State Financing of NGOs: Good or Evil?
The “third sector” in Kazakhstan, represented by non-governmental organizations (NGOs), currently sponsored by international donors, is fretting about new legal framework that would allow the state to finance them. This new framework was approved by Nazarbayev on July 25, 2006, and it is thought to undermine the NGOs’ independence and serve to support a pool of pro-government NGOs.
The financing of NGOs, by the way, is still prohibited by the 1995 Constitution, which stipulates in Article 5, that “Illegal interference of the state in the affairs of public associations and of public associations in the affairs of the state, imposing the functions of state institutions on public associations, and financing of public associations by the state shall not be permitted”.
The legal inconsistency, however important, is not a main issue though. In my view, the issue of state financing of NGOs deserves to be considered in Kazakhstan and not dismissed altogether. The financing by international donors is proved to be quite a fragile arrangement in Central Asia. Soros Foundation, for example, sometimes thought to be involved in coloured revolutions, was closed in Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. In addition, foreign donors tend to concentrate on their own priority areas, or popular, so-called “sexy” topics, thus, it is likely, that children’s rights NGO would get more than it needs, and NGO working on improvement of conditions of mentally disabled - nothing at all.
So, the state-NGOs cooperation potentially can bring more use to the NGOs, if they cooperate in a good will and ensure the transparency of distribution of funding. State-NGO partnership is an accepted practice in former socialist countries, such as Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, Macedonia, and others. In these countries, which still struggle with corruption and lack of transparency, the state supports the NGOs through 1% legislation. Each year, the taxpayers designate 1% of their income to the NGOs of their choice. To monitor the process of distribution, Hungary, for instance, established a Civil Fund, where representatives of NGOs participate in distribution.
Surely, the conditions in Central Asia are different, and it is a mistake to think that the NGOs will develop as they did in Europe, where there was a history of civil society. A Russian lawyer from the Open Society Justice Initiative, said about possibility of such arrangement in Russia: “the idea is good, the state is not”. Whether the state-NGO partnership is only an option for Western democracies, Kazakhstani NGOs do not have much choice after the law was approved. In these conditions, they should push for establishment of transparent process rather than oppose the law altogether.
on August 17th, 2006 at 11:53 am
I don’t really think that it is a mistake to think that the NGOs may develop as they did in Europe. It is a question of time and, more importantly, desire of the dominating state structures to allow NGOs work independently, refrain from interfering into their activity and build mechanisms of positive interaction. I’d agree that state funding is by no means an unquestioned evil. But it has to be an option, not the only one possibility. It is not right when the state determines the priority issues and positions itself as the only benefactor, leaving other segments of public life without monies. As for the document you are writing about, it is not a legislative framework. IWPR reporter made a mistake. It is a strategy paper, outlining a kind of action plan. It features many various points, both interesting and controversial…
on August 17th, 2006 at 12:08 pm
Thanks for your comment. If it’s a strategy paper, then there’s more time to negotiate the conditions (though I see that there is not really “negotiation” but imposition).
I just see that in Eastern (and Central, ok) Europe the civil initiatives are emerging naturally, like, for instance, young people who advocate against destroying the old buildings in the city. They do not emerge because EU offered the priority areas of funding, but because they feel strong about it. There were initiatives like Nevada-Semey but what I mostly see in Kazakhstan is funding-tailored NGOs.
on August 17th, 2006 at 1:12 pm
True, most NGOs are either donor-tailored or grassroot ones that lack fundraising skills.
on August 24th, 2006 at 3:14 pm
Working for a media NGO in Kazakhstan, I could share our recent experience in the sphere of cooperation among NGOs and the state. Local authorities announced a contest among NGOs for a better startegic plan to improve the coverage of the state policy in media, it is called here “a tender”. The amount of money they offered was really ridiculous. An NGO far from working in the media field received the money. However, our chief refused to participate in the contest. When I met a guy from the lucky NGO, he told me they had promised abot 20% of the grant sum to the officer who was in charge of making the decision.
Sorry, but I personally refuse to work with the state and get any fanancial support from it for any of our activities. We’d better keep working with foreign donor organiztions.