[sacw] Civil Society under attack [in Pakistan]!

[Harsh Kapoor]

July 4, 1999
FYI
(South Asia Citizens Web)
=====================

The News on Sunday,
July 04, 1999

IN THE NAME OF ACCOUNTABILITY:
[Pakistan ] GOVT'S VILIFICATION CAMPAIGN AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST
ORGANISATIONS WILL ONLY RESULT IN FINAL DISSOLUTION OF THE DEMOCRATIC
DISPENSATION

Civil Society under attack!

Let the people speak; let their voices reach the citadels of power
Notwithstanding the retaliation they face from vested interests, PIOs
continue to evolve as an effective actor of Pakistan's civil society. PIOs
advocating for a society based on justice and the rule of law are
acquiring greater sophistication at various levels. They are reaching out
and engaging with the deprived and the dispossessed in a manner that could
catalyze the formation of autonomous peoples' organizations. To strengthen
the coherence and ability of the marginalized in order to have their
voices heard in decision making processes, PIOs are building stronger
alliances among themselves and with other civil society organizations. At
another level, PIOs are learning the art of and setting examples in
engaging in policy dialogue, catalyzing institutional change and
advocating human and livelihood rights. Pakistan is very much at the
cutting eduge of rights-based advocacy work. States and civil society
globally have a lot to learn from the way PIOs in Pakistan are coping with
power and conflict in very challenging and difficult circumstances. The
antagonism and mistrust created by the state's anti-NGO campaign is leading
to a no-win situation. The state must accept that a robust and vibrant
civil society is an essential part of democracy. In nations that profess
democratic credentials the state and civil society are able to develop
engagements that include both dissent and collaboration. Such engagements
lead to creative partnerships. For strong partnerships to evolve, it is
imperative that space is created for contestation of differing ideas; for
celebrating rather than rejecting diversity and for promoting a culture
of peace and tolerance....Political Economy reiterates the imperative of
letting the civil society flower in this vast wasteland of a republic...
-------------------
THE NEW REPUBLIC SHALL EMANATE FROM THE PASSION OF MARGINALISED COMMUNITIES

