CAT CAST
For some time now, people have been asking me whether the work done
by NGOs still has any meaning, or whether they are a vestige of our
society that is now obsolete. And the next question is whether the NGOs
themselves should continue to exist. It makes you seriously wonder
whether they’re right. And if they’re not, we need to have a good
explanation as to why. When cooperation started in the 1960s, it
basically stood on three legs, generosity, transfer and assistance.
Transfer because it was about transferring money, trained people and
knowledge from us to the countries that at the time were called the
Third World, and in return, information and knowledge were transferred
back to the donating countries. In those days, if you wanted to know
what was going on in Latin America or Africa or India, the only
practical way was to read the NGOs’ newsletters or listen to someone who
worked there and had come back for a break.
The second core component of cooperation, together with transfer, was
generosity. The driver of cooperation, initially closely tied to
Christian movements, was the kindness or generosity of those whose basic
needs were covered and now wanted to “help” those who needed it, far
from home.
And the third leg, closely linked to the second, was a strong
assistential component. This component, with cultural and
anthropological roots, seeks to solve a problem as quickly as possible.
When someone has a temperature, we look for something that will lower
it. Over time, this component, so inextricably fixed in our society’s
DNA, was perceived as erroneous or insufficient. When we treat a fever,
what we’re doing is treating a symptom. When we treat hunger, what we’re
doing is treating a symptom. But the symptoms are symptoms of problems,
and if we don’t treat the problem, the cause, the symptom will
inevitably come back. Experience has shown us that assistance alone is
incapable of bringing about structural change. And, therefore, it
fosters dependence and often hinders the development of the community
and its members.
The foundations crumble
The three legs on which cooperation used to rest have been worn away
by the passing of time, the experience gained from the actions taken,
the assessments performed by the organisations themselves and the
changes that have taken place in the world. NGOs and the people who work
in them have a natural tendency to reflect, because of their training,
their innate inquisitiveness and their global vision. And this has led
them to evolve, as international cooperation has almost always arisen
from this exercise of reflection, responsibility and maturity. This is
why there has always been a natural evolution. And this is also why you
will find very few people who will still argue that these are the
pillars of cooperation.
The first leg to crumble – spontaneously – was assistance. It wasn’t
necessary to wait for big changes in the world, or globalisation, or any
other reflection to realise that assistential projects were not enough
to turn around the situations that they sought to solve or remedy. All
organisations have found at some time that there are projects where it
is not possible to make any dent in the situation, in spite of the
continual investments of time and money. And they failed because their
approach focused on the symptoms and not on the causes. Unless we go to
the causes, unless we ask why the situation has been allowed to
deteriorate so much and without engaging with the proposed beneficiaries
in deciding how to approach the situation, the problems and dependences
become chronic.
Assistance is only meaningful at the beginning or at specific moments
when, for whatever reason, it is necessary to save lives and respond to
an emergency situation. It may be a requirement, but it is never the
solution. In emergency situations requiring humanitarian aid, it may
have meaning. In an earthquake, a refugee camp, a serious flood or a
drought that is causing famine, we cannot spend time on analysing the
causes. Lives have to be saved. As many and as quickly as possible. The
time for analysis will come later when the situation is minimally
stabilised. However, even in emergencies, new approaches are being
implemented that are much less interventionist.
Seeing that it was not the solution and that it could even hamper
putting in place the real solution, NGOs started to frame their actions
within an analysis of the causes and what was later called the focus on
rights. It has been a logical path that the vast majority of
organisations have followed as time has gone by and as they have
acquired experience and maturity. Whether this path has been known or
has been explained is another matter. Why haven’t they explained to the
outside world, to society and their partners, the changes in approach
that have taken place in their work? Basically, for three reasons.
Because not enough emphasis has been placed on communication and
education, because it is not always easy to explain the actions taken on
these parameters, and, above all, because it has always been much
easier to get the public to dig into their pockets using images and
stories of assistance on the ground than by explaining the fight for
structural changes or the demand for rights or for support for
processes. It is much easier to ask for money to build a school, a well
or a hospital than to ask for money to support a community’s
participation process. And this has hampered many educational
initiatives, because the priority was to raise funds to be able to
continue working.
The second leg, transfer, has been shattered by globalisation and
internet. Nobody today would think of asking an NGO what’s happening in
the Democratic Republic of the Congo if there’s something they want to
know. And nobody needs an NGO to get to the Democratic Republic of the
Congo. Even so, some people have thought that internet and a travel
agency are enough to get to any place and “help” or work. And it’s true,
you don’t need an NGO to go there and find information. However, to
avoid making the same mistakes that were made hitherto, it would be a
good idea to ask first and allow their experience to help you avoid
repeating mistakes that are now a thing of the past. So, from time to
time, we should explain that we don’t need to collect blankets for
Africa, that you don’t need to hand out sweets to children wherever you
go, and remind people that dignity is a fundamental part of our dealings
with everyone. And that our culture is as respectable as theirs. And it
would also be very helpful, as a slightly deeper analysis is needed in
order to understand the plundering of resources that is taking place in
the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Without this analysis, nobody
would have ever heard of coltan and we wouldn’t even know what it is.
