1 October 2014
President Obama’s recent intervention in Hungarian affairs was undoubtedly unwelcome in Budapest. The Hungarian government’s dispute with a Norwegian NGO has seemed – at least on the surface – to be an unwarranted and politically motivated assault on civil liberties. Indeed, the fact that the US President saw fit to even comment on the affair was in itself interesting and in some ways a damning indictment of the Orbán government.
Yet beneath the superficial froth, this case has highlighted several interesting issues about the role of NGOs in civil society, not least questions of accountability and transparency.
That NGOs are traditionally regarded as mainstays of civil society is hardly in doubt. The spontaneous or planned reflection of popular motivation and vision to pursue a myriad of ‘popular’ causes that might otherwise be overlooked or ignored by government and society is a laudable one. In Hungary, the work of some churches and charities has long been recognised for its positive impact on society’s most marginalised section. Similarly, in education, the environment, health and culture, a similar impression emerges. The overriding perspective is that NGOs are a healthy and positive factor in civic society.
Even in the field of politics, NGOs can play an incredibly positive role. The infusion of hundreds of big and small efforts to help create a sense of democracy in Hungary after the changes of 1989 was critical in fostering a political culture in which a new form of politics could take root and nascent politicians could find their way to the top. Some of these efforts remain alive and well today.
However, the landscape in which NGOs operate today, not just in Hungary, but also globally, has changed markedly since the fall of communism. The day of the NGO being the visible expression of the community trying to do something by itself has been diluted somewhat through the professionalization and commercialisation of many of our better-known NGOs. Additionally, many NGOs have become acutely political in the pursuit of their cause and occasionally some have drifted towards agitation and violence.
In the case of Hungary today, those NGOs that align themselves with politics are often closely aligned to political parties and often draw their sources of income from those same parties. In this sense, Hungarian NGOs are no different from their counterparts in Europe or the United States.
Why then has Hungary been singled out for exceptional scrutiny by the United States? The answer partly lies in the historical animosity in recent years shown towards the Fidesz government, especially by the EU and the USA. Opponents of Viktor Orbán’s political style and vision have never really got over the scale of his election victories in 2010 and earlier this year. The problem has only worsened as a result of Orbán’s ‘Tusnád’ speech, in which he noted his vision of a future Hungary was not a liberal democracy.
But here lies a problem. How does politics and society deal with NGOs, which are funded by foreign governments and which are hostile to the incumbent government’s policies? Consider the public scandal that ensued in the UK after it was discovered that many of the leading educational and cultural bodies had welcomed sponsorship from the Ghadafi family in Libya, including a leading human rights group. This was at a time when the UK was part of a coalition to oust the Libyan leader. Or consider how uncomfortable it was for American organisations post 9/11 to continue to receive sponsorship from the Arab World. Quite clearly, it was felt that foreign funding of domestic NGOs was problematic.
It is the case today that too many NGOs, particularly those who receive significant funding from abroad, are insufficiently transparent. By and large, significant foreign funding comes with conditions and it is not unreasonable to expect such conditions to be respected. Yet how does this culture of concealment sit with the competing culture of transparency and the disbursement of non-taxable funds?
In the case of Hungary today, there is at least one foreign-funded NGO – supported by Norway – that clearly has used the funding to support active political opposition. Is this Norwegian government policy or simply the actions of Hungarian nationals? Indeed, could this be construed as a deliberate attempt to undermine a democratically elected government? One would like to think not. Yet as the effort to achieve transparency regarding the NGO continues, it is becoming clear that crucial accountability has also been lacking. Private companies that ignore or manipulate financial regulations are subject to investigation and censure but why the hue and cry when NGOs are also found wanting? Do they feel that they are above criticism or above the law? Unfortunately, the deficiencies of the few might lead to the discomfort of the many if it should result in greater bureaucracy for all NGOs.
If anything, this recent case might do some good. First, it might highlight the double standards of some international critics of Hungary. Second, it should raise some questions about the governance and accountability of some NGOs, especially questions of transparency and third, perhaps its time to question just how NGOs can participate in modern civic society.