What are the main conceptual frameworks and operational definitions used in the literature to understand the strategic autonomy of African NGOs/CSOs, and what are the tensions or debates identified around this concept?
The scientific and operational literature uses several conceptual frameworks and operational definitions to understand the strategic autonomy of African NGOs/CSOs, and several tensions or debates surround this concept.
MAIN CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORKS AND OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS #
- ·Autonomy as a defining characteristic: The fundamental concept is that autonomy is an intrinsic characteristic of an NGO. According to this perspective, an organization cannot be classified as an NGO if it is under the effective supervision or control of a government. This basic definition emphasizes organizational independence from the state.
- ·Strategic autonomy linked to vision and mission: Strategic autonomy is implicitly linked to an NGO’s ability to define its own vision for society and to be guided by broader issues, rather than focusing solely on specific, day-to-day issues. The lack of a clear vision and mission is identified as a difficulty for NGOs to articulate their role and function autonomously.
- · Programmatic autonomy through facilitation: An important conceptual framework challenges the traditional role of NGOs as direct implementers of their own programs. Instead, it is argued that NGOs should focus on facilitating sustainable programs initiated by communities themselves in the economic, political, and social spheres. This approach emphasizes community autonomy and the role of the NGO as a creator of space for local action, rather than as the primary implementer. Programmatic autonomy is manifested here in the NGO’s ability to support the action of other actors rather than imposing its own programs.
- Financial autonomy as a foundation for independence: An NGO’s ability to secure reliable funding from diverse sources is crucial to maintaining its organizational independence and its ability to consistently produce quality work. Overreliance on short-term project funding from foreign donors is identified as a threat to autonomy, as it can compromise the ability to invest in core activities, maintain research independence, and ensure long-term financial stability. Exploring alternative funding models and partnerships is therefore a key element of strategic autonomy.
- Operational autonomy in a given political and legal context: Strategic autonomy is also influenced by the political and legal context in which NGOs operate. The rigidity of legal and political systems can be an obstacle to CSO participation and autonomy. Moreover, the suspicion or hostility of African governments towards independent civil society institutions requires NGOs to develop cautious communication strategies to present their policy advice as constructive support rather than a challenge to authority.
TENSIONS AND DEBATES AROUND THE CONCEPT #
- ·Facilitation versus Implementation: There is a debate about the optimal role of Southern NGOs. While some argue that NGOs are service implementers through their own programs, others, like Fowler, argue that their primary role should be facilitation to create space for communities to act and develop their own sustainable solutions. The tension lies in how NGOs can truly build local skills and capacity if they are primarily engaged in direct implementation, which risks minimizing community ownership and blocking people’s potential for action.
- Financial Dependence versus Independence: Dependence on external funding is a major concern that threatens the autonomy of African NGOs. The tension lies between the need for financial resources to carry out programs and the risk that these resources, particularly when tied to specific projects and donors with their own agendas, will hamper the ability of NGOs to define and pursue their own strategic and research priorities. The traditional project- and sector-based funding model in sub-Saharan Africa has been recognized by donors themselves as having indirectly undermined the capacity of regional institutions.
- Cooperation versus Co-optation: NGOs often operate in partnership with governments and other actors. However, there is a tension between the need for cooperation to achieve impact and the risk of co-optation by government agencies or the political opposition, particularly in non-competitive regimes and new democracies. Acceptance of positions or contracts by NGO leaders can create perceptions of bias and compromise the organization’s autonomy and public credibility. Similarly, funding from specific donors can carry the risk of becoming agents for the advancement of their political interests.
- ·Long-term vision versus day-to-day management: Another debate concerns the ability of NGOs to develop and maintain a long-term strategic vision in the face of pressures of managing day-to-day activities and constantly seeking funding. The lack of time devoted to defining the vision within the overall socio-economic context of their societies is a challenge that hinders their ability to articulate their facilitation role autonomously.
In summary, the strategic autonomy of African NGOs/CSOs is understood through their organizational independence, their ability to define and pursue their own vision and mission, their role in facilitating community action rather than directly implementing it, and their ability to secure diversified funding to ensure their sustainability. Key tensions and debates revolve around the optimal role of NGOs, the delicate balance between financial dependence and independence, the challenges of cooperation without co-optation, and the need to reconcile day-to-day management with maintaining a long-term strategic vision.