The third leg, kindness, generosity or solidarity, has been
dismantled more recently. Analysing the macroeconomic figures has made
us realise that the main battle in fighting poverty today is against
inequality. And it has turned the concept of generosity toward the
concepts of justice and injustice. Basically, we now know that the
planet has enough resources to enable everyone to live with dignity, and
unequal distribution of these resources is the reason why there are
people who cannot live life with dignity. Introducing the concept of
inequality in the equation may seem a minor and rather academic change.
However, it has caused a shift in perspective and the “donor” has
changed from being an agent moved by generosity to becoming part of the
problem. This discovery deserves a chapter to itself, as when we have
put the spotlight on inequality, we have discovered that this turns
around many things.
We have discovered that when we are discussing inequality, we are not
talking about petty inequalities; we are talking about obscene
inequalities and the fact that the world’s 9 richest citizens have a
fortune equivalent to that of half of the world’s poorest citizens. Yes,
half. That means about 3.5 billion people.
We have also discovered that the North-South divide has volatilised.
The situation in the countries receiving the cooperation is not very
different from the situation we have in our own countries. In other
words, not only is there obscene inequality in Africa or India but also
obscene inequality here. It is no longer necessary to compare north and
south, as we used to do. In sub-Saharan Africa, there are 16 people with
a net worth exceeding 1 billion dollars, who share their land with 350
million people who live with less than 2 dollars a day. In our country,
the salaries of senior managers in Ibex-35 companies are 250 times
higher than the average salaries of their employees. Yes, 250 times.
We have discovered that 7 out of every 10 people in the world live in countries where inequality has grown in recent years.
We have discovered that when making any political decision, if it is
first determined whether or not it reduces inequality, and the decisions
made are geared toward reducing it, the changes are much more impactful
than with our projects. We have discovered that with this approach, the
classic component of cooperation, namely kindness, generosity or
solidarity (which created an unequal relationship between donor and
recipient) is automatically replaced by justice and fundamental rights.
And, as we have said earlier, the donor is no longer someone who can be
generous or not, but someone who is part of the problem and, therefore,
is also responsible for solving it. Inequality is corrected when
everyone moves toward the mid-point.
And the third role?
Generosity has been transformed into the fight for global justice and
fundamental rights. And assistentialism has been transformed into
combatting the causes, focusing on rights and supporting processes. But…
what about the role of transfer? Is there any replacement for that?
Yes, there is. In a world overwhelmed by crises, pandemics, states
that demand indefensible privileges, societies who close in on
themselves in the face of difficulties, the NGOs have a role in
reminding us that there’s still only one planet. They have the
obligation to make us reflect that if we only focus on what is local, we
will not solve the big issues, and what is happening here is not that
different from what is happening in Chad. And we have to have a global
vision of the situation.
Unfortunately, we can’t expect politicians who are only voted by
citizens of the same country every four years to have a medium and
long-term vision and to make decisions for the good of the planet and of
citizens who cannot vote for them. The fight to protect the environment
is a clear example that, paradoxically, the laws of the democratic
system are to the detriment of the common interest.
It is now clear that NGOs are unable to solve the problems on their
own. For example, there are studies (Oxfam Intermón) that say that only
5% of the money that “disappears” in Africa is due to corruption. Thirty
per cent is diverted to illicit business operations such diamonds,
arms, coltan, etc. But by far the largest share (65%) disappears as a
result of the tax evasion and tax avoidance practised by large
multinational companies in these countries. Each year, this 65% would
represent double the development cooperation funds sent by all of the
world’s countries to Africa during the same year. In other words,
legally, in justice, Africa should receive twice what it receives from
generosity or solidarity.
These examples have existed for years. Foreign debt has always been
one of them. Years ago, we said that condoning these countries’ illicit
debt would be tantamount to multiplying the cooperation figures by many
thousands, simply with a stroke of the pen. And unfortunately, companies
and rich countries continue to exploit the resources of the poor
countries. Coltan is a good example of this situation. There are many
other examples that clearly show that NGOs are only minor players when
it comes to financial weight. That’s why new strategies and new ways of
working are needed. After analysing key moments in mankind’s history,
one of the conclusions that Duncan Green points out in his book From
Poverty to Power is that major changes only occur when three factors
come together.
The first factor is visionary, combative citizens. That is, a group
of citizens who become aware that a situation is unjust, unsustainable
and fight to change it. These citizens, who start the process, do not
always live to see the change happen because some changes are very slow.
But it is combative citizens who denounce it and put it in the public
spotlight. In Spain, one example could be the first conscientious
objectors. At that time, not even the rest of society understood that it
was necessary to eradicate military service.
The second necessary factor is effective government. I imagine that
the words have been chosen with exquisite care. It doesn’t say a good or
a bad government. The government headed by the recently deceased De
Klerk in South Africa defended apartheid as one of its basic tenets.
However, that same government, which today we would not consider to be a
good government, understood that it had to release Nelson Mandela from
the prison on Robin Island. And on that 11 February 1990, that act
marked the final step in eradicating the apartheid regime in South
Africa.
