NGO Debate in Pakistan – 2 Civil society’s rights

NGO Debate in Pakistan – 2

Before you read

Why after every few years we observe a debate about NGOs? Are there any unresolved issues regarding nonprofit sector usually called as development sector in modern language? Resonance of Binyamin Rizvi still in the air. why some unregulated sectors including media remain in hurry to regulate only foreign funded organizations (specifically those institutions who are getting funds for raising awareness regarding Rights). If Issue of foreign funding create disturbance among various powerful institutions then they should not be reluctant to initiate a debate in the parliament regarding all types of foreign funding either Non-State or For-State in general. The NGO debate should not remain in exclusive domain of bureaucracy. Are we ready to resolve this issue once for all?
 Some Comments related to this article are at the end

Civil society’s rights

I.A. REHMAN

http://www.dawn.com/news/1190241/civil-societys-rights

Dawn 25-06-2015

Before you read
Why after every few years we observe a debate about NGOs? Are there any unresolved issues regarding nonprofit sector usually called as development sector in modern language? Resonance of Binyamin Rizvi still in the air. why some unregulated sectors including media remain in hurry to regulate only foreign funded organizations (specifically those institutions who are getting funds for raising awareness regarding Rights). If Issue of foreign funding create disturbance among various powerful institutions then they should not be reluctant to initiate a debate in the parliament regarding all types of foreign funding either Non-State or For-State in general. The NGO debate should not remain in exclusive domain of bureaucracy. Some Comments related to this article are at the end

THE latest moves to regulate non-government organisations (NGOs) need to be approached with a due sense of responsibility as they touch upon some of the fundamental rights of civil society.

The interior minister has disclosed that the task of registering NGOs has been transferred from the Economic Affairs Division to his ministry. This decision is said to have been taken on the report of Mr Tariq Fatemi, the prime minister’s special assistant on foreign affairs. Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan is also quoted as saying that the laws for the registration of NGOs are vague and that a new single law is needed to ensure proper accountability and transparency[i].

It seems the interior minister was referring to the international non-government organisations (INGOs) that have lately lost favour with the administration[ii]. This cannot be said about the national NGOs because the laws for their registration and accountability are pretty clear[iii]. Perhaps the prime minister also had INGOs in mind because in that case his choice of a foreign affairs hand to probe the matter could make sense.[iv]

Be that as it may, before moving any further the government should make the Tariq Fatemi report public[v]. The people must know the grounds for action that apparently targets both local and foreign NGOs. The government must be cautioned against being carried away by the smear campaign against INGOs that has been carried on by vested interests. Most of them have been rendering humanitarian assistance to the people or helping them realise their rights. Instead of vilifying these INGOs Pakistan should be grateful to them.

One should like to hope that the decision to put the interior ministry in command of the entire NGO sector is open to review. Even the INGOs need not be judged from the security angle alone and neither the Economic Affairs Division nor the Foreign Office should be excluded from the decision-making process concerning them[vi]. But the idea of putting national civil society organisations (CSOs) under the control of the interior ministry sounds quite preposterous[vii].

It is no secret that the law-enforcement bodies, especially the police and the intelligence agencies, are responsible for most of the violations of human rights by the state[viii]. Putting the CSOs, especially those working for human rights, at the mercy of the same forces will amount to appointing the proverbial wolf to guard the sheep[ix].

Traditionally, the government has been favourably disposed towards charitable enterprises. Even the shady ones among them. It is happy with organisations that relieve the state of its responsibility for opening schools or establishing hospitals, but it has a problem with organisations that try to uphold the rights of the people. Those who speak for women’s right to education, or their economic independence, or their political rights are accused of working against Pakistan’s social values[x]. Anyone who demands justice for the minority communities is branded a foreign agent.

The anti-rights lobby in this country argues that monitoring of human rights violations, organising protests against enforced disappearances, and focusing on extralegal killings are anti-national activities. It is perhaps necessary to remind them of what UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said two years ago: “If leaders do not listen to their people, they will hear from them — on the streets, the square, or, as we see far too often, on the battlefield. There is a better way. More participation. More democracy. More engagement and openness. That means maximum space for civil society.”

Pakistan cannot afford to move against the worldwide current for recognition of civil society’s right to confront the state, to ensure that the state does not transgress the terms of its foundational compact with the people. Today, the United Nations is pleading for space for not only CSOs but also for civil society actors, ie individuals who work as human rights defenders. They do not need any registration. The very first article of the Declaration of Human Rights Defenders says: “Everyone has the right individually and in association with others, to promote and to strive for the protection and realisation of human rights and fundamental freedoms at the national and international levels.”

The timing for an assault on the CSOs also is wrong. The government cannot be unaware of the several calls on it to increase the space it allows to civil society. The pressure on it to implement the directions contained in the Supreme Court judgment of June 2014 is growing day by day, particularly since it has aroused the expectations of the beleaguered minorities.

