SierraConnection.com Blog

THE RELIABLE ROUTE TO POVERTY REDUCTION IN SIERRA LEONE: NGOs OR SECRET SOCIETIES?

Mr. Crispin Cole | November 1, 2005

Concord Times (Freetown)
ANALYSIS
October 31, 2005
Posted to the web October 31, 2005

By Andrew Lavali, Researcher, Participatory Governance
Freetown

Since the 1990s, the global drive towards poverty reduction has created to a new convergence among development practitioners and policymakers on popular civic participation in governance and development programs as the means of increasing access to new initiatives that will promote good governance and help reduce poverty. Citizen participation therefore entered the manual for state management as an article of faith for Third World countries to abide by in order to increase opportunity for lower income and other excluded populations whose interest are marginalized in classic representative institutions to influence policymaking processes.

In spite of this global determination, however, many institutions created to enhance poor people's involvement in development are far out of their reach.

In previous articles, I demonstrated how the limitation of the definition of civil society to formally registered NGOs and CBOs, for example, undermines poor people's participation in the decision making processes and institutions that affect their lives. This article extends the analysis further and examines the differential capacity of organizations (NGOs and secret societies) in promoting poor people's participation in poverty reduction programs. Here, I examine the efficacy of both types of institutions to influence members of the wider public that adhere to their values and beliefs to engage in development programs at state and community levels.

Analysis of the differential capacity of NGOs and secret societies to inspire poor people to engage in development programs has remained hidden in many studies on citizen participation in Sierra Leone.

Policymakers cannot for example, make a categorical estimation of the varying degrees of influence that the 'Poro Society', Actionaid, and SLTU have on poor people's participation in monitoring of state provided services. I have the thinking that different organizations have different constellations of factors that shape individuals in society to engage in collective action. The sanction and oath of secrecy of the 'Poro' society, for example, and the beneficiary registration and open community needs assessment by NGOs have varying effects on citizen participation in policymaking and implementation of community programs.

So, what are the differences between the two in poverty reduction? Let me start with NGOs.

Understandably, the logic behind massive NGO (as civil society) presence in Sierra Leone was to create a civic culture, pluralize the political, economic and social arena and bridge the gap between masses and the state. So NGOs thus act as intermediaries between, what donors call 'the unorganized masses' and the state and are expected to represent the people and express their voices in policymaking. In fact, among NGOs is a small sector of voluntary organizations (examples withheld) that genuinely monitor regimes, engage in advocacy on behalf of the poor and serves as watch dog in ensuring that government contractors deliver services.

But, in spite of the multimillion-dollar funding enjoyed by NGOs endemic poverty persists in both rural and urban areas. This situation has made poor people to call the activities of many NGOs to question. The vast majority of NGOs, including those known as briefcase NGOs, created to track multiple sources of foreign aid money have become local managers of donor money, instead being managers of Sierra Leone's development processes. This has made the capacity of many NGOs to mobilize communities to be seriously doubtful. This leaves me with the argument that continued critical analysis of NGO activities in Sierra Leone and how such activities relate to different versions of poor people's reality is central to the understanding of how they could engaged in poverty reduction policy to reach and influence the lives of those the purport to serve.

In fact, many have argued that NGOs have been used to extend donor influence beyond the power of money to the integration of donors into the routines of government. I have tried to find justification of this serious allegation, which has the potential to throw some light in to the darkest secret of international development management. Why? Is it because approval of the country's comprehensive development programs like the PRSP is done by a joint assessment team of the IMF and the World Bank; after which PRSPs becomes the hob around which state development programs revolve? If yes, then I have now got some clue to the heavy presence of expatriate personnel on NGOs and donor funded contracts. This is to help undermine local ideas and feelings on participation and to promote an international development monoculture in the name of giving technical assistance. Poverty reduction now appears alarmingly like adjustment to poverty.

Besides, as I mentioned elsewhere, the introduction of the concept of NGOs has created two publics in Sierra Leone; civic and primordial publics. The dividing line between them is best captured in the common Mende words 'puu hindae' (meaning Whitman's business which approximates the civic public) and 'Kondi hindae' (meaning our local affair which equates to primordial public). The 'Puu hindae', (NGOs) is seen by many local people as corrupt and undeserving of support (e.g. payment of public fund). By contrast the 'Kondi hindae', which consists mainly of secret societies, ethnic and hometown development associations, belongs to the community and is claimed by most ordinary people as their own. Thus members within the 'Kondi hindae' feel obliged to it and are fiercely protective of its interest, and conduct within this realm is governed by traditions of sanctions, self-help, self-government and a high degree of accountability.

These two publics therefore operate according to different rules and norms.

I have shown the glimpse at the two publics to help demonstrate the deeply complex characteristics of different categories of poor people that cannot be adequately captured by formal organizations like NGOs and CBOs. It therefore, makes it flawed for poverty reduction processes to, for example, validated certain types of citizens as legitimate participants in the policy process because they are represented by NGOs leaving out the vast majority that are ruled by different norms. In the PRS formulation, Sierra Leone witnessed a wave of consultative policy initiatives that gave invitation to formally registered NGOs to participate in the program design. Thus one could envisage that in course of its implementation a small but specialized sub-division of civil society will emerge strongly in decision making on civic matters, closely linked to INGOs and donors and increasingly capable of meeting the demands of invited consultation. Many of such organizations will certainly be urban-based NGOs that are far removed from the rich associational life of poor people in rural areas. Just in case we have a very short memory, let us not forget that the failure of the 40 million Dutch mark, Bo-Pujehun Rural Development project to address rural poverty could be largely viewed from this angle.

What about secret societies? The mention of the words 'secret' and 'society' justifies the absence of pause to sit and analyze the value of primordial publics in development. Some may argue that secret societies are themselves not inclusive. Some skeptics believe that policy making in secret societies is done by a few society elders without any pretence of broadening the boundaries of inclusion. Many could not stand the sight of a modern society that is modeled on secrecy.

However, a note of caution is needed here. For any promotion of ownership and sustainability of development could only be attained by adapting development institutions and activities to the knowledge and appreciation of the people they are meant to serve. The adherents of secret society will confront their critics by arguing that secret societies are truly participatory and empowered because they rely upon the commitment and capability of ordinary people (members) through various channels of deliberations and later tie actions to discussion.

And, just as with participatory models elsewhere (Participatory planning of local government in India and participatory budgeting and health councils in Brazil) through the Poro council, for example, and informal ways in which rural women air their voices to their husbands and sons, entire village communities are engaged in policy making.

To conclude, the above analysis leaves us with little doubt that organizations vary in their capacities to mobilize citizens to engage in their own governance and development processes. And we could only assess their degrees of influence on poor people's participation by looking at the institutional embeddedness for participation and not the form that organizations can take. I think by having micro-level studies on the capacity of different organizations to inspire public action and promote empowered participation could be a useful guide for policymakers to make informed decisions.

What remains clear is that while there are many studies participatory processes in NGOs and CBOs there are few micro-level studies on the role of secret societies in the new governance agenda. In fact, I am of the view that reworking the concept of secret society for it to have international acceptability in the light of the culture, history and politics of Sierra Leone allows for the possibility of illuminating more than just the problems of development policy interventions but bringing more hidden reserves of creativity on the development agenda. There is therefore the need to focus less on the higher rhetoric, abstractions and a historical generalization of donors and to produce a close-up observation of the civic personality of Sierra Leone.

This will help us to understand local realities that we could link up with emerging global changes. I believe, the more we study the people of Sierra Leone the more we know the real nature of associational life that could be useful in formulating any agenda for change.