Africa, Rip Off the Bandages

By: Farida ElSirgany
@FSirgany
English Editor

Egyptians often joke about “عقدة الخواجة” (the foreigner dilemma), a peculiar sociological hangup where we think that the “foreign” is superior while the local is inadequate. It seems that this line of thinking isn’t exclusive to Egypt, but exists in other parts of the world; in Africa, it has put African NGOs in a dire state.

In one of this week’s articles The Caravan’s Malika Ferot spotlights the issue of African NGOs receiving only nine percent of funding while international and governmental organizations take the rest. 

At first, I didn’t think this was an issue. After all, isn’t international aid a good thing? People around the world are overcoming international and political barriers to simply help people who need it whether for medicine, sanitation, human rights, food, shelter, or education. 

But this is an incomplete picture. According to the Bridgespan Group and African Philanthropy Forum, donors have been putting their money into international NGOs because they do not trust their African counterparts’ ability to achieve results even though it is African NGOs who are always on-ground, always on-site, and have a more intimate understanding of the issues in their area. 

This distinction was particularly highlighted during the COVID pandemic when international NGOs withdrew their staff from many parts of the continent citing health and safety concerns during Africa’s greatest time of need. According to Hajir Maalim’s Devex article, “NGOs are withdrawing from Africa when surge capacity is needed most” (June 23, 2020), this shortage of medical personnel in an already understaffed region pushed many health systems past their breaking points. African NGOs, however, continued to operate to the best of their abilities because they have a personal stake in the well-being of their communities.

The fact that some international NGOs have integrated themselves so deeply into a country’s system that they have replaced the government as the provider of certain services is worrying. Many, such as The Africa Report, Quartz Africa, and the Bridgespan Group see it as a “colonization” of donor funding which limits the country’s sovereignty as it is now reliant on donations to properly function.

It has reached a point where thirteen African countries have either considered or are working toward regulating NGO work including Egypt, Kenya, Rwanda, and Nigeria. It is a disheartening progression, to say the least, when countries feel they need to protect themselves from aid because it could become a source of instability rather than support.

For donors like us everyday people who want to help someone in need or lessen someone’s suffering, shifting our aid to African NGOs would simply mean ensuring that our money goes where it is needed, not where we think it should go. The African NGOs that are formed in an area exist because there is a significant need there. Better to cut out the middleman and give money directly where it is needed so our aid becomes led by the community that needs it.

It would also mean giving agency back to the country and smaller communities to make decisions. It is strange to think how a simple donation could have such a significant effect on a country but I see this is a reminder. I think when we donate to local, community-driven NGOs we often forget just how impactful our donations can be. 

International NGOs should not be utilized as pillars of infrastructure, they are part of a patch job. Ideally, when you donate to an international NGO, you are donating to keep the bandage on until they cauterize the wound. To think that some international NGOs have grown to such points that the country cannot function without them is a massive and unsustainable flaw. Because one day, that bandage will be ripped off and no one will know how to stem the flow.