Not surprisingly, singing from the same hymnbook, a chorus of voices from some representatives of international aid organizations is echoing that sentiment. Also, swayed by the voice of the vocal minority, raising this particular issue at every opportunity has become a blood sport for a handful of Western country diplomats living inEthiopia or visiting the country, which is indeed music to their NGO/CSO cheerleaders’ ears.

Nonetheless, as someone who took time to carefully examine the legislation, I tend to think that the seemingly controversial matter is getting a bad rap because special interests are using everything in their arsenal to hijack the whole agenda by misinterpreting the spirit and letter of the law.

In that context, by drawing examples from a couple of countries that took similar precautions, my purpose here is to illustrate that this undeniably tough regulation  in the offing is not unique to Ethiopia and that, in fact, it is in the country’s overall best interest.

To assess the entire draft legislation will undoubtedly require another equally comprehensive and lengthy study. So, I will limit myself to briefly looking into three aspects of the subject matter: Financial Accountability, Political Activity as well as Peace and Security.  

Financial Accountability

After surveying the status of charity organizations in 19 counties, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) noted in its ‘‘Release of Report on Abuse of Charities for Money-Laundering and Tax Evasion’’,

Many countries recognize the important and significant role the voluntary sector plays in building a strong, caring and well-functioning society as well as in contributing to employment, welfare and economic growth. The vast majority of charities are legitimate, but some may be targeted by criminals to launder the proceeds of tax crimes and other serious offences.

Ethiopia was not included in the OECD study, but one would hope that most of the organizations in the not-for-profit sector operating in Ethiopia are law-abiding, and doing their level best to make a positive difference in the lives of the people they are mandated to support and contribute towards the country’s development endeavours. But it would be awfully naïve to assume that there are no bad apples that warrant big brother’s watchful eye, if not deserving of being totally weeded out.

Fairly or unfairly, NGOs in Ethiopia have had a bad reputation when it comes to financial accountability. They often are accused of resource mismanagement, lack of transparency, nepotism and what not. And it would be safe to argue that this is not entirely their fault as there has not been an effective mechanism to hold them to account. Sure enough, this is one of the things the legislation aims to drastically change.

However, as the NGOs are used to years of ‘‘kid glove’’ treatment, they appear to be under the wrong impression that any regulation that holds them to account is tantamount to unfair interference in their domestic affairs. So much so that, in fact, it makes one wonder if some in the NGO sector have begun to perceive themselves as untouchable. There is, of course, a school of thought that classifies the volunteer sector as the ‘‘Third Way’’. But even that, to my knowledge, does not advocate crowning a sovereign state like status to NGOs/CSOs.

Furthermore, even in countries where the charitable work has a very long history; is well organized and developed, the rules and regulations governing the sector are altered from time to time so as to reflect new realities, and tighten up financial control. 

Political Activity

One of the arguments made by adversaries of the NGO legislation is that it has the tendency to narrow the political playing field. Interestingly, as Prime Minister Meles Zenawi has rightly noted, the initial argument had a totally different ring to it, i.e. NGOs and CSOs are not interested in politics, but rather in strictly charitable, advocacy and development pursuits.

Be that as it may, there has to be clarity as to what type of political activities the volunteer sector should legally and ethically be entitled to engage in. To draw an example from Canada,    

All registered charities are required by law to have exclusively charitable purposes. The formal objectives or goals of a charity must be set out in its governing documents. Under the Act and common law, an organization established for a political purpose cannot be a charity. The courts have determined political purposes to be those that seek to:

§  further the interests of a particular political party; or support a political party or candidate for public office; or

§  retain, oppose, or change the law, policy, or decision of any level of government in Canada or a foreign country.

A charity may not take part in an illegal activity or a partisan political activity. A partisan political activity is one that involves direct or indirect support of, or opposition to, any political party or candidate for public office.

