At an interaction programme on the “Code of Conduct of NGOs and INGOs” organised in the capital the other day, representatives of various NGOs, INGOs and some prominent journalists raised concern over the government-introduced code of conduct for NGOs and INGOs. They argued that such a stricture could be imposed only after seeking the “consent of the NGOs.” The Social Welfare Council initiated the move to check “irregularities” in the NGOs and thus to help maintain transparency and accountability of these organisations. It is obvious that the NGOs would persistently raise their voice against this decision in view of the autonomy they have enjoyed so far. Moreover, the NGOs are legally registered with the government as private bodies, which automatically makes them independent organisations. However, it is to be kept in mind that Nepali NGOs and certain INGOs have also long been accused of misuse of authority and contact, not to mention the misappropriation of funds. All know that the donor funds do not entirely reach the target groups in the remote villages, thanks to the malpractices within the NGOs. Therefore, some sort of government regulations are not completely out of order in monitoring the activities of the NGOs and INGOs.

However, if the whole idea behind the code of conduct were just to enhance government facilitation and regulation, there would have been no problem as the issue could be mutually addressed. But many NGO representatives say that this is a move to throttle the “independence, autonomy and identity” of the NGOs and that it directly violates the UN charter that protects the independence of the NGOs. This means that the motive could well be to gain “control” over the non-state actors. If this is true, then it is unfortunate for the country in general and the beneficiaries of the NGO programmes in particular. The truth is even when corruption has been rampant within these bodies, they have nonetheless served the poor and marginalised Nepalis for quite a long time. The NGOs do play a crucial role in not only generating awareness among the population, but also in empowering the backward communities. The envisaged control is unnecessary. It may actually prove disastrous because the negative impact of such a decision on the social sectors could be far-reaching.