By Omar Asghar Khan

Over 2,000 NGOs have been dissolved in the country. The state's anti-NGO
campaign has four prominent and alarming characteristics. It is highhanded.
It has not followed due processes. Its motives are suspect. And its tone
and tenor is venomous and vulgar. The dissolved NGOs are not provided an
opportunity to defend charges made against them and there is no appellate
body to deal with dissolution of this scale. The rationale on which action
is taken in flimsy and unclear. For instance, the government chose to
cancel the declaration of HRCP's reputable newsletter, which has a wide
readership, on the grounds that HRCP did not inform government authorities
about their change in address. Individuals claiming to represent the
Special Branch of the Police are making unannounced visits to NGO offices.
They refuse to show any proof of credentials when requested to identify
themselves. They are subjecting NGO staff to a line of questioning that
speaks volumes about their motives. They question the NGO's views on human
rights, and rights of children and women. They have asked about the NGO's
position on the nuclear tests and on Kashmir. They have also reportedly
asked irrelevant and personal questions like "What is your relationship
with Asma Jehangir"? Pir Binyamin's statements are intensely hostile
against Public Interest Organizations (PIO) working on human and women's
rights, and environmental and livelihood rights. Pir Binamin has often used
obscene language and labeled PIOs "immoral" and "unIslamic". It is indeed
unfortunate that the campaign has stooped to such low levels and underhand
tactics. This exposes the state's true intention to try to undermine the
credibility of highly reputable organizations in the garb of
accountability. These actions are doing a great disservice to Pakistan and
are severely tarnishing the image of the government at home and abroad.
These actions by the government have unfortunately created deep mistrust
between the state and Public Interest Organizations. They sharply contrast
with the attempts at collaboration made by the state and PIos in the recent
past. It is difficult to miss the irony of the situation in which the
vilification campaign of PIOs continues unabated with thereat of banning
PIOs regularly made and yet the government continues to seek NGO input in a
number of programmes. For instance in the Punjab, which is the hub of the
state's anti-NGO campaign, the provincial government has requested PIOs to
run public sector schools in the province. The NWFP government has invited
input from Public Invest Organizations in the ongoing reform of the
Forestry Sector. The Government of Sindh has invited NGOs to takeover Basic
Health Units. The Federal Government is seeking the participation of PIO is
formulating the Poverty Alleviation Strategy. State policies and programmes
like the National Conservation Strategy, the post-Beijing National Plan of
Action and the Social Action Programme are dependent on the involvement and
implementation support of PIOs and community based organizations. This
indicates that, realizing their own limitations, the government is seeking
support from PIOs in activities that range from programme implementation to
policy and institutions reform. The irony is even more baffling if one
considers that the government is running a campaign against PIOs working on
human rights and women's rights while the Government seeks PIO support to
stop violation of human rights as it is recognized as a direct
manifestation of poverty. The National Consultation on Poverty Alleviation
organized by the Planning Commission and the Local Dialogue Group in April
1999 in Islamabad was attended by senior government officials,
representatives of PIOs and international development organizations. Its
final recommendations emphasized the need to "include explicit programme to
address priority issues of human rights as direct manifestation of poverty
and social exclusion" and recommended that "affirmative action programme
should be undertaken to redress the disadvantaged position of particular
groups such as women and minorities." Contradictions in the state's
actions and intent abound. For instance, the Prime Minister often sees it
fit to personally express grief to a rape victim in a highly publicized
visit that normally includes a pledge to stop violence against women. Yet
the government is hounding women's rights organizations and activists
working to remove root causes of violence against women. The government at
international forums is quick to express its commitment to women's and
human rights. Yet while certain members of the Senate on the floor of the
House denigrate the excellent work of activists of women's rights in
reprehensibly foul language, the government fails to respond by supporting
womens and human rights activists who are continuously being threatened.
The activists of women's rights are labeled westernized, unIslamic and
anti-state. Yet many of them, at the state's invitation, authored
Pakistan's National Report presented at the UN's Conference on Women held
in Beijing in 1996 and were involved in the preparation of the post-Beijing
National Plan of Action. It is these highly committed professional women
who have represented Pakistan at various international forums. Their local
and global efforts have received recognition and prestigious international
awards like Megasaysay Award, King Bauduin Human Rights Award, Women's
Human Rights Award and UNESCAP Award. These awards have brought fame,
respect and recognition not only to the individuals and organizations
receiving them but also to the country. To comprehend the rationale for
the ongoing anti-NGO campaign by the state it is important to understand
