INGOs often fall short of upholding the ideals of transparency and accountability, which they demand from governments worldwide.
Just as Prime Minister Narendra Modi embarked on his second state visit to the United States, CNN aired an interview with former US President Barack Obama. In the interview with seasoned host Christiane Amanpour, who has her share of hypocrisies, Obama questioned India’s credentials as a democracy. Ironically, Obama hosted PM Modi not so long ago during his first state visit to the US. The host could have asked Obama why he did not raise his concerns about democracy while he was in the White House. Or asked questions about the US democracy after the 2020 elections and the consequent 6 January United States Capitol attack. Sadly, the references to US democracy did not invoke such apprehensions in the former President’s comments.
Unsurprisingly, the incident caused controversy in the bilateral relations and embarrassment to the host, President Joe Biden. Yet, what needs to be understood about Obama’s references to the health of India’s democracy is that he was representing the viewpoint that has been peddled by a complex global ecosystem, where the international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) (like V-Dem Institute’s Democracy Report) play a central role. This is not to suggest that the former President should be absolved for making such distasteful comments, but that is a more significant problem that warrants attention.
The domain of international relations changed rapidly after the Cold War. Globalization and the “Third Wave of Democracy” have led to the rise of non-state actors like media, multinational corporations, and international NGOs (also referred to as INGOs). These non-state actors proliferated in the 1990s across all domains of international politics. Let’s direct our attention to INGOs. But what exactly are they? Simply put, an international non-governmental organization (INGO) is an independent entity that operates beyond the influence of governments, typically centered around specific issues (or sets of issues) and carries out advocacy, provides services, and does what it calls educating the world about the importance and relevance of their preferred agenda.
“Religious Freedom” is interesting to understand the duplicity of works and what happens when a state sponsors a particular narrative or idea. Since its inception, the report has been a brilliant instrument of the US’ foreign policy coercion that invokes the report when it’s “politically convenient.” The reports are predisposed in favour of Christian minorities throughout the world while staying pliant on conversion to Christianity. Recent reports on India have been particularly critical, leading the government to publicly denounce them as “biased.” The 2022 report expresses great concerns about the anti-conversion laws in India, allowing the wokes justification to selectively present the values of secularism as a higher morality that is beyond criticism or scrutiny.
Judging those who are different from the Abrahamic faiths has been very confusing for those who reduce everything to one book and one God. This diversity and complexity go against the Western concept of order. For them control and order are vital. In Dharmic religions, complexity and chaos is part of evolution and progress. They differ from Abrahamic traditions fundamentally in their approaches to knowing the Divine. Dharmic paths like Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and others have developed an extensive range of inner sciences and experimental technologies called “Adhyatma Vidya” to access divinity and higher states of consciousness.
Indeed, INGOs are extraordinary institutions that work as watchdogs against governments worldwide to address critical issues like democracy, human rights, religious freedom, poverty, and the environment. Different INGOs have made meaningful impacts on the global stage with tangible outcomes for people on the ground. Yet, the role of these INGOs as civil society actors or non-profit entities has given rise to significant concerns over the years. Such concerns are borne out of their ever-expanding agenda, adherence to political correctness, allegiance to social justice, frequent use of flawed methodologies, biased approach, opaqueness and unaccountability towards its funding or expenditure, and finally, a strong ideological disposition.
As such, one should ask how these supposedly non-political and non-governmental organizations are able to wield such significant influence over global affairs. The answer to this question is complex and goes beyond the scope of a single article. However, certain pathologies of international non-governmental organizations shed light on their appeal, influence, and modus operandi.
Firstly, there is the issue of indices and flawed methodologies. INGOs often publish several indices and rankings, such as the Freedom Index (published by the Freedom House), Democracy Index (published by V-Dem Institute), and the Press Freedom Index (published by Reporters Without Borders), to criticize countries that deviate from their ideological moorings. One should remember that these organizations rely on each other for content, validation, and most importantly, amplifying their agenda. The media plays a phenomenal role here. Take, for instance, these rankings. The media portrays these rankings as badges of honour or shame, and failure to comply can lead to public defamation and isolation. This larger ecosystem reinforces these rankings through repeated coverage and discussions, creating a propaganda effect that treats them as undeniable truths.
