The following article consists of excerpts from a pamphlet produced by Peasant Update Philippines, Reprinted by BAYAN International. For a copy of the complete pamphlet write to PINS or MIM.
The Philippine "NGO Movement" in Retrospect
Philippine Non-Government Organizations or NGOs were formed in the 1950s when poverty and underdevelopment stalking Third World nations became a major concern the world sought to decisively address, a distinct entity from other self-organized civic clubs and social welfare groups of the middle classes working for marginalized sectors. In later years, aid in whatever form, became a system which allowed the world's have-nots to partake of crumbs generously extended by developed countries to placate social unrest and foster the world capitalist purview of development. To paraphrase a prominent Filipino journalist, aid was an effective instrument to facilitate "colonization without an occupational force."
Development work by early NGOs in the Philippines thus had no purpose of changing structures that bred the phenomena of poverty and underdevelopment in a country of rich resources and a people capable of meeting this challenge. They extended relief and facilitated welfare activities for the poor and needy, functioning along the lines of the North's philanthropy. Some even served as branches of Northern relief agencies for missions of mercy and aid extended to the Third World. These organizations likewise assisted government in reaching the grassroots to implement various community development projects. Efforts to organize communities also began in the '50s during the Magsasay administration's war against leftist guerrillas. NGOs worked along with government in initiatives to set up cooperatives that addressed varied concerns as agriculture, health, education and other areas of development. But it was evident that these initiatives had no intention of decisively addressing the challenge of Philippine underdevelopment and were more a part of government efforts to undermine the people's protest movement and thwart the growing insurgency.
It was in the 1970s and 1980s, at the height of the people's anti-dictatorship struggle, that a different breed of development workers sprouted and the term "NGO" gained prominence. In this turbulent period of Philippine history, NGOs closely linked with the people's movement opted for a self-defined orientation radically different form the framework set for NGOs in the '50s and '60s. They took on a more radical approach to social change, viewing underdevelopment as a result of structural imbalances and inequity. Moreover, these groups actively participated in the people's struggle for social transformation, working directly with marginalized sectors and advocating policy changes around social equity concerns, taking the critical stance on important development issues. Under these new breed of NGOs, the development work took on the character of a political movement.
The intensity of the people's movement led the other mainstream NGOs, including those from the conservative church hierarchy and reactionary business groups, to blend in with the people's struggle. These groups aligned and coalesced with NGOs directly linked with the people's movement and assumed the progressive posture in a bid to evade being identified with the ruling system being championed by the Marcos government. The dictatorship's extreme isolation eventually facilitated the United States' policy shift from one of full and unequivocal support for their strongman in Asia to engagement in Low-Intensity Conflict (LIC) to simultaneously stem the surging people's movement and institute mechanisms to preserve U.S. economic and political interests in a post-Marcos scenario. Reactionary mainstream NGOs that mingled within the people's movement were more than willing to accommodate US's designs.
After Marco's downfall as a result of the February 1986 people's uprising and Corazon Aquino's ascendancy to the seat of political power, NGOs proliferated further due to several factors: the unprecedented increase in financial support from industrialized nations for development activities and the opening of "democratic space" during the early years of the Aquino administration. Government, business and donor organizations also began to set up their own NGOs, cashing in on the popularity of being labeled as such to devise an acceptable mechanism that would act as tools to advance their reactionary development framework among the genuine NGOs and POs (People's Organizations) and railroad the people's movement along reformist lines of struggle.
Context of the Development Divergence
The "democratic space" Aquino opened only allowed the de-clamping of institutions like media, non-crony businesses and church groups and the reinstitution into the political mainstream of throngs of anti-Marcos reactionaries. This "democratic space" was a calculated compromise of the ruling class to fizzle popular dissent from exploding into full-scale revolution. It was thus not wide enough to accommodate the people's movement.
The ruling elite's recognition of the influence, role and limitations of the NGOs in transforming the social fabric was inevitably used to prop up the Aquino regime's democratic pretensions, stamp a measure of acceptance and respectability for the newly-installed reactionary government and dupe the general population on its true character. The concept of development work attuned with prevailing reactionary interests was again foisted vigorously among the ranks of the Philippines NGO community.