This begs the question, in our emerging democracy, how many people associated with NGOs and CSOs are aware that, it would be ethically – if not legally – improper to engage in partisan politics? And my informed answer to that is, not too many. In fact, during my attendance of NGO/CSO discussion meetings on the draft legislation, I was left to wonder if it ever occurred to many of my fellow participants that they were not there as delegates of a certain political party. At least that is not what the organizations they represented are licensed for.

Is it any wonder then that the government feels compelled to put a cap on this? After all, since political parties in Ethiopia are prohibited from obtaining financial or material support from outside the country, why should the NGOs and CSOs that choose to be in the political arena – albeit as amateurs – be exempted from playing by the same rule? The rule, in fact, has been somewhat bent to make them the beneficiaries of 10% foreign support, which evidently is in favour of the NGOs and CSOs, not the other way around as opponents of the draft legislation would have us believe.

Peace and National Security

Preserving the peace and guaranteeing national security is a basic obligation of the state. And one of the biggest threats of our time to peace and national security is indeed terrorism. And it’s no secret that some individuals, groups and entities who on the surface appear to lead a peaceful life or run legal business play a major part in ‘‘facilitating and in turn feeding the umbilical cord that is the terrorist lifeline, i.e., money.’’

To that end, some charitable organizations have been implicated in funding terrorist activities. Sure enough, recognizing this clear and present danger, several countries were left with no other choice than to toughen up the rules governing charitable organizations. Canada, for instance, introduced ‘‘Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Official Secrets Act’’, which states:        

A charity that is found to be in violation of the Criminal Code provisions applicable to terrorism could face consequences on many fronts. Not only might the charity be subject to the relevant penalties under the Criminal Code and inclusion as a “listed entity” but it could also be subject to possible loss of charitable status under the Charities Registration (Security Information) Act, as well as the freezing, seizure, restraint and forfeiture of its charitable property.

Similarly, after the September 11, 2001 attack, the United States passed a law which is believed to have serious impact on charitable organizations.

 Congress enacted the USA Patriot Act to enhance domestic security against terrorism, enhance surveillance procedures, address international money laundering activities, strengthen existing statutes and regulations against terrorism …, and expand presidential powers. The Act raises privacy issues and has been criticized by the American Civil Liberties Union. Although this Act did not directly target charitable organizations, because of its breadth, it affects anyone who provides financial support to terrorist efforts, including the activities of charitable organizations.

The aforementioned changes were denounced as draconian and undemocratic by opponents in their respective countries. Thus, it shouldn’t be surprising that the Ethiopian version would be subjected to similar assault orchestrated by special interests, backed by well meaning yet self-appointed custodians of one-size-fits-all democracy and human rights.

Unfortunately, disregarding the old warning that ‘‘people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones’’, some Western bleeding heart do-gooders are making it shamelessly clear that ‘‘what is good for the goose is not [necessarily] good for the gander.’’ Sadly, while Ethiopia never made it its business to interfere in their internal matters, the usual suspects are trying to be ‘‘more Catholic than the Pope’’ in rushing to ring the false alarm bells; subpoena the Ethiopian government to the diplomatic altar, and expect our country’s high ranking officials and diplomats to go on their knees, and confess ‘‘Yes I have sinned, Your Excellency’’.

And one can’t help but deduce that this ‘‘do as I say, not as I do’’ attitude is embedded in ‘‘those who have the gold make the rules’’ principle. That is to say, the development assistance they provide gives some a sense of entitlement to arm-twist the government, and change any policy or legislation even if it is debated and voted favourably in the House of People’s Representatives.

But, as PM Meles put it in one of his meetings with representatives of NGOs and CSOs, as much as Ethiopia appreciates all the support it obtains from its development partners and as economically deprived the country may be, the fact remains that we are poor people, not poor dogs. To that end, if push comes to shove and the issue becomes that of national security and deciding one’s own destiny, we have no choice but to tell proponents of selective political altruism ‘‘thank you, but no thank you.’’ If that message still does not sink in, excuse my perhaps lack of subtlety here, but I, for one, would like to remind them of the still intriguing lyrics of the late Ray Charles: ‘‘Hit the road Jack and don’t you come back no more, no more, no more …’’

Click HERE to go to the source of this article.