According to a report presented to the National Assembly Standing Committee on Social Welfare, Pakistan Baitul Mal has provided Rs 89.48 million to non-government organisations (NGOs) involved in health and special education sectors. There is little doubt that civil societies or NGOs as they are more commonly known are increasingly seen as the best possible partners for development by not only bilateral and multilateral funding agencies but also by national governments.
Because of their grass-roots appeal and their location in terms of proximity to the communities they serve, they are in a better position to not only assess the real needs of the people but are also able to monitor and evaluate ongoing projects.
NGOs are also considered not loath to make appropriate adjustments to a project or a programme to further strengthen its impact on the local people. Hence from that perspective Baitul Mal's funding of NGOs shows a marked sensitivity in adjusting to what is happening in the world as well as in other parts of the country.
However, governance structures in Pakistan remain weak and it is unfortunate that poor governance has also permeated civil societies and NGOs. Periodic accounts of NGOs misappropriating large sums of donor or government money are commonplace in our media but the onus of assessing the credentials of any NGO, in all fairness, cannot be the responsibility of Baitul Mal.
It has to be the government, federal as well as provincial, who need to first whet all the credentials of the NGOs and then release these to all funding agencies, including international donors, local charities and Baitul Mal.
In addition, given the large number of registered NGOs in this country, suspicions are routinely raised about the rationale of the very existence of a significant number. Shahbaz Sharif as the Chief Minister of Punjab had launched a campaign to bring some semblance of accountability to this sector, but he was unseated before any decisions could be taken.
His critics allege that he wanted no interference, which may have led to bad publicity from the NGOs, which was his raison d'etre for 'greater accountability' of the NGOs - a stance that many politicians from the ruling elite have taken in the past and many continue to do so in the current dispensation. Be that as it may, the government needs to look into this sector and attempt to separate the good NGOs from the bad ones.
Baitul Mal is an Islamic institution empowered to undertake those support activities that are associated with a welfare state's responsibilities.
Thus while in a typical Western country the state will pick up the tab for essential services that include health and education, special or otherwise, in a country where Baitul Mal exists it is this institution which may assess the needs of an individual or a locality/province and provide funding accordingly.
This, of course, does not pre-empt support by the state - federal or provincial. There are some rather obvious benefits of the state dispensing such services: a government is in a unique position to deal with the problem at a national level which raises the total number of people benefiting with fewer allegations of favouritism or collusion.
And while poor governance at a federal and provincial level is one of the major issues frequently raised by the donor community, yet the accountability mechanism within the government is considerably more transparent than in the case of the NGOs.
Thus, it can be argued that it must be the state that should utilise the money raised for Baitul Mal and use it to raise the performance of specific sectors. The fact that many have alleged that Baitul Mal is not immune from corruption, a malaise that appears to pervade every section of our society, and that Baitul Mal's requirement to ensure that all money collected be dispensed with before the end of the year - a constraint which accounts for a rather hurried assessment of an application nearer the end of the year - strengthen the argument that Baitul Mal funds should be mainstreamed.
Comments
Comments are closed.