Jaevion Nelson | Need for transparent and accountable funding

People have been raising questions about the operations of (some) organisations doing human rights and anti-corruption work and they are often ignored and/or chastised (typically by those external to the organisations) for doing so. Yes, it is customary that these questions are often prodded out of mischief (of sorts), but if we are being rational, it isn’t an unreasonable ask. Why shouldn’t people know about the organisations that have mandates to influence policies and laws and have a seat at the table to participate in decision-making?

Transparency and accountability are critical, and the spotlight, in this regard, shouldn’t only be on public institutions and (big) businesses. It should concern all of us if we barely know about the people and organisations, whether they are from the private sector or non-profits, for example, that actively seek to influence law and public policy. It is rather uncanny that there is seemingly such hesitance and resistance to allow the public to know more while at the same time pushing for greater levels of transparency and accountability. One of the most important takeaways, for me, from my courses on development and good governance, was that even entities with the most noble of mandates to ensure transparency and accountability or promote human rights ought to be scrutinised.

Most recently, Dr Alfred Dawes, in one of his commentaries, argued that non-governmental organisations (NGOs) wield a great deal of power and influence and there ought to be some watching of those watchdogs. According to Dawes, NGOs “are powerful entities that work with near impunity” [and] that because of their relationships with international organisations, have “the privilege of limited scrutiny by governments who are afraid of upsetting the international community”.

One can speculate about the circumstances that led Dawes to pen this piece, but it is important that we appreciate that he isn’t the only one with such views/questions. These views and questions are raised in many spaces by people all over the country. Some of this is because of the trust deficit that isn’t limited to public officials and institutions. I was with some educators earlier this year, and they, too, raised concerns about entities influencing government decisions. Over the years, I’ve had to answer questions and come to the defence of some of my colleagues because people are of the view that they have a nefarious agenda that is being financed by foreign donors.

LUDICROUS QUIPS

I am sort of tired of the ludicrous quips with which these issues are typically met. I am keen to learn about the mechanisms that exist to hold organisations accountable and ensure transparency. So I ask here, beyond the roles performed by the Department for Cooperatives and Friendly Societies and similar bodies for registration status and tax compliance and other purposes, what exists? How do the relevant government bodies scrutinise and undertake monitoring assessments? Should the Government publish reports and financial statements? Where does the public go to access this information? Should NGOs, those with charitable status, at the very least, be mandated to make their annual reports and audited statements, which they use to file to renew their charity certificate, publicly accessible?

It seems to me that the ‘concerns’ can be easily addressed if more people feel they have access to the information they need. Of course, I don’t think that if there is greater access everyone would somehow be quiet since some entities already put some information out voluntarily.

REMINDER

I want to end with a reminder that this issue was also raised in the Parliament by Raymond Pryce, who tabled a motion, in November 2013. Pryce highlighted, in his motion, that “it is becoming normal in many other jurisdictions for legislation to be promulgated which mandates civil society groups and other special interest groups or lobbyists to be registered and to publish certified and audited financial statements.” He moved a resolution that the Parliament should “debate the appropriateness and need for legislation in Jamaica that will, at the very least, require civil society groups, special interest groups and lobby groups – in keeping with emerging global financial and ethical requirements - to vouchsafe and protect Jamaica’s democracy from any such compromise as could be caused by unknown or tainted sources of funds or hidden agendas.’

The motion received mixed reactions from several quarters. The Parliament also received submissions and presentations for the debate. Might it be necessary to have a public discussion around the concerns that are so often raised by a wide cross-section of people (not just those with grouses with civil society) with a view to considering how best to address them with or without government intervention?

Jaevion Nelson is a human-rights, economic and social justice and inclusive-development advocate. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and jaevion@gmail.com, or follow him on Twitter @jaevionn.