Non-governmental organizations have had their place in foreign affairs for over a century. As society has developed, different wars and revolutions have taken place, the role and reputation of NGOs has changed. NGOs can act as watchdogs for issues like human rights, environment, social, and advocacy. There are NGOs in practically every country, and they each play a pivotal role in terms of development, and addressing all issues listed above. Over time, new criticisms have developed because people question the motivations of INGOs in certain areas. Some criticisms are: NGOs “undermine the centrality of the state in developing countries.” (Lewis and Kanji, 17); NGOs act on their own agendas at the cost of the people they are supporting; NGOs have not lived up to their expectations when it comes to providing disaster relief; and that NGO work in unstable countries actually can create potential for those citizens in the long-run. NGOs in the Middle East have always intrigued me. I took a class on authoritarian regimes and revolutionary movements, and they sparked my curiosity. I started to think about how NGOs operate under authoritarian regimes, especially since many of them cracked down on organizations whose missions do not align with that of the regime. There also have been multiple Arab countries who have written laws allowing their governments to dismiss organizations if the regime deems them to be threats to national security. This information brings me to my main research question: Are NGOs impactful in the Middle East, despite many countries having laws that restrict their abilities? Aside from my main question, I aim to answer some sub-questions I had from my classes on authoritarian regimes and revolutions this semester. Those questions are: Did Arab Spring and its aftermath affect NGO’s abilities to do their jobs? Why was there pushback from Arab countries about foreign (western) NGOs; and Which narrative of civil society does the Middle East fall under? To answer these questions, I will be doing an analysis of the development theories used in NGO practices. Preparing this analysis will allow me to assess some surface issues that non-western states have with foreign or western NGOs. The first section of my paper will outline civil society, and the different themes and narratives within it. The paper will then transition into NGO legitimacy and the obstacles that NGOs face in the Middle East, culturally and politically. Next, I will be analyzing NGO experiences in countries that were affected by Arab Spring or civil war in the last 20 years. The goal of that section is to highlight the factors that would prompt a regime to severely limit the powers of NGOs; or to highlight factors that prompted regimes to expand NGOs within the country, and to stay aside when NGOs brought back institutions like education and healthcare in states that were nearly failing. I will then be analyzing Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon. All were affected by the Arab Spring or civil war (around the same time), but not all had the same reaction. Egypt and Syria restricted the powers of NGOs, while Jordan and Lebanon embraced what NGOs were offering to their countries. This will highlight the success and failures of NGOs in the Middle East, and from there I hope to categorize the Arab world into a “liberal” civil society or a “radical” civil society. Once I’ve done that, the solution I would offer to NGOs facing problems with repressive regimes would be to change the development theory that they apply to the way they approach aid and humanitarian intervention in the middle east.
CIVIL SOCIETY:
“Civil society is usually taken to mean a realm or space in which there exists a set of organizational actors that are not part of the household, the state, or the market. These organizations form a wide-ranging group which included associations, people’s movements, citizen’s groups, consumer associations, small producer associations and cooperatives, women’s associations, indigenous people’s organizations, and, of course, NGOs.” (Lewis and Kanji, 65-65) Lewis and Kanji describe 6 concepts or themes on civil society in Non-Governmental Organizations and Development. The 6 themes are emergence of the individual as a self-determining actor in society; the importance of ideas about civility as distinguishing a mark between Europeans and ‘other’ societies encountered during the travels of merchants and colonists; the idea that political virtue, or the idea of common good; emergence of a new public space in which there could be a broader debate around rules; the need to find ways to reconcile the tensions between the particular and the universal in society; and the shift from pre-capitalist to modern social orders. Lewis and Kanji highlight the two opposing narratives of civil society in Nongovernmental Organizations and Development. The first narrative is a liberal view, which sees civil societies as “an arena of organized citizens and a collection of organizations that acts to balance state and market, as a place where civic democratic values can be upheld.” (Lewis and Kanji, 65) The opposing narrative sees civil societies as ‘radical’, rather than “harmony there is an emphasis on negotiation and conflict based on struggles for power, and on blurred boundaries with the state. Civil society contains many different, competing ideas and interests, some ‘uncivil’, and not all of which contribute positively to development.” (Lewis and Kanji, 65)
NGOs have a role bigger than that of the basic problem being solved. NGOs are able to work in areas ranging from fieldwork, to administration. Because many NGOs are smaller organizations, they are able to reach more people affected by poverty, stateless citizens. NGOs also help bring composition to a nation. NGOs provide a type of unofficial institution, meaning that there is a group that citizens of a state can find commonalities with, and There are opportunities for participation within the organization. NGOs can also aid in sustaining democracy.
