Ensure accountability of ‘fifth estate’

Amrit MUTTUKUMARU

USAID should be commended for initiating and funding the ‘Sri Lanka Anti-Corruption Programme’ with the goal of formulating an ‘Anti-Corruption Action Plan’ for the country.

Nevertheless, one needs to question what appears to be the ‘exclusive’ nature of the decision making process leading to its ‘Draft Action Plan’, largely confined to a handful of relatively affluent inter-connected NGOs.

The ‘Draft Action Plan’ was unveiled on June 4, 2007 for “public review and comment until June 18, 2007” with the stated intention to present the ‘final version’ to the government in July 2007.

Thus, the public on whose behalf all this is purportedly undertaken were given a mere 14 days while the ‘Draft Action Plan’ was more than a year in the making. The bona fides of the request for “public review and comment” is also suspect since the ‘Review Conference’ from June 16-17, was held without public notification, prior to the closing date to receive the requested public responses.

It was held under the aegis of USAID’s implementing agency, the US based - Associates in Rural Development (ARD) and co-sponsored by Sri Lanka’s, Centre for Policy Alternatives (CPA).

Since, NGOs have been given a pivotal role in crafting and implementing the ‘Action Plan’, is it not imperative that the credibility of NGOs should be first established by ensuring their own accountability? This is precisely what is largely absent.

NGO power

There is crucial need to ensure the genuine accountability of at least the larger local NGOs operating in this country in the firm belief that their credibility and hence their impact would be significantly enhanced if they ensure transparency in their own accountability.

The influence of some of the larger NGOs is staggering. This include key sections of the political, bureaucratic and media establishments by dispensing ‘patronage’ of various description such as ‘educational’ tours to world capitals, residential seminars/workshops in exotic 5-star locations and lucrative ‘consultancies’.

This most likely is a worldwide phenomenon applicable to the NGO sector in general, which in terms of their collective influence and wealth could justifiably be categorised as the ‘Fifth Estate’ along with the Executive, Legislature, Judiciary and the Media.

It is wholly untenable to maintain that they are only accountable to their donors.

Their accountability should ultimately and crucially be to the people of the countries they operate in, since all their efforts are purportedly to alleviate their ‘miseries’.

Appalling corruption

There is no argument that an ‘Anti-Corruption Action Plan’ is sorely needed for this highly beleaguered country. As correctly pointed out in the Draft ‘Action Plan’, the country has in place an impressive array of legislation and institutional infrastructure to combat corruption.

The question then arises as to why the country continues to be in this pathetic state? This is entirely not a new phenomenon either, since successive Governments have been responsible for this state of affairs.

An active and assertive civil society that consistently demands all round good governance is a ‘sine qua non’ for a vibrant democracy and good governance. It is apparent that it is in its absence for the most part, that democracy, good governance and the rule of law is subverted with impunity.

It is well-endowed and influential local NGOs such as Sarvodaya, CPA, Transparency International Sri Lanka, Law & Society Trust, International Centre for Ethnic Studies, National Peace Council, Consortium of Humanitarian Agencies among several others who have the wherewithal to provide the leadership to other sections of civil society.

This has largely not happened possibly due to fault lines in their own governance, if their abysmal financial accountability is anything to go by. Is it not amazing that in spite of regular shocking allegations in the media of several cases of outrageous corruption and abuse of power, for the most part with damning documentary evidence, nothing is heard of it after a few weeks ?

This involves not only politicians in the higher echelons of government but also top bureaucrats, regulatory authorities, the cream of the corporate sector and some NGOs as well.

The question also arises as to why even NGOs supposedly in the ‘business’ of good governance have not demanded accountability at least in some of the more glaring cases of outrageous corruption ? These include:

(1) The staggering Rs. 389 Billion tax fraud unearthed by the Auditor-General’s Department more than a year ago allegedly involving the Departments of Inland Revenue, Customs and the Registrar of Motor Vehicles.

(2) The scandalous divestiture of the Sri Lanka Insurance Corporation resulting in the people of this country losing Billions of Rupees involving arguably the most influential personalities in the corporate, bureaucratic, political, professional and regulatory authorities in the country.

(3) No meaningful agitation to pressurise the Government to take tangible action on the damning report on systemic corruption presented to Parliament by its Committee on Public Enterprises (COPE).

Corporate sector

It is symptomatic of the state of our corporate sector that is supposed to be the ‘engine of growth’ that although systemic corruption and the protracted ethnic conflict are without doubt the major factors keeping this country down, the recently concluded ‘Sri Lanka Economic Summit 2007’ organised by the country’s premier business chamber- Ceylon Chamber of Commerce and the ‘CIMA Business Leaders’ Summit’ did not consider it appropriate to even have them as footnotes in their respective agendas.

Perhaps, one can understand the utter embarrassment of the business community to even use the words ‘combat corruption’ since their previous charade that ‘corruption’ was by and large a phenomenon confined only to politicians and the bureaucracy now stands blown to smithereens by the shocking public revelations in relation to what has been unravelled so far on privatisations currently under the microscope - Sri Lanka Insurance Corporation and Lanka Marine Services involving flagship entities of the country’s corporate sector as well as professional bodies such as the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Sri Lanka.

Accountability of NGOs

The impact and credibility of NGOs would be significantly enhanced if they ensure transparency in their own accountability. It is apparent that for the most part NGOs - particularly the larger ones, are far from transparent in their accountability.

This seems to be a malaise not only in NGOs in general both local and international, but also in agencies such as the UN system. What has happened to the Tsunami Billions is a case in point.

For example, one of USAID’s key partners in its ‘Sri Lanka Anti-Corruption Program’ - Transparency International’s Sri Lanka Chapter (TISL) is anything but ‘transparent’ in its own accountability especially in regard to expenditure. When TISL demands public accountability and transparency from others, should it not first practise it itself? While its ‘source’ of funds is given on its website, the concomitant ‘expenditure’ is glaringly omitted.

Should not TISL make available on its website, information inclusive of also a breakdown of personnel and administrative costs ? This is the case in NGOs in general inclusive of USAID’s other partner - Centre for Policy Alternatives.

Recommendation

It is strongly urged that the ‘Anti-Corruption Action Plan’ compulsorily require at the least, the larger NGOs operating in Sri Lanka (most definitely the local NGOs), to include on their respective websites financial information as specified in the ‘Action Plan’ itself.

Apart from funding sources, it should include project based expenditure appropriately broken down to also reflect administrative and personnel costs. It is in the absence of this that there are plausible charges of profligacy and administrative and personnel costs accounting for the lion’s share of project costs.

Merely giving lump sums for ‘project’ expenditure with no attempt for even a rudimentary breakdown will just not do.

There are charges that some NGOs have even metamorphosed into lucrative family businesses. Under these circumstances, no wonder such NGOs have lost the moral authority to emphatically cry halt to the rubbish that is being dished out in the name of governance.

To prevent ambiguity, there should be a clear definition of what constitutes a ‘large’ NGO to which this will apply. For example, it could be any NGO with annual receipts, say, in excess of Rupees 25 Million.

This compulsorily required financial information should be a crucial component of recommended legislation in the ‘Anti-Corruption Action Plan’ to ensure accountability of NGOs in this country without in any way impinging on their independence.

If there can be a ‘company law’ for the corporate sector without compromising their independence, why cannot there be legislation to ensure the minimum accountability of at least the larger local NGOs operating in this country? This is indeed an issue that should receive the attention of policy makers worldwide and be an integral part of the proposed UN reforms.

Have your say: We invite the views of NGOs and readers on this article. Send your points of view by fax 94-11-2429210 or email: [email protected]