the evolution of NGOs into PIOs. Traditional NGOs have a charity and
welfare orientation. They are neutral. They do not challenge inequities
caused by the prevalent socio-economic and political structures. Their
primary objective is to provide services, which is no doubt needed. However
dissatisfaction with this approach to development grew as poverty,
injustice and deprivation persisted and even became worse. Meaningful
development is only possible if attention is given to the provision of
services as well as to removing the barriers to accessing resources and
services. This realization compelled PIOs to incorporate a greater social
mobilization agenda into their work. Social mobilization by PIOs aims at
democratizing state and society. PIOs support a proactive agenda of
citizens' rights including livelihood rights. They strive to remove
socio-economic inequities. They advocate structural and institutional
changes so that policies and institutions are made more just,
people-centered and pro-poor. They question decision-making institutions
and structures in which the non-elite is continually excluded through the
dominance of the state by the power elite. The challenger existing patterns
of ownership, access and control over resources, services and
decision-making that widen the gap between the rich and the poor. The
steady and consistent work of PIOs spans a wide range of issues. It
includes forestry, equitable and sustainable use of natural resources,
urban environment, health services, education, economic opportunities. They
help people to organize collective action. They provide paralegal training
and legal aid to increase access to justice. They provide quality education
and easy access to credit to give poor people more options for development.
They work with communities to ensure policies and institutions conform to
the values of justice and equity. They undertake research and provide
information so that people are able to make informed decisions that affect
their lives. A common thread in the work of PIO is that their primary
partner is the oppressed and the disadvantaged. This includes the poor,
women and minorities. Collectively, PIOs reach hundred of thousands of
people all over Pakistan. It should not come as a surprise that they face
retaliation from the power elite. Recurring retaliation is faced by PIOs
from a range of vested interests. In mid-1997, the land mafia attacked the
NGO Shehri as the organization worked to highlight and remove
irregularities in land use in Karachi. This included an attempt to murder
Shehri's President. SUNGI has dealt with recurring malicious campaigns, led
by the local power elite, against its rights-based work particularly its
advocacy against deforestation that exposes the role of the timber mafia.
Personal attacks on the staff of the organization, particularly its female
staff, are regularly made by the local power elite through press statement
and other methods. The retaliation is not restricted to a few
organizations. Aurat Foundation, HRCP, Dastak, Ajoka and Shrikat Gah,
highly reputable national advocacy and women's rights NGOs and RISE and
Aurat Association, two CBOs actively working in small towns in NWFP to
promote the rights of women and children, are some other PIOs that
regularly deal with hostility from vested interests. While the retaliation
is not a recent phenomenon, there is a marked escalation in the intensity
and scale of hostility following two recent campaigns by rights-based
organizations. One was the campaign for peace following the nuclear tests
in May 1998 and the other was the campaign to stop the passage of the 15th
Constitutional Amendment initiated last year. These campaigns challenged
the government's position on these issues. There is little tolerance for
such political dissent. The government claims that these campaigns
transgress the mandate of NGOs. But an agenda of environmental protection
cannot ignore the threats posed by testing and nuclear armament. And
efforts to include the socially excluded in decision-making processes will
remain hollow if they do not take note of state attempts to centralize
power. The escalation in the retaliation to rights-based work is coupled
with increased intensity in its hostility. Fatwas and threats of violence
and physical attacks are often part of the campaigns to malign and
intimidate rights-based organizations. Death threats have publicly been
made against Asma Jehangir and Hina Jilani following the murder of Samia
Imran in their offices. The so-called Pakistani Taliban attempted to
assault a peaceful procession organized by the Joint Action Committee in
Peshawar on 13 April 1999 to protest honour killings. State inaction and
inability to check this escalation in hostility is also a cause for
concern. Unable to check incendiary actions of some religious elements, the
local administration of a district in NWFP prevented a PIO from holding
peasant conference on food security in a local village. And yet, a few days
later, thousands of Pakistani Taliban were allowed to assemble in Peshawar
at a public meeting where they brazenly threatened those working for human
rights and women's rights. Reportedly they pledged to break the limbs and
gorge the eyes of activists. The state appears to have capitulated to these
gun-wielding extremist groups who are threatening to undermine the efforts
of PIOs aimed at organizing the marginalized and disadvantaged sections of
society. It is evident that rights-based PIOs of different scales, working
in different parts of the country face growing retaliation and hostility to
their work from a wide range of sections of the power elite. Within this
diversity one can discem common trends. Often hostile elements allege that
rights-based organizations spread un-Islamic values, promote a western