DEVELOPMENT THEORIES:
The development theories I believed were applicable in every case was the post-war development theory and the post development theory. Post-war development is an umbrella theory, it has modernization and the dependency theory listed as subcategories. Modernization is a one-way theory that suggests the only way to achieve economic growth is to abandon all past societal and cultural norms. The dependency theory was developed after the modernization theory, and it suggests that the wealthy countries purposely underdeveloped the Third World, so that the only option they have for economic prosperity is to carry out large-scale structural changes. Post development theory suggests that development is not the answer to the real problems, which are poverty and inequality. Instead, it suggests that wealthy countries will take advantage of poor countries, for the sole purpose of expanding the rich’s power over the poor.
Modernization is the development theory that believes the only way for a poor country to achieve economic takeoff, is to abandon their traditional and cultural “impediments” (Lewis and Kanji, 50). Modernization also calls for a “trickle down” effect, meaning that eventually, the poor would feel the benefits from the wealthy. This theory is very stagnant, in a way because it implies that there is only one way to achieve economic takeoff if you live in the Third World. Two problems that keep the developing world from developing, are political instability and rapid urbanization. Political instability causes crises of many kinds in places like the Middle East, Africa, and South America. When governments are overthrown, there is often a lag in acknowledgement of certain social issues. For example, if a governing body is inconsistent and cannot collect money for the state, then they cannot provide education, healthcare, road work, etc. Once a nation is to the point where nearly everyone is under the poverty line, then maybe considering a modernization approach to the overhaul of the government would be resourceful. Rapid urbanization is the population shift from rural to urban residency, with the amount of people per square mile increasing gradually as people move. Rapid urbanization has consequences in the developing world. Some of those consequences include: high population density, inadequate infrastructure, pollution, slum creation, crime, etc.
The Dependency theory was developed because United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLA) researchers were “concerned with the failure of both free trade models of Latin American growth, and later, of ECLA’s subsequent development of the import substitution industrialization model as the solution.” (Lewis and Kanji. 50). These researchers were inspired by Karl Marx; this theory uses the concept of underdevelopment as a process rather than an absence of development. This was a progressive approach for the time, because it essentially said that the poverty line wasn’t there because people were working hard, it is because these states were actively underdeveloped. Under this thought process, poor countries would never be able to develop. “…poor countries which found themselves locked into a set of highly unfavorable terms of trade within a global system organized to to suit the economic requirements of Western capitalist countries.” (Lewis and Kanji, 51).
The Post Development Theory is an idea that suggested that “development in any form was not a solution to problems of global poverty and inequality, but rather a highly restrictive and controlling discourse that simply served to extend the power of richer countries over poorer ones.” (Lewis and Kanji, 55) Post-development also draws on the fact that when outside influencers are promoting empowerment, instead of it being freeing, it can be used to discipline the poorest members of the population.
Another perspective of the post-development theory is the belief that “potential emancipatory power of new indigenous and autonomous ‘social movements’ to build local strategies of development.” (Lewis and Kanji, 55) Within this framework, NGOs are viewed as having modernization agendas-which means that any aid NGOs bring will serve them at the cost of the local people. “Dominque Temple wrote that NGOs are a ‘Trojan horse’, which transfers Western capitalist values into communities organized around older, different reciprocal values, even when such NGOs claim to be concerned with the defense of indigenous cultures.” (Lewis and Kanji, 55)
Going off of all three of these theories, one could argue that the need for revolution is greater than capitalist economic growth in terms of development. Sometimes for a country to be thrusted into the modern world, they need a complete structural overhaul. This may or may not include applying the modernization theory to social restructuring. Revolution is not a social condition that just happens, there are factors that have to be met for this type of social change to happen. Those factors are mass frustration, dissident elite, permissive world context, unifying motivation, and severe political crisis.
