Government Authority over Aid

by bernt & torsten

Last Friday, there was a noted quarrel between two popular political figures. This storm in a teacup coincided with the public announcement by the governmental agency in charge of international development cooperation, stating that they would withdraw the support distributed worldwide with the help of strategic partner organizations.

The government has thus decided to discontinue a pre-existing strategy aimed at forwarding global aid through organizations with particular expertise in matters related to regions where democracy is challenged. This can be seen as an additional segment of the extensive assault on civil society initiated by the government. It's not only popular education and national lotteries that should be taken away. The decision many parts of the aid world feared is now finalized. 16 organizations are losing their funding and their status as strategic partners.

These organizations are mainly those who, through both advocacy and organizational building, pose a threat to new conservative ideologies that primarily wish to see Western winners. It seems secondary that the support goes to journalists who are harassed, women who lack economic and social empowerment, children's right to meaningful leisure time, and people who are exploited at their jobs. Despite the fact that international aid is effective, it is seen as secondary.

A report published by a research think tank sparked a discussion about how the government could win elections more easily by dismantling labour movements, unions, civil society opposition, and popular education. In sum, critics argue that this new strategy nurtures a hostile human ideology.

The dutiful concern was correct. Aid has long been questioned by those leaning toward conservatism. It doesn't matter that the country's international aid ranks high year after year by independent bodies. The focus is on skepticism as a guiding strategy, the appointment of controversial experts to the aid organization's board, and the cynical decision to dismantle international aid.

Within a global scope, rendering opponents harmless is effective for those who wish to retain their power. This has happened in countries like Hungary and Turkey, and most recently in the very unfree elections in Russia.

A single decision changes the lives of hundreds of employees in the home office and thousands worldwide. The future for the infrastructure that has enabled support for organizations and activists in countries where engagement is prohibited is demolished without further thought.

The country transitioned from receiving refugees and an ambitious one percent aid goal to a more or less consensus around closed borders and help abroad. Now, the government is taking the next step away from helping abroad to little to no help at all. The message is clear: the world is no longer the country's concern. The government claimed to dislike state control but is now bringing in more of it.