28 June 2011
Since January 2011, the Hungarian government has been criticized for a number of political initiatives, ranging from the introduction of a new media law – which had the European Union up in arms – to the introduction of a new constitution, which has irked the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission.
A striking feature of these so-called crises has been the active intervention of international non-governmental institutions (NGOs), all more or less vocal in condemning the Hungarian government’s position. Whether it has been journalists’ unions, Transparency International or Human Rights Watch, their views are always the same – one dimensional, politically biased and laced with moral indignation.
However, who exactly are these bodies and what exactly do they stand for?
Certainly, unlike a government, they are unaccountable. They do not answer to anyone other than themselves and the management system and charter they devise for themselves. Whilst the active volunteer can at times be celebrated, is the general public ever able to question their competence and effectiveness? If transparent government is held up to be of great importance, should we not rightly expect similar standards of transparency from NGOs, particularly with regard to how their money is raised, the philosophy or rational of the organisation and any strings attached to large donations?
Traditionally, they are the masters of the single issue and as such, have no real position that blends their views and the wider consequences of their action with the often competing agendas that modern government has to manage. Yet can this simplicity of cause really help craft useable policies? For example, can Transparency International’s corruption index methodology be considered the last word on the matter – are there better methods out there but which might not gel with TI’s in-house thinking?
Two recent interventions by NGOs in Hungary in the last few months have given rise to questions about their independence and political neutrality.
The first was the involvement of the Hungarian Red Cross into Roma politics. By letting themselves be used as part of a ‘well-publicised’ transfer of a small Roma community – who had been in conflict with self-styled ‘vigilantes’ – not for purposes of ensuring their safety but for a holiday – actually diluted the moral authority of the Red Cross. What was the Hungarian Red Cross leadership really thinking about when it let its international reputation be tarnished in supporting a gesture by a foreign and recognised supporter of one of the mainstream political parties in trying to score a cheap point against the government in Budapest which had actually taken more detailed and effective measures to deal with the causes of the problem?
The second involved the intervention of Human Rights Watch into the internal Hungarian issue of the form of a new constitution. The NGO published an ‘open letter’ to Prime Minister Viktor Orban, highlighting what they believed were possible flaws in the document. Their letter, if given a close read, is full of ‘could be’, ‘might be’ and ‘possible’. The very language used is conditional – they might be wrong and the possible flaws in fact might not be flaws after all!
Of greater concern perhaps was the language used to support their views on human rights, which they closely align to moral values. The NGO’s leadership see abortion, for example, as a question of human rights and should not be diluted. Does Human Rights Watch acknowledge the rights of the unborn or the developed foetus? Should we not reserve for ourselves the right to question their moral values above and beyond the issue of gay and lesbian marriage? Does Human Rights Watch campaign assiduously for these ‘human rights’ in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or Iran and does it see fit to seek amendments to the constitutions in these countries?
Highlighting the inconsistencies of NGO policies and interventions is not the point here. The point is, let them be judged by the same standard that they judge others!