INGO LEGITIMATION:
Like any other governing body or international organization, NGOs have to prove themselves to be legitimate. “These criticisms link to a more long-standing concern that the values, organization, and accountability of INGOs have been reshaped through prolonged engagement with donors, eroding two key comparative advantages which have been deemed as critical foundations of INGO legitimacy—their grassroots orientation and their capacity for innovation (Banks et al. 2015).” (CITE CONTEMP. CHALLENGES) There is not an algorithm or formula that determines an NGO’s legitimacy, which means that there is not a single solution to the challenges these organizations encounter. There has been a need for NGOs to embrace a new organizational structure that will allow them to advocate for effective social and political reform. I do feel it necessary to point out that these reforms can happen without a nation transitioning to a democratic society.
NGOs take different approaches to aid and relief work. The two main approaches that I gathered from my research were: advocacy for internal structural reform, and the other is more of a ‘grassroots’ approach. NGOs that advocate for internal structural reform are organizations like Save the Children and Oxfam, and they lobby for institutional reforms. These issues include education, health, and other issues. Save the Children advocates for children’s rights to access to each of the institutions listed. Oxfam is a confederation made up of 20 smaller organizations, and their mission is to eradicate global poverty. The ‘grassroots’ approach to NGOs operating in countries they are not native to would be working directly with the local organizations to find out what the area is desperate for. This could extend into the organization itself. For example, NGOs will appoint native citizens as directors of projects, because that local connection is not lost. There is not a necessity gap when the individual running the operation was once in the shoes of the affected group. Other actions that INGOs can take to further their mission is moving their headquarters to the countries they primarily focus their work in.
NGOs face a few different challenges when it comes to the topic of legitimacy. The first was brought on by the emergence of Russia, China, India, and Brazil as world powers. As this has happened, there has been more bureaucratic red tape added to policies and laws, making it harder for INGOs to fulfill their purpose. In countries like this, many INGOs will turn their tactics to lobbying the governments, so the INGO can gain an ally, and the government has one more humanitarian project under its belt.
The next major challenge INGOs face is one directly related to the first challenge. When states put laws or policies in place that limit the reach of an INGO or limit what they are able to do, has created room for attacks on the core missions INGOs work towards. Many times, in the non-western world, INGOs are seen as hegemonic organizations. Some countries feel as though the intent behind INGOs is to assimilate the world into one dominant culture. This factor has allowed for authoritarian leaders to enact a wide variety of restrictions on INGOs. Authoritarian leaders can have harsh reactions to outside NGOs, or any organization that has values that do not line up with those of the regime. They react this way as a preservation tactic for the regime.
Codependent climates, and humanitarian crises that are conflict driven have put INGOs in a position where they are not adequately prepared to respond. Each day in the Middle East, inequality between the classes grows, leaving thousands defenseless to many forms of crises. This factor can make an INGO look illegitimate because most of the values of each organization line up with the UN agencies and donors that work in the same regions as smaller organizations.
NGOs in the Middle East:
Non-governmental organizations have had their rightful place in the Middle East for decades. The Middle East has always been seen as the hub for the worst human rights violations, as well as oppressive and violent regimes. Some states in this region also face the repercussions of humanitarian crises every day. Examples of NGOs that work primarily in this region of the world are: The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Oxfam, UNICEF, World Food Program, etc. These organizations, along with many others have had various impacts in the Middle East. They have brought in aid, worked tirelessly to move civilians to safety, and even helped displaced citizens get home safely.
One of the most wide-spread challenge to INGOs currently is intimidation from different regimes and political parties. They have spent their time directing their animosity towards INGOs that are foreign-funded, and engage in advocacy within the state. Regimes will go so far as to restrict an NGO’s access to international funding and censoring NGOs that partake in political activism. This intimidation often accompanies the complaint that NGOs have hegemonic practices, in the article, “Understanding Challenges of INGO Legitimacy”, the authors wrote that “In many places, greater oversight and regulation from states has followed criticisms of INGOs based on allegations that they have a negative influence on local religion, values, and culture, or claims that they may be covertly promoting agendas backed by northern states.” When statements like this are made from authoritarian regimes, it means that the punishment for continuing your work, even if on behalf of a NGO, will be much more severe.
