The KP Sharma Oli administration has recently come under criticism for taking numerous controversial steps to curtail civil liberties—from attacks on the freedom of expression to limiting the autonomy of civil society organisations. As the NGO Federation of Nepal, an umbrella body of civil society organisations, has a long history of raising voice against such steps, Binod Ghimire and Prithivi Man Shrestha spoke to Jit Ram Lama, chairman of the federation, on the steps they will be taking to protest the government’s regressive moves and the transparency within NGOs themselves.

The following interview has been condensed for clarity.

The NGO Federation was always at the forefront of civil protests in the past. However, it seems to have failed to raise its voice, especially at a time when the government is taking several steps to curtail civil liberty.

As an umbrella body of civil society organisations from the ward to the central level, the federation cannot deviate from its core responsibility to stand against any move that would limit civil liberties. Our present role is as strong as it was in the past, but that role is determined by the context and the situation.

Following the promulgation of the constitution, the federation believed that the protracted political transformation had finally come to an end and the country is ready to take the path of economic prosperity. But recently, the government’s action have indicated that it wants to tighten its grip on civil society organisations. Last year, we strongly condemned the introduction of the integrity policy and a circular issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs aimed at regulating such organisations that compelled the government to step back in no time.

The government then formulated a bill targeted at controlling non-governmental institutions by bringing them under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Home Affairs, from the Women, Children and Social Welfare Ministry. After the NGO Federation opposed the bill, the government halted its progression.

Do you think the government ultimately wants to stamp out NGOs?

This government was formed on the base of the People’s Movement. Since we’ve made equal contributions to political changes in the country, we too are part of the present changes. But it seems the government has overlooked our contributions and wants to curtail our autonomy. It is an established principle that democracy flourishes in a country where civil society organisations are strong. We are worried to see the government taking regressive moves but it would be premature to conclude right away that these moves are targeted at stamping out NGOs.

But the federation is not visible in protests against the Media Council and Information Technology bills.

The NGO Federation is in solidarity with the Federation of Nepali Journalists in its protests against the two bills. The two organisations have held rounds of discussion on the matter and have organised joint demonstrations. The NGO Federation, with the participation of different civil society organisations including the umbrella body of journalists, has started a ‘Joint Civil Campaign’ to warn the government against every step it has taken in the opposite direction. The protests in Baneshwor were held under our leadership and I even addressed the protest, but only the voices of journalists were covered in the media.

The NGO Federation and the Federation of Nepali Journalist are also working on a common position paper on the role the two organisations can play in safeguarding freedom of expression and freedom of association. It is wrong to say that we are reluctant to raise our voices against the recent bills which are aimed at controlling the Nepali media sector.

The federation also contributed a lot in raising the agendas of deprived, marginalised and underprivileged communities. Why has it slowed down? Has its priority changed?

There are several progressive provisions in the constitution targeted at uplifting the socio-economic condition of marginalised communities. But the feeling that the government wants to weaken the achievements of the people’s movement is palpable among civil society members. Acts based on the fundamental rights ensured by the constitution have been drafted but regulations required to legally execute them are regressive and don’t match the constitutional spirit. This has neglected the principle of social inclusion, which was reflected in the recent vacancy called by the Public Service Commission. Only last week, we had a meeting with Dalit activists to discuss ways to advance the protest against the commission’s regressive decision. Reservations are akin to compensation and should continue.

The government believes that different interest groups have become more powerful in the absence of a strong state. What are your thoughts on this?

The state can be strong only if the individuals involved are strong. The government needs to know that wider consultation before taking any policy decisions won’t weaken it. Rather, deliberations will only strengthen it and its the decisions. The state doesn’t mean the government alone; it includes non-government organisations, the private sector, cooperatives and civil society.

When there are so many grievances against the government, what steps will the federation take?

Civil society organisations are meant to raise their voice for civil rights. Their protests should not be directed towards regime change but towards ensuring that people can enjoy their liberties. We are clear that non-governmental agencies are the government’s partners, not shadow governments. Our activities will strengthen the state machinery and make it more effective. At the same time, we also play the role of a watchdog if the government tries to attack civil freedoms and protest against such steps if necessary.

Foreign funding is often viewed in a negative light. The National Federation of Indigenous Nationalities, for instance, was dragged into controversy for receiving funds from foreign countries. What do you have to say about this?

The government is free to identify its priority sector and develop clear guidelines for NGOs and demarcate their field of work. At present, the government is more interested in improving physical infrastructures like roads and buildings, but it should realise that it is equally important to invest in advocating for good governance, human rights, peace and inclusion. The rights of people should be connected with developmental efforts.

NGOs that advocate for transparency are themselves not transparent. What would you say to this?

There is no denying that NGOs should be transparent, accountable and participatory. Fingers are indeed pointed at us, blaming us for failing to maintain transparency. But the claims don’t hold water. NGOs are the most transparent institutions in the country. They have to go through audits every year, hold an annual general convention where financial and progress reports must be presented, pay government taxes and conduct a social audit. Tax offices go through all records, and the local government’s recommendation and an annual report is required for renewal of registration. Donors are always closely monitoring us to see if their money has been used well. It is wrong to say that NGOs are not transparent when they have to undergo such tedious scrutiny every year.

NGOs have been blamed for having huge administrative costs. Is this true?

I disagree. It might be the case in INGOs where employees are paid handsomely, but that’s not true with the local NGOs. We are strongly against spending more than 20 percent on administrative costs. We always advocate for 80 percent of the budget to go to the targeted community.

Nepal is among those countries with the highest number of NGOs per capita. What tangible changes have they made over the years? Don’t you think 50,000 NGOs registered with the Social Welfare Council are too many?

I fail to understand what’s wrong with having a lot of organisations. There are neighbourhood improvement committees which raise fund within themselves. There are women’s groups, mother’s groups and farmers’ organisations, all of whom collect funds on their own, discuss various local issues and invest money for their benefit. Neither the government nor donor agencies pay them, and they don’t seek external funds.

Our records show less than 2,000 NGOs receive external funding. Such organisations are directly supporting the government without creating any financial burden. The government should therefore focus on regulating those NGOs that receive foreign funding, budget from the government budget, and have a large turnover.

***

What do you think?

Dear reader, we’d like to hear from you. We regularly publish letters to the editor on contemporary issues or direct responses to something the Post has recently published. Please send your letters to [email protected] with "Letter to the Editor" in the subject line. Please include your name, location, and a contact address so one of our editors can reach out to you.