To return to Obama’s statements. Indeed, he voiced his opinion, but it should be understood that it was based on inputs from the likes of the V-Dem Report that ranked India 108th in the Electoral Democracy Index. Interestingly, soon after the publication of the V-Dem report, major international news outlets, particularly those with a history of negative coverage of India, made this a headline story without questioning the intuitive contradiction: How is it possible that the world’s largest democracy, where nearly 611 million people cast their votes in the last elections, ranks lower than countries like Tanzania, Bolivia, and Nigeria, which have a history of non-democratic rules? Yet, common sense is rarely common when one sees these reports.
Let’s consider the Press Freedom Index, published by an international non-governmental organization called Reporters Sans Frontières (RSF) or Reporters Without Borders, in Paris. It’s an example that may seem absurd. In its 2023 rankings, out of 180 countries listed in its report, India was ranked 161, well-below Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Sudan. The interpretation of this ranking meant that it’s far more dangerous to be a journalist in India than in Afghanistan under Taliban rule, Sudan amidst civil war, and Pakistan with a severe political crisis and history like the horrific kidnapping and killing of the US journalist Daniel Pearl. Ultimately, the unfortunate reality is that these organizations set vague and ever-changing standards, which remain elusive.
Secondly, international non-governmental organizations exhibit severe selectivity in their assessments and reports. With the same moral principle for which these organizations blame one country or government, they brazenly turn a blind eye to other countries or governments in support of their donors, investors, or ideological cousins. For instance, the INGO Greenpeace tends to favour developed countries in climate discussions, demanding more from developing countries and accusing them of doing less. What’s concerning here is that the failure to align with the organizations’ ideological and political predispositions can result in unfavourable treatment. This means one country would be listed as a poor performer without investments or economic opportunities. Consider the role of the Oxfam report (another INGO) in influencing investors’ confidence in a country that the report has censured. This cherry-picking of causes creates imbalances and pollutes the broader understanding of global challenges.
Thirdly, it is noteworthy that international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) often fall short of upholding ideals of transparency and accountability, which they demand from governments worldwide. This raises concerns about their credibility, particularly regarding issues such as opaque funding sources and transparency in how funds are utilized. These organizations are also disparaged for their high-handedness in their operations within developing and least-developing countries, as they insist on doing things their way without comprehending the local conditions and environment. Additionally, there is unhealthy competition within different organizations, given their overlapping agenda, which gets prominently observed in humanitarian and medical aid. Such concerns further undermine their credibility and effectiveness. Furthermore, there is a striking irony in these organizations criticizing the government for their large bureaucratic structures and inefficient support staff. Prominent INGOs such as Greenpeace, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch now operate massive bureaucracies that humble many smaller nation-states. Like many others, this contradiction calls into question the effectiveness and efficiency of these organizations in achieving their stated goals.
In conclusion, former President Barack Obama’s comments on Indian democracy shed light on the significant role played by international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) in shaping global affairs and the fractured boundaries between the Church and the State as well as State and Civil society actors. The influence of INGOs, driven by flawed methodologies and biased scrutiny, raises concerns about their credibility. Additionally, the lack of transparency and accountability within INGOs, coupled with their own inefficiencies and bureaucratic structures, further undermines their effectiveness. While it is essential to recognize that some INGOs undertake commendable work with little or no compensation, the prevailing trend of political and intrusive international non-governmental organizations only erodes their credibility and leaves critical global political challenges unmitigated and unresolved. It is also an issue of hegemony of the West and the Dominant over others, whose culture or civilization they fail to understand or purposely try to demonize the other. Complex realities are oversimplified.
Prof Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit is Vice Chancellor, JNU.