In a little over a month the UNHRC will vote on an anti-Sri Lanka resolution submitted by the world's worst human rights offender, the United States of America. The politics of these moves draws heavily from a report submitted to UN Secretary General by a panel of 'experts' he appointed, better known as the Darusman Report. The panel drew heavily from unreliable sources and claims from such regurgitated frequently by Colobo's NGO mafia that struts around as though elected by the people to be 'Sole Representatives of Civil Society'. The real civil society said its piece three years ago. Let's listen again.
NGOs are made of workshops, seminars, project proposals,
reports, double-billing and overheads that make up more than two thirds of
annual budgets. They are also made of
claims, chief among which is that of representational lie. ‘We are civil society,’ NGO personnel like to
think and state. They are an incestuous
bunch, these NGOs. They form consortia
and forums which are made of the same groups and led by the same people. They appoint each other to each others
boards. They applaud one another and occasionally give each other awards for
this and that. They quote one another. They scratch each other’s backs.
NGOs frequently organize workshops, attended naturally by
like-minded people, where comments are carefully recorded. These are carefully
screened, and selected comments quoted and marketed as ‘the common view’. Many of the attendees are paid a
‘participation’ fee or gifted in kind.
NGOs have a huge problem.
For all the democracy-loving rhetoric, they are patently unable to deal
with the fact that they lack transparency and accountability, and moreover that
representational claims are scandalously hollow. They say
they represent ‘civil society’, but don’t
say ‘well, no one elected us, and to be honest, our views are marginal or
less and more seriously are based on assumptions that reality rebel
against’. Ask them to organize a
demonstration or announce a public seminar and less than a hundred turn
up. Indeed, most of their operations are
of the behind-closed-doors kind. And
yet, they bat on. Courtesy of friends in
big-name diplomatic missions and big-name countries whose political agendas
vis-Ã -vis Sri Lanka coincide with theirs.
I don’t think it is worth talking ethics to crooks. What is more useful is to try and ascertain
what the real (and not dollar-padded) civil society thinks about the issues
that NGO pundits wax eloquent on and make grand pronouncements about. Elections tell us a lot about public
sentiment, even imperfect ones. The
electorate has overwhelmingly applauded the measures taken by this regime to
eradicate terrorism from Sri Lanka. The
electorate has overwhelmingly, and repeatedly, saluted the measures taken by
the Government in terms of reconciliation and the regaining of normalcy.
On the other hand, it can be argued that specific questions
were not put to the electorate, and that sentiments expressed via vote could
very well imply general approval on a wide range of subjects or indicate the
absence of a credible alternative, rather than endorsement of policies
regarding issues such as the ethnic divide (sic). We haven’t had a referendum on these things
and politicians, especially the victors, are wont to weigh convenience into
interpretation.
We do have what are called ‘opinion polls’ but none of these
are robust enough to stand the most basic requirements of credibility when it
comes to reliability and representational worth for example. The Darusman Report submitted by three persons of
questionable integrity to a man of questionable integrity who appointed them,
and whose content sorely suffers on account of contradiction, hearsay, lack of
source-reliability and so on, is an interesting case in point. People have rejected on account of all these
things and on the issue of legality and demonstrated malice in intent as
well. Others have applauded, without once responding
to the above concerns, treating conjecture as fact. Jehan Perera, one of the several
‘I-am-Civil-Society’ types, has quoted some unidentified persons who had
expressed opinions in a for-invitees-only gathering and extrapolated the
sentiments expressed as the general view of a particular segment of
people.
A couple of weeks ago, however, a significant section of the
real ‘civil society’ expressed their views on this report. These were not ‘invitees’. Neither were they paid to participate. They did not belong to a small circle of
mutual back scratchers who hobnob with the high and mighty in diplomatic
circles or sip cocktails in elegantly crafted lawns in Colombo 7. They came from all parts of the country, represented
all communities and all religious faiths. Some were old, some were young. Half
were men and half were women. They came
together as elected representatives
with considerable social standing and sway in their communities. They were asked what they made of the above
report. They unanimously rejected it. I
am, by the way, a member of one of these societies and have personal shares too
(comparatively abysmal, I might add). I wasn't present at the AGM and had no
idea that such a resolution would be tabled.