These countries speaking out against NGOs is not random. It stems from the NGO’s expansion from small, volunteer organizations that relied solely on donor funding, to large well-qualified organizations. As NGOs developed, they started to rely more on Northern States to finance their operations, and to assist with lobbying. This creates a power struggle between a regime leader and the NGO. Most states, especially the Middle East, already have a rivalry with criminal organizations and terrorist groups. With the case of the Middle East, it is difficult to determine if the leaders are restricting NGOs because they value western ideals so little that they are willing to sacrifice civilian life to keep them out. For many non-western and nondemocratic countries, the threat of western hegemony is enough to keep sanctions, polices, and laws in place that keep NGOs out, rather than sacrifice their own legitimacy by allowing northern state funded organizations to come into the country/region and undermine the regime. This would make the regime look less legitimate.
Another reason authoritarian regimes have pushed back on NGOs is because this is not how NGOs were originally designed. NGOs were not designed to be long-term organizations. They were initially created to deal with a crisis, to be a temporary structure to address some problems and create fertile ground for economic growth. At this point, scholars said GDP does not determine growth, so human centered approaches to development were created. Emphasis has shifted from economic growth, to education, to health and human rights. This would create a productive social capital, which would lead to economic growth.
From my own knowledge of authoritarian regimes, I would definitely classify them as radical versions of civil society. The radical view of civil society places emphasis on negotiation tactics, and conflict-based struggles for power. Authoritarian regimes also buy security from other nations, like the U.S. We buy a very large portion of their oil, and countries like Saudi Arabia will buy their military weapons from us. Wealthy regimes, like Saudi Arabia, have a vested interest in keeping the regime radical, because it has made them wealthy. Many of the countries in the Middle East have conflicts with one another. Instead of bombing each other and resorting to violence immediately, states will choose the route of economic sanctions. This is not necessarily the best choice either, because when sanctions are placed on a geographical area, states that have no steak in the conflict can be harmed. An example of this would be Yemen. This country has been caught in the crosshairs of Saudi Arabia’s conflict with Iran for years, and thousands of civilians have been starved to death because of economic sanctions. Civil societies do not always have a positive impact on societies.
Case Study:
For my case study, I will be examining different countries who have NGOs, and the different climates different organizations had to work under. The countries I chose to examine are Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon. They each have different political climates since the Arab Spring of 2011, and this will affect how NGOs are allowed to operate in the region. The reason this affects the Middle East, is because most of the countries in the region are non-democratic, which also means that if a regime chooses to stop allowing INGOs and NGOs to operate, then there is not a lot that outside forces can do to combat this. Often times, the punishment for dissidents in the Middle East is incarceration or death. Along with examining these countries, I will be exploring the reasoning behind why these countries have started regulation INGOs and NGOs within the respective states. First, I will detail why the Middle East does not want an NGO presence, then I will go into the specific cases, and examine the challenges and structural factors of each state.
The Middle East has been in the center of controversies for violations of the Declaration of Human Rights, as well as other accusations of basic rights violations for years. NGOs have always had obstacles in this region, because they are seen as dissenting actors, taking steps against the state. Most regimes apply harsh pressure and regulations to NGOs because they are seen as “autonomous” from the government. With the recent crackdowns on dissent and protest, the last thing a regime wants to worry about is a NGO mobilizing and radicalizing populations that have been oppressed for years, and are eager for systemic change. Regimes have spent time carefully putting obstacles into place that limit the ability for collective action. Examples of these obstacles could be things like censoring media, internet, not allowing protesting, etc. These somewhat extreme measures to protect regimes seems like a ploy for states to keep their power centralized, but there may be more to it. The Middle East prides itself on their identity and their sovereignty. These two factors are also arguably what makes the region so unstable. The threat of western hegemony is enough reason for authoritarian leaders to limit freedoms of their citizens as a formality. “Arab leaders essentially regard nongovernmental organizations, especially those with foreign funding, as agents of a neocolonial project.” (foreignpolicy.com). The hypocrisy of this quote should not be lost on anyone reading this paper, as we both know that numerous Middle Eastern countries rely on foreign funding for security, or actively rely on Western security. The issue of sovereignty in the Middle East is one that the region is constantly reminded of. Egypt is a great example of weakened sovereignty. Since Arab Spring, Egypt has now lost some of its sovereignty to Israel and Saudi Arabia. This quote from foreignpolicy.com explains in more detail how Egypt has lost some of its sovereignty in the last few years.