Funding institutions ... became active in dictating a development paradigm for NGOs to follow. Using their clout as conduit of resources, they began to discourage NGO involvement in political activities and pushed for socio-economic and environmental projects that followed a dictum of self-help and sustainability for local communities. NGO projects and programs had to assume a pluralist or non-political character to win the nod of funding agency (FA) approval. It became such that some NGOs had to reorient their mission and vision to conform to FA demands or else face the consequence of folding up as an institution. Some NGOs eventually doubted the sincerity of their partners in offering solidarity for the people's movement especially when they gleaned that the bulk of some FAs resources come from their country's funds allocated for official development aid, thus began research on the role of these FAs in promoting their countries' foreign policy agenda.
The Malady of NGOism
The confluence of [many] factors resulted in a malady that has struck the Philippine NGO community--the malady of NGOism. It is defined by sectors from the people's movement as "a state of being engrossed in unholistic developmentalism leading to bureaucratic tendencies in dealing with people NGOs have sworn to serve."
NGOs afflicted with this malady have a concept of development segregated from the people's movement, focused on welfare, productivity and sustainability concerns and unmindful of challenging the base structures responsible for the people's immiserization. Victims of NGOism magnify the NGO position in social transformation. They seek to widen their influence by strengthening their position vis-a-vis the government even if it means an overstretching of their capabilities that at times bring them in conflict with their mission and their members. These NGOs work with government, private sector, funding agencies and even such entities as the World Bank, in the belief that they are patching holes left by government neglect and corporate greed or complementing services rendered by the two sectors.
NGOism is manifested in various ways and degrees:
1. Loyalty to the funding agency rather than the people's movement. Rather than attuning development programs to the actual needs of the people, some NGOs master the art of what programs will click with the FA and how FAs would want such projects to be implemented.
2. Socio-economic work without the need for class struggle and changes in the social structure. A number of NGOs have engaged in various "small but beautiful" community projects that aim to alleviate poverty and empower the community without attacking the unjust relations prevailing among the basic masses and the ruling elite.
3. Bureaucratism. Some NGOs began to regard people and people's organizations as wards that need to be educated, trained and mobilized to implement their development vision and as forces that will strengthen the NGO movement. The role of the exploited masses as the prime mover for social change was undermined, their development framework and their struggle set aside and their participation in developing alternative structures for genuine empowerment curtailed.
4. Corruption of the NGO service orientation. The fixation with developmentalism and bureaucratism began to take its toll on the NGO service orientation. Rather than developing programs and projects attuned to the people's actual needs and struggles, NGOs began to impose and/or find ways of asserting their own vision and framework for community development.
5. Professionalism. Some NGOs began to value efficiency in terms of strict compliance with programs at the expense of flexibility anchored on dynamic and genuine service to the people. They adopted systems familiar with mainstream business corporations that grassroots organizations found hard to comply with and bred the employee mentality on development workers, leading to the loss of their commitment and spirit of voluntarism. It became such that skilled volunteers began to demand higher pay and other benefits only rich NGOs and business institutions could offer.
6. Adoption of corporate practices and standards. Some NGOs began to function more like a corporation rather than a non-profit, non-stock organization. They stick their finger on a wide variety of development programs more for the sake of financial access and accumulation. The wealth they amass usually serves to support their burgeoning NGO bureaucracy rather than to provide service for genuine communities' development.
7. Turfing. Some NGOs intrude upon the constituency or communities of other POs and NGOs whom they regard or treat as "rival' in the development "business".
The Development Mission
The mission of poverty alleviation and development must be recognized as a political mission and NGOs/FAs can only succeed at achieving this only by supporting and taking part in the people's struggle.
The people's movement is not merely a political movement but has always been a comprehensive movement addressing all aspects of development--people's political empowerment, economic welfare, social and cultural development. Divorcing development work from the people's struggles and initiatives effectively prevents the NGO movement from looking for viable alternatives to the prevailing development paradigm espoused by government and big business. Development work extended under this pre-condition wipes out whatever gains the people achieved through their relentless political struggles.
The political realities still prevailing in the country demand nothing short of militance. The state-induced options for NGOs to work within the ruling system is a reformist gambit that grants the ruling system opportunities to maneuver, sow confusion and weaken the ranks of the people's movement. The development divergence is a state-induced aberration NGOs should be wary of falling into.
A democratic government that is accountable to the people can be achieved not by working within the bounds of the ruling system but by liberating the poor from the unjust structures that continue to disempower them. The so-called third sector is carried away by a false illusion that it can take part in this process of liberation by working strictly within the confines of the ruling system.