When the government banned 500 non-governmental organisations
about a week ago, there was a public outcry since the action seemed to
have been triggered by extraneous motives.
The
Opposition and the United States were among the critical voices and the
point being made was that the government was quietly and steadily
stifling independent institutions perceived to oppose its views.
There
was no convincing reason for deregistering the organisations. Claims
that the NGOs had failed to file returns or account for their money were
just a smokescreen. At any rate, such infractions are best handled
administratively.
So when the government lifted the ban
on 179 NGOs after a few days, the critics seemed to have been
vindicated. There was no compelling reason in the first place to slam
such a hefty penalty on organisations, most of which have done a
commendable job in improving the lives of many people.
This
is not to say that the NGOs are blameless; some of them engage in
dubious activities and deserve to be penalised. For example, those that
support terrorists must be outlawed. However, the criteria for isolating
the bad ones must be clearly articulated.
Applying a
blanket rule and condemning all NGOs is unacceptable. A government that
seeks to silence civil organisations is veering off the democratic path.
Such scenarios were witnessed in the 1980s and 1990s and we would abhor
the return of that trend.
Add to the aggressive
passing of the controversial security law last week and the picture of
an intolerant administration plays out.
The country has
made major leaps towards democracy in the past two decades and we would
not want to see actions that roll back the gains. Vet the NGOs and
ensure they are above board, but let them operate without intimidatio
No comments :
Post a Comment