culture, work against the national interest and defame Pakistan by misusing
donor-provided resources. But scratch the surface and there is no substance
to these allegations. Is it un-Islamic to help women trapped in oppressed
marriages to get a divorce---a right given to them by Islam? Is advocating
the rights of the oppressed following a western culture? By promoting peace
and tolerance by questioning governmental policies that promote aggression,
are PIOs working against the national interest? As for accountability, PIOs
follow proper financial accounting practices, have regularly audited
accounts and are, additionally, closely monitored by the donor agencies
that provide them financial assistance. The key monitor of PIOs'
programmatic performance is the community they work with. If PIOs do not
deliver, the communities hold them accountable. This does not imply that
NGOs are above criticism. There is certainly room for improvement. A number
of NGOs are setting high standards of transparency and accountability that
is further promoted by NGO coalitions. For instance they have already
started a process of developing a code of conduct to promote transparency,
accountability and self-regulation. And yet the state has chosen to subject
NGOs to across the board criticism, motivated by malintent. The state
campaign has targeted highly reputed and credible human rights and women's
rights organizations like the Institute for Women Studies run by Applied
Socio-economic Research (ASR), Aurat Foundation, Simorgh, Ajoka (a popular
theater group), Dastak (a women's shelter), and the Human Rights Commission
of Pakistan. The state is also reportedly renewing its attempts to
introduce legislation to control NGO work. It is expected that an ordinance
will be promulgated which will amend the existing Societies Act that
regulates NGO work at present. According to a news item the appeared in the
daily DAWN on 21 May 1999 the proposed ordinance will give powers to the
state to dissolve an NGO and seize its assets. It stipulates that an NGO
can be dissolved if the registrar believes it is acting in contravention of
its purposes, rules and regulations or if the registrar feels it is
functioning in a manner prejudicial to public interest. This stipulation is
very susceptible to easy manipulation and misuse. Also the right to appeal
against the decision of the registrar is severely restricted. According to
the news item "the dissolved society will have the right to file an appeal
before the provincial government against its dissolution and the orders to
be passed afterwards will be final." Clearly the nature of the law is
draconian and its intent is to give the state absolute powers to restrict
the activities of rights-based civil society organizations. There is a real
threat that such a law will be used to intimidate and even ban advocacy and
rights-based organizations. This attempt to wield a legal stick to muffle
PIO voices threatens to deprive citizens of their constitutional rights of
association and freedom of expression. Notwithstanding the retaliation
they face from vested interests, PIOs continue to evolve as an effective
actor of Pakistan's civil society. PIOs advocating for a society based on
justice and the rule of law are acquiring greater sophistication at various
levels. They are reaching out and engaging with the deprived and the
dispossessed in a manner that could catalyze the formation of autonomous
peoples' organizations. To strengthen the coherence and ability of the
marginalized in order to have their voices heard in decision making
processes, PIOs are building stronger alliances among themselves and with
other civil society organizations. At another level, PIOs are learning the
art of and setting examples in engaging in policy dialogue, catalyzing
institutional change and advocating human and livelihood rights. Pakistan
is very much at the cutting eduge of rights-based advocacy work. States and
civil society globally have a lot to learn from the way PIOs in Pakistan
are coping with power and conflict in very challenging and difficult
circumstances. The antagonism and mistrust created by the state's anti-NGO
campaign is leading to a no-win situation. The state must accept that a
robust and vibrant civil society is an essential part of democracy. In
nations that profess democratic credentials the state and civil society are
able to develop engagements that include both dissent and collaboration.
Such engagements lead to creative partnerships. For strong partnerships to
evolve, it is imperative that space is created for contestation of
differing ideas; for celebrating rather than rejecting diversity and for
promoting a culture of peace and tolerance. Mutual respect, confidence and
accountability are key elements that will help create this space. This will
only be possible if the state takes three important actions. First, stop
immediately the ongoing vilification campaign against NGOs. Second, it
needs to recognize and legitimize the role of rights-based work of PIOs in
the process of institutional change and provision of services to the
disadvantaged. And, third, the state must create an enabling environment
for civil society to function unfettered in accordance with fundamental
rights enshrined in the Constitution to associate and to freely express
opinions. Time will judge whether the state has the courage to take these
steps that indicate a conviction to democratic norms.

Omar Asghar Khan is Executive Director of Sungi Development Foundation,
Abbottabad

------------------------------------------------------------------------

eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/act
http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications