Both Oars In Ignored

Sep 24, 2010

In a recent article in The New York Times on the deplorable situation in the ambiguously defined tent camps of Haiti, a new oxymoron appeared that is neither amusing nor positive. The journalist reports that the inhabitants of a failing relocation camp, constructed far outside of the city in a dusty, deserted desert, where even lizards fear the noon-day sun, were encouraged by the camp leaders to write letters to the nongovernment authorities in order to voice their complaints.

While it is unclear from the article exactly who this nongovernment authority is, there is little doubt that the phrase refers to a nongovernmental organization or NGO—as they are called in the trade. These organizations are better known by their fundraising monikers: the Red Cross, World Food Program, Doctors Without Borders, etc., many of which are either directly or indirectly associated with the United Nations. They are the first responders in large scale disasters, both natural and manmade.

Maybe it is just a slip of the pen that transformed the more benign phrase nongovernmental organization into the alarming nongovernment authority. Nevertheless, like all oxymorons, this self-contradictory phrase speaks volumes. At the very least, its appearance in print begs several questions, not the least of which is: has the servant become the king?

In a country that has seen more governments fail than succeed, this is a discomforting and important question. It is unclear how an organization, especially a foreign organization, operating in a sovereign nation would be seen as an authority. For that matter, how is it that communication has become so direct between elected or self-appointed camp leadership and the international relief organizations? Have the camps become nations?

[As I write this, I can’t help thinking: Which comes first, food distribution or warlords?]

One would think that being a nongovernmental entity would by definition exclude the possibility of having authority in matters concerning the State and its citizens. After all, doesn’t nongovernmental imply non-governing? Isn’t the right to govern the basis of the State’s authority? Therein lies the contradiction and the troubling reality illuminated by the newly coined phrase.

Certainly, in any society there can be voices of authority that influence the people outside of the government. Often, there is a moral authority, such as a Gandhi or Martin Luther King, who provides direction. There may also be a religious authority, such as a John Paul II or Billy Graham, to whom the people give importance. But, there is something a bit more ominous about suggesting that there is a nongovernmental authority in a country with a nascent and overwhelmed existing government authority.

How did the phrase nongovernmental authority come into being? It is the natural result of the manner in which the NGOs do their work. Every truck that drives up to a camp to provide service is meticulously labeled with the name of the NGO providing that service. There is no sense whatsoever that they are acting on behalf or in the name of the local or national government.

Maybe this is necessary in a war zone, but what about in a country suffering from a natural disaster? How much more inappropriate is this "labeled assistance" in a nation that is also suffering from low self-esteem and severely weakened institutions?

It is also possible the term arose as a result of the $400,000 communication campaign conducted by the International Organization for Migration aimed at giving a voice to the voiceless in Haiti. The writer quickly covers this program in the final paragraph, but this may be where the story really starts. A foreign entity soliciting the distressed people of a country for their thoughts could easily suggest that there is a new authority in town. At the very least, it is insulting to the local government (whose voice, by the way, went unheard in the NY Times article)—especially one that can authentically claim to have grown up out of the very same people. Does anyone really think that President Preval cannot hear the cries of his own people?

Fortunately, the final authority does indeed hear the cry of the poor—and likely the frustrations of an ignored president as well.