Let’s check the numbers.
This was, ladies and gentlemen, the Annual General Meeting of the SANASA
Development Bank. Now this bank grew out
of the largest and most widespread thrift and credit movement in the country,
one with a history that goes back to 1906 and which anticipated and practiced
‘microfinance’ decades before it became a development buzz word. From a movement which counts over 8000
primary societies or groups devoted to the subject of thrift and credit, with
social, cultural and moral upliftment embedded into agenda, SANASA counts more
than 5000 entities that are active and hundreds with assets and business that
easily best branches of well-established commercial banks. A total exceeding 3800 own shares in the
SANASA Development Bank.
Each of these societies has 100-2000 members, with the
average exceeding 400. Even at an
average membership of 200, this counts for 740,000 people being represented at
the AGM. Throw in an average of 3 adults
per family and you get over 2 million people being represented, for, typically,
SANASA membership and operations are associated with households and
communities.
That’s as accurate as one can get in ascertaining the
sentiments of civil society this side of a national referendum, I contend. These people, let me repeat, are elected representatives of grassroots organizations. I am willing to wager that if all such elected organizations were brought
together and their views on such issues obtained through secret ballot, the
result would not be any different.
There are lessons here.
First, it shows up the likes of Jehan Perera, Paikiasothy Saravanamuttu
and Sunila Abeysekera, all self-appointed
and foreign-funded whose representational worth is zero.
This should indicate for anyone interested in
using the report as an instrument to affect regime-change the kinds of cost
this country would have to incur. It should tell people like Perera that this
report cannot be used to further the cause of ‘reconciliation’ because it is
considered a piece of garbage by vast sections of the population. Thirdly, it is time that the real civil
society stood up and got counted in ways broader than a vote on a resolution at
a corporate entity’s AGM.
It tells something to the regime too. The recommendations of the report’s backers,
namely and principally ‘devolution based on the 13th Amendment’, should be
summarily dismissed as politically untenable.
10 comments:
I think you could be a bridge. Your views tally with more realistic thinking against these NGO people you mentioned with ulterior motifs.
It's truly great indeed for us the Sri Lankan's that the war ended but could we say that terrorism is eradicated. There should be a prevailing political solution to not let such happen again in future.
There should be ways and means for the Sri Lankan's to respect each other and to live in harmony.
What are your suggestions.
'it is time this real society stood up and got counted'.
If the numbers quoted are so large they will definitely outweigh the numbers of so-called 'fake'NGOs. Why has the GOSL ignored this asset?
i do what i think i can do best: write.
When a wound has begun to heal ,how
on earth is it going to heal when the process is disturbed ?
Are not the attempts to 'reconcile'
going to remind and rekindle the
very flames that caused the fire ,
in the first instance ?
Or , is not there a sinister motive
to this entire exercise of
' RECONCILIATION ' ?
I for one , `am convinced so !!!
If the numbers quoted for 'real' civil society are correct (and I'm sure they are) why doesnt the GOSL use this immense potential? The 'fake'societies may be top-heavy and corrupt(?) but they do seem to be doing a tremendous amount of good at grassroot level. It is dangerous to generalise.
GOSL's logic is strange, isn't it? But 'tremendous good at grassroots'? I haven't seen any.
Yes. There is a lot that is being done through foreign-funded NGOs and local ones. Perhaps you havent looked hard enough, Malinda! Prejudice can be a deterrent.
Perhaps the GOSL knows that many NGOs are helpng the people at community level!
well, i know that there are bits 'n pieces stuff by outfits like world vision (which btw comes with a surreptitious proselytizing agenda)but to use the term 'a lot' is a bit much. i've done studies on the I/NGO sector and i do keep my eyes open. anyway, we are talking about 'i am civil society' types and they do zilch at the grassroots.
Non reference is relevant to encourage civil conduct in a society. It is good to compare, NGOs claiming to ‘represent civil society’, with an organization such as Sanasa to understand the magnitude the latter represents.
Post a Comment