“Egypt must ask Israel for permission to project military power in its own territory and the Saudis’ blackmailing of the Egyptian government to cede the islands of Tiran and Sanafir (even though it is unclear who actually owns them), but also the U.S. government’s passage of the Brownback Amendment to the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005, which declared that U.S. democracy and governance programs, along with the groups chosen to carry them out, did not need the prior approval of the Egyptian government. In Washington, this was the reasonable thing to do given then-Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak’s effort to undermine then-U.S. President George W. Bush’s “Freedom Agenda.” For Egypt’s Ministry of Defense, it was an egregious violation of the country’s sovereignty.” (foreignpolicy.com)
Egypt has a collection of NGOs, including but not limited to charities, professional groups, religious groups, etc. Each of these NGOs have had different experiences with the Egyptian government. The Egyptian government, even before the ousting of Mubarak during Arab Spring, has always strived to command these organizations. Egypt has an NGO law that is one of the most restrictive on the planet. According to Aljazeera.com, “The law strictly controls NGOs, including those in the realm of social and development work, and makes it difficult for charities to deliver services. It bans domestic and foreign groups from engaging in rights work or anything that can be said to harm national security, public order, public morals or public health.” This means that essentially, if the Egyptian government does not approve of the mission or the message of an INGO or a NGO, the regime can put restraints on NGO activities and events, or they can dismiss the organization all together. This is all because NGOs are seen as a threat in Egypt. Tools used to repress NGOs from doing advocacy or activism work are censorship, no freedom of expression, and jailing protesters. The common reason for Egypt taking action against certain NGOs is that the organization has a religious or political affiliation the regime does not like. Targets for the regime include liberal dissidents, fundamentalists, etc.
Syria has even stricter laws than Egypt. The state does have NGOs, but they are largely associated with the regime or the ruling political party. This was most likely done to keep independent, autonomous activity from happening under president Assad. Assad has implemented restrictions on nearly all basic rights, including harsh limits for national enrollment by NGOs and restricting freedom of expression. These laws were more heavily enforced during Arab Spring. But in Syria, their NGO law really only applies to NGOs, not INGOs. The goal of the Foreign Ministry was to “create an active and disciplined non-governmental sector.” (syrianobserver.com) The minister of Social Affairs and Labor said that “the draft would only concern civil society groups inside the country and not foreign groups, adding that there was no way to compare the draft NGO laws which were prepared two years ago.” The Foreign Ministry said multiple times, on multiple platforms when I was researching this law; that the Ministry regulates NGOs, and has granted abilities to foreign groups to do their jobs in Syrian territory, so the problem with NGOs is not an issue of fear from the regime.
Jordan has a large assortment of NGOs, and they all participate in an energetic civil society. Jordanian NGOs have experienced rampant growth in the last 20 years. There was a need for these NGOs, as there were social, political, and economic matters that called for the organizations to be established. The main structural change that happened in Jordan that has allowed for these organizations to expand is democracy. Jordan has become partially democratic within the last decade. The government will involve itself in NGOs that are working for welfare, social NGOs, etc. The Jordanian royal family is connected to a few NGOs, and these organizations receive donations from the royal purse. This affiliation also draws attention from international donors as well.
Lebanese NGOs work in a laissez-faire environment. (mepc.org) NGOs were abundant before the civil war, with many of NGOs carrying out jobs that would typically be overseen by the state in this region. NGOs provided education and healthcare, while these are very important institutions, it is crucial to point out that many of Lebanon’s NGOs are associated with one of the religious sects in the country. (mepc.org) When the civil war broke out, nearly all of the state-run institutions collapsed. This left a huge hole in their government and economy. Most social services were left up to the NGOs that remained. Political factions during the war observed NGOs and their ability to mobilize at the grass roots, and these factions aimed to establish their own ‘service’ organizations. Since, even to this day, the government is not strong enough to support the institutions, so the responsibility of running them will likely fall to the NGOs for the next few years, or until another revolution.