And the third essential factor for making change is a trigger. When
Rosa Parks sat on a bus seat that wasn’t meant for her on 1 December
1955, I’m sure that she didn’t get up that day thinking “today I’m going
to do something that’s going to change the world!”. She couldn’t even
imagine what consequences her act would have. But what she did was to
set in motion a process that has brought about all the other changes in
the status of the Black population in the United States. Triggers are
not something we can foresee or induce.
But we can do something about the other two necessary requirements.
We must be active, visionary, combative citizens. And also have a
political impact. Only citizens can start a change. And only citizens
can convince a government to be effective, and that is done with
political pressure.
That’s why organisations and movements are so important. They are the
guarantee of change and evolution. So, in spite of the figures, the
changes in the core pillars of NGOs and movements, and a superficial
analysis which may suggest the idea that they have lost their meaning
and justification, it turns out that they are as meaningful as ever, or
perhaps even more so. Cooperation and NGOs not only still have meaning,
but they continue to be key players.
And why do they still have meaning?
They still have meaning because the movements and organisations are
run by active citizens. Because, in times of economic crisis,
governments and societies turn inwards and tend to think that the
problems come from outside their borders and the solution must be found
inside them. Because, as we said earlier, the political system,
democracy, in which the citizens who live within the country’s borders
(and not all of them) only vote every four years, is unlikely to take
into account medium and long-term measures because they don’t win
elections, and it will not propose global solutions because they will
only be voted by local people. Because no-one will perform these global
analyses in a world where there is little interest in undertaking them
and little interest in listening to them. Because everyone talks about
globalisation, but no-one seems prepared to understand that it’s real
and that what happens here is not isolated from what happens there, nor
can any solutions be put in place without thinking what’s going on
outside. Interdependence is not AliExpress or Amazon … it’s much more
than that. Because we need to exert a lot of political pressure if we
want to have mature, transparent democracies. And to have “effective”
governments that are willing to make changes.
For all this and much more,
- We need someone who talks to us about Global Justice and
organisations like LaFede.cat that can become powerful think-tanks for
these concepts.
- We need someone to talk to us again about human rights like
Amnesty International, because it seems that by dint of saying it again
and again, governments and media can end up convincing everyone that
they are illusory.
- We need someone to continue telling us that borders are an
invention, and a profitable business, as Helena Maleno and Caminando
Fronteras denounce.
- We need thousands of small NGOs to support thousands of
communities to gain access to opportunities that otherwise they would
never have.
- We need Oxfam Intermón to continue researching inequality and
tax evasion and tax avoidance so that we have information and cannot
ignore the magnitude of the tragedy. Now we know that the world’s
richest people doubled their fortune during the pandemic while 99% of
the population have become poorer.
- We need the platform for fair taxation and all its partner organisations to work for the elimination of tax havens.
- We need Punt de referència, Migrastudium, Noves Vies, and other
organisations to take care of the people whom we allow to live alegally
in our country. Even if we only do it for selfish reasons, that is, to
prevent people from resorting to crime because they have no legal means
of making a living.
- We need Cáritas and its FOESSA report to tell us from time to
time, without mincing words, that these inequalities in our own country
are unsustainable.
- We need Greenpeace and Greta Thumberg to keep telling us that we
won’t have a planet left to live on if we don’t react. (This the
clearest example of how, without NGOs, the world would move inevitably
toward self-destruction by pure inertia).
- We need initiatives such as the Catalan Centre for Business and
Human Rights to analyse our footprint as a country beyond our borders
and to avoid the “anything goes” outlook because it’s far away.
- We need organisations that work for rights in our country too
and remind us that we have them. The pandemics, and certain political
processes, are trampling them here too. And defending them here is
strategically important to prevent them from being lost everywhere else.
- We need to defend the welfare state, not to preserve privileges, but because it is effective in reducing inequality.
- We need Fair Trade and campaigns such as Roba Neta (Clean
Clothes) so we don’t forget that globality, and our personal comforts,
can hide “other lives” that are hard to uncover.
- We need the NGOs to continue being able to put themselves ‘at
the service of’ and go beyond ‘their logo’ and act as consolidators and
mediators between social demands and institutional spaces. And to
continue working to connect the struggles of citizens in rich countries
with those of citizens in poor countries. As they are already doing.
And many more examples for which we don’t have enough space here
Let’s not forget this. None of these things will be done by anyone
else, except the social movements and the NGOs. NGOs and the 0.7%
allocated to development cooperation are still essential. The NGOs we
need now are nothing like those that were started in the 1960s. And the
0.7% we are still asking for is very different from the first 0.7% in
1969. But organised citizens have also been a necessary – and
indispensable – counterbalance for an economic, political and
organisational system that is so imperfect that it is in constant danger
of capsizing. They have never stopped pushing forward. They have always
had a clearer vision of where to go. And they have always proposed more
egalitarian and more collective solutions to achieve progress. And it’s
the same now as it was 10, 20 or 100 years ago. There’s no point in
looking for evidence to argue that they are not needed. They are and
will continue to be indispensable.
And they are, and will continue to be, a thorn in the side of all
those who, from their complacency or ignorance, don’t want to see why
and where we must advance, all of us together.
