Over the past two decades Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) have taken center stage all over the world in matters pertaining to good governance, functioning of democracy, and upholding of human rights and fundamental freedoms. They have also been at the forefront in the fight against corruption, political partisanship and abuse of familial connections.
Some NGOs have grown an international character and their representations are present in many countries of the world. Some of them, like Bangladesh's "Grameen Bank," or United Kingdom's "Amnesty International" or France's "Medicines sans Frontier," have gained international acceptance, respect and recognition.
Their efforts have been mostly voluntary and have been facilitated through conviction and sincerity of purpose. They have helped in poverty reduction, in gender empowerment, in greater access to healthcare, in the creation of alternative avenues of employment and in the removing of the curse of illiteracy.
In Bangladesh, since the early seventies, NGOs have played a pivotal role. Over the years, they have supplemented the role of the government and helped in opening doors and windows all over the country, particularly in the vast rural hinterland. We have seen how the concept of micro-credit has strengthened credit extension potential for rural women and created self-employment opportunities.
It has also assisted in the growth of micro agro-based units (horticulture), small-scale pisciculture in small water bodies, and poultry farming. It has helped to empower women and fostered girl child education. Similarly, certain NGOs have been remarkably successful in the spread of non-formal education and vocational training. This has helped in the growth of skill within the population. NGOs have been the source of hope.
They have also been the cause of great frustration. Unplanned growth in this sector has led to duplication of efforts and, sometimes, abuse of resources. Moral integrity and fiscal probity have been sacrificed in the quest for funds and resources that are made available by foreign donors. This aspect has been the source of anxiety among many like us.
Transparency International Bangladesh (TIB) has now stepped into the fray. Interested as they are in mis-governance and corruption, the TIB commissioned a study titled "Problems in good governance in the NGO sector." It has recently been made public, and as expected, unleashed a storm throughout the NGO landscape in Bangladesh.
The study took into account the activities of 20 NGOs operating in different districts within the six divisions of Bangladesh. The composition of the NGOs covered included one international NGO, eight national NGOs (operating on a national scale), and eleven local NGOs.
The research team came out with certain critical observations in their report. They also acknowledged that their findings were hampered "due to lack of transparency and the autocratic attitude of certain heads of these NGOs." It was observed in this context that "those who had information were not willing to talk, or said that they did not have time." If this is true, it is indeed unfortunate. It must have also affected the investigation.
The TIB report noted lack of accountability as well as serious irregularities in the dealings of most of these NGOs. Their findings were seen by many as being consistent with the presumption that a large number of NGOs in Bangladesh were associated with mid-level corruption and absence of regulatory control.
The wide-ranging findings of the TIB study revealed the existence of the following:

• An autocratic attitude among the senior leadership within the NGO community, which has resulted in arbitrary decision-making and lack of accountability. This, in turn, has contributed to the prevalence of corruption.
• Those running the NGOs rarely have inter-active discussions with the beneficiaries. Their attention is given more to briefing the donor agencies.
• The need for centralisation has persuaded donors to maintain relationship with only a few major NGOs (some of whom have transformed themselves into corporate houses). They receive 90 percent of the resources from external sources. These NGOs then outsource a part of the expected work to be done to smaller NGOs who have very little control in the decision-making.
• The practice of trying to satisfy donors often ends up with some NGOs unnecessarily inflating their activities and seeking to address problems which are actually "artificial."
• The NGO Affairs Bureau, because of its weak institutional framework, is unable to carefully monitor the activities of the NGOs.
• There is sometimes lack of coordination among donor agencies, and this leads to duplication in funding made available for a particular purpose.
• In most NGOs, the members of the governing body include relatives of the governing body executive chairman.
• Many NGOs lack principles of audit honesty and their financial reports are quite often exaggerated.
• In most cases the employees of the NGOs are appointed as per the choice of the head of the NGO or on recommendation of influential people (who are useful for the NGO), and not on the basis of merit or ability. It is also noted in this regard that retired officials of the government are particularly appointed so that they can use their old contacts to influence the awarding of projects to a NGO.
• The employees of the NGOs are not necessarily paid salaries according to the proposal of the approved project, or according to what has been advertised with regard to the project.

These are serious allegations and have, as expected, led to strong counter reports and protests in the media.
The federation of the NGOs in Bangladesh (FNB) and the Association of Development Agencies in Bangladesh (ADAB) have reacted angrily. They have claimed that the methodology used in the study was faulty, and information gathered from a faulty research cannot be acceptable.
It has also been pointed out that there are thousands of NGOs throughout Bangladesh, and it would be inadvisable to make "sweeping allegations." It has also been suggested that the TIB report might have a negative impact on NGO activities in Bangladesh.
I personally think that both FNB and ADAB have been a bit hasty in protesting too much. They know as well as many others that opening a NGO or being part of a NGO have, in more ways than one, become a career choice for many students and retired officials. For some, it has become a business.
Consequently, the NGO sector, instead of reacting angrily to the critical survey, should view it as constructive criticism. TIB has indicated that the data was collected through interviews with NGO officials at various levels, from case studies and focus group discussions. Truth hurts, and this appears to be the case.
Wisdom suggests that it will be a good idea to have a commission to examine in depth the current NGO practices. It will help to identify shortcomings and also assist in their removal. This, in turn, will enhance the credibility and sustainability of the NGO sector. The good work being achieved by many will then not be lost because of the undesirable actions of others.
Reform within the NGO sector in Bangladesh is as necessary as within political parties and business groups. Improved donor coherence, rigorous systems of accountability, and audit of performance will, in the long run, help the cause of the poor and of those meant to benefit from NGO activities within our society.
Muhammad Zamir is a former Secretary and Ambassador.