3.11.26
I worked for an international non-governmental organisation for almost 5 years. Here is what I learned:
Money precedes mission. This is a simple, perhaps obvious point but a critical one to understand if you are an activist interested in making a difference in your community.
The donors fund the work of the organisation, they cover administrative and operational costs, in consideration for reports on the impact derived from their contributions. Now, there are a myriad of causes competing for the contributions of donors, so donors are not interested in achieving merely any evaluable positive social impact in communities in need. Indeed, not all causes are equal.
This is where the polished pitch comes in; my remit. It is the job of the organisation to persuasively sell a specific (set of) impact goal(s) to donors. Take the example of ‘access to water,’ a seemingly basic, universal, and unifying cause. Many may even remember ‘Day Zero’ at the height of Cape Town’s water crisis in recent years. In many cases, however, the mere scarcity of water in this case would not suffice as a problem for fundable civic intervention.
An organisation must convince donors of the importance of the problem (usually by demonstrating its urgency, pervasiveness, and relationship to other key social issues), motivate the proposed solution (project, intervention, initiative) specifying the evaluable positive impact (in quality and quantity).
Donors are then entitled to make a determination based on how compelling they have found the case in its entirety; scrutinising everything from the nature of the problem as articulated by the NGO (what it is, where it is, who it affects), to the type of intervention proposed (methodology, duration, visibility, sustainability, overall cost). These specifications are outlined very carefully in proposal documents and funding agreements. They are the basis of operations and provide a standard by which the work of the organisation will be assessed in later reporting; much like a business plan in the commercial context.
Ultimately, the word “donors” is a misnomer. These are social investors who are buying the power to influence the transformation of very particular social issues in specific community contexts. They are buying a place for themselves in a predetermined story of change. Like all investors, they are looking to derive the most value for their investment. The numbers are what matters; whether those numbers sit at the bottom line or the triple-bottom line. After all, the numbers construct the story.
This is also why NGOs are not always in a position to be responsive to immediate changes in the dynamics of the communities they serve, regardless of how relevant or consequential such changes (even crises) may be. Organisations are bound by the terms of funding agreements which protect the narrow interests of investors.
Lastly, the notion of “apolitical” civic intervention is a gross misapprehension at best, and a brazen lie at worst. Politics relates to dynamics among people. Civic organisations are indeed very political. In fact, think of civil society as a ‘no name’ brand of politics. NGOs hold strict values, advance specific agendas, and make all decisions in accordance with said values and agendas.
For example, international civic organisations tend to be inherently globalist (even neocolonial) in nature. The universal nature of suffering and inequality as features of the human condition is used to promote anything from benign efforts for international cooperative governance, to endorsements of flagrant violations of national sovereignty and the erosion of local culture.
Regardless of where one sits on the political spectrum, or one’s individual sentiments about NGOs and their utility, the truth of their essence has long been miscontrued.
– Lele
III* | VI* |10