The government is also required to fulfil its commitment to comply with the GSP Plus condition of implementing 27 international conventions. And it is expected to allow the recently created National Commission for Human Rights a level playing field. What will the commission do if policemen are given authority to regiment civil society organisations?

The debate on civil society-state relationship is unlikely to conclude soon and at the moment it would be sufficient to warn the government against any attempt to curtail the space for CSOs. It will be counterproductive.

---

[i] No doubt, laws related to nonprofit philanthropy needs revision but question is who will change it? Parliament or bureaucracy? Will government involve all stakeholders?  Or it will be another counterproductive exercise. Laws concerning nonprofit philanthropy are

TYPE A1

I The Societies Registration Act, 1860

II The Trusts Act, 1882

III The Voluntary Social Welfare Agencies (Registration and

Control Ordinance), 1961

IV The Companies Ordinance, 1984

TYPE A2

I Religious Endowment Act, 1863

II The Charitable Endowments Act, 1890

III The Mussalman Wakf Validating Act, 1913

IV The Mussalman Wakf Act, 1923

V The Mussalman Wakf Validating Act, 1930

TYPE A3

I The Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920

TYPE A4

I The Income Tax Ordinance, 1979

II The Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

TYPE B

I The Cooperative Societies Act, 1925

II The Industrial Relations (Trade Unions) Ordinance, 1969

TYPE C

I The Registration Act, 1908

TYPE D

I The Charitable Funds (Registration of Collection) Act, 1953

II Minimum Wages Ordinance, 1961

III Employees’ Social Security Ordinance, 1965

IV The West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment

(Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968

V The West Pakistan Shops and Establishments Ordinance, 1969

VI Employees’ Old Age Benefits Act, 1976

These laws are either continuation of colonial times or developed before the new phase of NGOs in Pakistan. Largely these laws did not cover money laundering, linkages of local philanthropy with foreign donors either from west/US or Middle East etc. Either huge amount of foreign currency comes in Pakistan or go outside, in both cases there was not any check. Economic Affair Division is only interested in foreign currency so it has least concern with its use. This issue of laws is not limited till NGOs yet it is connected with so many other sources of money transfer. Parliament should review the matter and establish a commission which prepares recommendations after meeting with all stake holders including concerned state institutions..

[ii] Pakistan is not an only example where state wants to check INGOs. In recent past Russia and China both banned certain INGOs as they were busy in anti state activities. As misuse of anti state activity is common in Pakistan so people rightly raise questions. But largely these questions are linked with misuse and never denies right of a nation state to check anti state activities

[iii] Laws regarding registration of NGOs in Pakistan are not only vague but does not fulfill international standards . NGO forms till to date reluctant to address this issue.

[iv] Current government is not the only one in this regard as Ayub and Bhutto governments too deal with same issues. In his research paper (available online) Legal framework of nonprofit sector Zafar H Ismail used two references. “The scope of the VSWA Ordinance of 1961 is restricted to organisations working in one or more of the 12 fields listed in the schedule, Section 16 empowers the government to include or exclude any field of social service from the schedule through the issuance of a notification. Given the vast area of its applicability the mandatory registration stipulated by the Ordinance of 1961 is a serious negation of the fundamental right to associate guaranteed by Article 17 of the Constitution.” The other example is of Bhutto period “Section 16-A added to the Act of 1860 in the provinces of Punjab, Sindh and Baluchistan in 1976 has placed the power to supersede an allegedly errant governing body of a society in the hands of the provincial government without

any threshold judicial inquiry. To this extent the incentive for seeking registration provided by the Act of 1860 has been diluted.” Zia period “The power to assume waqf property granted by the Ordinance of 1979 implies that a waqf can really be maintained as a non-governmental operation during the lifetime of the waqif (creator). Given the state of the waqf law it is not feasible to consider the waqf as a major vehicle of non-governmental public benefit work for the future.”

[v] Instead of public one must demand to share it in parliament.

[vi] An over sight parliamentary committee should form to check this matter permanently

[vii] It means putting INGOs under ministry of interior is not preposterous. Policy should be clear for all nonprofit sector

[viii] It is also no secret that numerous countries use nonprofit sector in their foreign policy initiatives. So, one should work for a midway in this regard.

[ix] Point is understandable yet example is little tricky.  One must avoid analyzing the situation in black and white. The midway may be finding by using gray areas.

[x] Such bifurcation looks tricky and it will further divide nonprofit sector. Such bifurcation does not exists on ground

Link of a paper The Legal Framework for nonprofit sector in Pakistan

 http://www.pide.org.pk/pdf/psde%2018AGM/The%20Legal%20Framework%20Of%20The%20Nonprofit%20Sector.pdf

Further readings
http://punjabpunch.blogspot.com/2015/06/ngo-debate-in-pakistan.html

http://tns.thenews.com.pk/one-groups-national-sovereignty-anothers-unfreedoms-akbar-zaidi/#.VZATuhsiq1s