. The system of humanitarian intervention may have many faults and in need of more considerable changes, but this is a constructive way to reframe the thinking around who holds power and who has the right to think is able to provide empowerment to others, if anyone at all should have that right. Drawing from the need to recognize the power that smaller SNGOs already hold is also the fact that the underlying reasons for lack of acknowledgement of this power are things such as lack of communication, internet connectivity and language barriers, as well as the underlying assumption that work that is benefitting smaller local NGOs is done once the contract is signed and objectives are fulfilled in a way that benefits the funder.
In the end, in order to truly embrace and tap into power that local NGOs holds, funder and the rest of civil society involved in proposing intervention should: 1) invest more time and effort in contacting local NGOs when desiring any kind of intervention; funder should allow time for NGOs to more fully explore partners they are already in contact with and be able to engage translators and more researchers in the pursuit of new partnerships so that organizations that have previously been ignored or simply difficult to reach are now brought into a more profound engagement, 2) place local NGOs on equal footing in interactions with donors, policymakers, and other actors involved in the humanitarian intervention; this means that SNGOs agency and independence should be acknowledged and ensure they have a place at negotiating tables, are involved in funding allocation processes, and are consistently consulted on any changes or inquiries about the project and related activities or future planning, and 3) retain local SNGOs in the spotlight and work with them in a sustained, consistent fashion; this means that engagement should never end upon completion of the project; funders, contracting parties, and bigger NGOs partnering with SNGOs should recognize their presently dominant role and instead allow themselves to take a step back and also listen and learn from the smaller local organizations that may have better contacts and engagement on the ground and are also in turn looking to understand the dominant frameworks of funding flows and interactions better - if all parties are open to learning from each other and understanding that no one party is more capable than the other, whereas each brings its unique contribution to the table, with the local organizations bringing crucial local knowledge as well as new insights into how policymaking and humanitarian aid provision could work, then a more sustained and fruitful work and collaboration are ensured to ensue.