*MY SOLUTION:
The one dilemma I found while trying to create a solution that I felt appropriate, was that most of the development theories we learned this year seem to be tailored towards western civilization. In the case of the Middle East and authoritarian regimes, my solution for the problem of hegemony complaints from the regimes, would be for NGOs to start acting on behalf of the people right in front of them. Taking an alternative approach to development allows an NGO to focus on the needs of the very real person they are serving, not serving a government or trying to promote democracy. The two sub-types of alternative development I would suggest are empowerment, and ‘actor-oriented’ approaches, like participation within anthropology and sociology.
Participation as a development concept emerged in the 1960-70s. The concept was a response to a government’s inability to promote social development. Failures like this can happen when large bureaucracies are created. An example used by Lewis and Kanji about community participation highlighted the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). TVA did an irrigation project in the US and shed light on the significance of hiring local people onto a team, who are not involved in the bureaucratic process, to make decisions. They are not influenced by the process; they are going to do their job better than everyone else because they know the area better than everyone else. Another conceptual framework for participation is systemic participation. This framework is based around the questions ‘who participates, and at what level?’ the first form this approach takes is nominal. This is when government groups are created, but their main purpose is to be for show. The next form this concept takes is instrumental, meaning that “under conditions of resource shortfall created by structural adjustment, which then counts as a cost to local people. The third form is representative, which is when a group or individual in a community gains some kind of influence within a program or business, which then allows this person to pursue their individual interests. The fourth from is transformative, meaning that people are taking action for themselves and on their own terms. Creating platforms and different ways for success is important for any type of government to be successful. Concepts like this have been the ideological backing for revolutions all over the world. (Lewis and Kanji, 74)
The empowerment approach surfaced as part of a formula that sought to connect theory and practice. “It required a closer engagement on the part of those in development, with ideas about power, and about the ways in which people’s incorporation into unequal relationships tended to constrain their capacity to think and act.” (Lewis and Kanji, 76) the empowerment approach also covers the 3 types of power: social, political, and psychological. Having social power means one has access to information and skills, participation in social organizations, and financial resources. Political power means that one has access by individual household members to decision-making processes. Psychological power means that one is self-confident, and this behavior is usually linked with consistent action in the previously mentioned domains. Empowerment has different meanings to different people. “For some, empowerment was an individual process which provided the means for people to advance their own well-being and interests. For others, empowerment implied forms of collective action, centering on issues of organization and politics.” (Lewis and Kanji, 77) If we applied my question of whether or not NGOs make an impact in the Middle East, with this theory applied to them, the impact may be greater and more beneficial.
While both of these concepts and subtypes of alternative development are intriguing, I believe that participation is the best option to fix my question/problem of impact NGOs have in the Middle East. Participation calls for the involvement of locals in development activities. In certain authoritarian regimes, dissidents are silenced. The only way I could see around this would be sticking to grass roots operations, and trying to make an impact on the everyday lives of citizens, instead of taking on the dragon that is an authoritarian regime. This is not to say that no one can slay the dragon ever, but the conditions for revolution and the political climate need to be pretty bleak for NGOs and civilians to stand up and take action. I would rather focus on the local involvement with making my community better, than risk going to prison, and losing the opportunity to impact anyone at all.
CONCLUSION:
In conclusion, NGOs have made an impact in the Middle East. There are factors that hold NGOs back from doing their jobs every single day. NGOs that operate in the Middle East (unless they are grass roots) need to tread lightly while they are guests in a country. One thing I have found interesting is the process of legitimation for NGOs and for authoritarian regimes, they are almost the same. I do think that Arab Spring has an effect over the government’s response to the presence of the NGOs, but I am not confident that the crackdowns would be happening at the scale it currently is if Arab Spring had never happened. After that, regimes have been on their toes, and there is paranoia that a revolution would start. The pushback from the Arab world is nothing that Westerners haven’t heard before. The western world is known for forcing its ideals onto other people, and trying to assimilate them.