(The Humanitarian Social Network)
hello to all,
I was recently confronted to the issue of a potential ngo employer considering itself (and all aid agencies) as the "substitute for the State" in a certain country in Africa who is evaluated as a "ghost state".
I am wondering how concepts such as general development (including governance), partnerships and also negotiation, could be influended by this claim/observation.
I generally think the State in Africa should have a greater role, if only becasue it is the warrant of human rights and receiver/administrator of EU sector budget aid, biggest donor in Africa. So accountable to the populations, if not to the donors.
I always thought the susbstitution of the ngos to the state was a dangerous thing, not leading to development. States receive enormous annual budgets from the EU each year, that in the name of ownership are just given out with little or no accountability to anyone. (For different and compex reasons, it does not work, and development does not happen.)
Now, if the State is "weak"/ghost/absent and ngo's job is to go do its job (health, education, finance) how do we, as representatives of the ngo towards national authorities, implementors of general donor agendas, place ourselves?
There is something unsatisfactory about : "we have to do it becasuse they don't"
Would be really good to have your insights, specially of experienced aid workers having worked at country representation level.