The history of Ethiopia’s modern civil society goes back to the 1930s and the advent of faith-based organizations. While viewed with some suspicion, their vital services were often welcomed. Welfare organizations, like the respected Red Cross Society, generally enjoyed greater trust.Marked by humanitarian crises, the 1970s saw a surge in aid-focused organizations. By the 2000s, civil society organizations (CSOs) had undergone a significant shift, with many engaging in human rights advocacy and drawing increased scrutiny from the government.
Ethiopia’s first attempt at a comprehensive CSO legislation (The Societies and Charities Proclamation No. 621/2009) became highly controversial. Criticized as overly restrictive, it stifled the growth of CSOs.
In 2019, a new proclamation replaced the old one, offering hope to a flourishing CSO sector. Previously inactive organizations re-registered, and a sense of renewal emerged. However, the recent revocation of licenses for over 40 percent of the country’s CSOs by a government-affiliated board casts doubt on this progress.
RELATED POSTS
Why has the NGO sector failed to thrive despite the change in legislation? What has the newly established Council of Civil Society Organizations delivered thus far? How does the sector view the government’s recent moves, particularly regarding human rights-focused CSOs? The Reporter Magazine’s Bewket Abebe sat down with Ahmed Hussien, the Council’s vice president and Pro-Development Network (PDN) director, to find out. EXCERPTS:
The Reporter Magazine: The recent mass revocation of over 1,700 CSO licenses has sparked widespread concerns. What really happened? As a leader of a CSO yourself and a representative of thousands operating in the country, what do you make of it?
Ahmed Hussien: As a member of the board that revoked the licenses, I want to provide some context. The Charities and Societies Proclamation (621/2009) created significant challenges for various charities, leading to dormancy and even closure. Thankfully, with the political reforms came the Civil Societies Proclamation (1113/2019), offering a fresh start. Civil society organizations were invited to re-register under this new, more favorable law. Unfortunately, a large number of organizations, even those near the registration office, failed to register due to misunderstandings, where some believed the old law expired and registration was no longer required.
The other thing I want to note is that the old system mandated a burdensome re-registration every three years, often taking a full year. The revised proclamation replaces this with a simpler annual report. The annual report serves a threefold purpose: ensuring CSO accountability, verifying they operate within their scope, and detecting unlawful activities. It also includes an external audit.
Our board has held numerous discussions about the fate of these organizations and explored ways to assist them. While some registered, many remained unresponsive to our outreach efforts via phone, email, and other channels including newspaper adverts. Locating them and issuing reminders became a lengthy process, requiring multiple deadline extensions. Unfortunately, a significant number failed to submit their annual reports.
At this stage, enforcement became unavoidable. We had to determine the fate of organizations that persistently failed to register and submit their annual reports. We issued a final call, but the response, despite our efforts, was minimal. The board was left with no choice but to revoke the licenses.
Let me share something here. The board took a very sympathetic approach. We even accepted reports simply stating an inability to file due to challenges like conflict or budget constraints. This basic report would suffice to confirm the organization’s existence. Unfortunately, many failed to meet even this minimal requirement, prompting the license revocations.
What is the Council’s current count of operational CSOs?
Pinpointing an exact figure is tricky, but including those whose licenses were recently revoked, we estimate there are around 5,000 CSOs. It’s worth noting that the introduction of the proclamation in 2019 simplified the licensing process, leading to an increase in the number of organizations.
How many, or what proportion, of the registered CSOs focus on human rights, democratization, and related areas?
In reviewing the founding documents of numerous CSOs, I noticed a shift following the implementation of the revised proclamation. Nearly all CSOs claim to work in various areas, including human rights and democratization. This shift is likely due to the new proclamation’s allowance for broader objectives, as opposed to the previous mandate for specific focus areas. While this newfound flexibility is undoubtedly positive, it is also possible that some organizations may have lost sight of their initial focus due to this broader scope.
What percentage of the revoked organizations had a primary focus on human rights advocacy and democratization?
Due to the limitations of our current categorization system, accurately classifying them in this way is difficult.
Plus, working in human rights requires a deep understanding of the local context, sensitivity to delicate issues, and strong advocacy skills. No surprise then, those donors are picky. They back established players with a proven track record, leaving many out in the cold. Most CSOs might not directly address commonly understood “human rights” issues.
Yet, opportunities exist for related projects. Initiatives promoting gender equality, for instance, can attract funding. Some CSOs might adopt a broader interpretation of human rights in funding proposals. For example, if you donate some school supplies for certain needy students, you link your donations to the right to education. CSOs go that far to secure funds.
You said you had no choice but to take the action of revoking CSO licenses at such a largescale as a last resort. As a leader and actor in the sector, what does this tell you about the perceived capabilities and effectiveness of civil society in Ethiopia?
This simply highlights that we still have much work to do. It is a task that requires all of us—the council, the authorities, and ourselves as CSOs—to work together to ensure CSOs can play their expected role in society.
The first proclamation was seen as a threat to CSOs. You led the fight for its repeal. The drafting process was highly participatory, incorporating CSO input submitted directly to former Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn. The revised proclamation addressed most of your concerns. Despite these positive steps, the hoped-for flourishing of strong CSOs has not materialized. The sector remains fragile and disorganized. What went awry? Wasn’t the former proclamation the key problem then?
Significant change has actually taken place. I consider the shift in mentality and approach a key one. We are moving away from the traditional view that confines CSOs to a limited set of charity works. This shift includes a positive change in government attitude, with a welcome recognition of CSOs as a crucial pillar of the nation. These achievements should not be downplayed; they deserve celebration.
Building a thriving civil society sector takes time. It’s a process that starts with a clear understanding of the concept, and I believe we have achieved that crucial step. However, we acknowledge that we still have limited experience in this area.
The scope of CSOs should extend beyond just charity work. We should be empowered to advocate against injustice and fight for positive change. This includes lobbying for better laws, holding all actors accountable—government, businesses, and academia—to protect the public interest. After all, that is what we represent.
The introduction of the 2019 proclamation was not just an amendment of a proclamation; it signified a shift in mentality. It recognizes that the role of civil society is broader and deeper. We play a crucial role in promoting public well-being, engaging in diverse issues outside of direct political involvement. When it comes to politics, our focus lies on promoting civil discourse and advocating for a strong democratic culture.
Regarding funds especially from international donors, are there specific rights issues that international donors prioritize? Do some donors indirectly pressure beneficiaries?
While such cases are not prevalent, it is not unheard of for some donors to leverage a CSO’s vulnerability and funding needs. For example, during the northern war, a situation arose where a CSO could not explain the whereabouts of its 15 satellite phones. This naturally raised suspicion from the government, placing the burden of proof on the CSOs. These isolated instances can be challenging.
However, in general, such specific requirements from donors are not a major obstacle for most CSOs.
The establishment of the Council was longawaited with the hope it would be a powerful advocate for the sector. What tangible results has the Council delivered to date to justify its existence as a powerful advocate for the sector?
Previously, we operated under a forum structure, which lacked the official backing of a proclamation. This absence of legal foundation led to challenges with legitimacy. Some CSOs questioned our authority to represent them, and regulators sometimes took advantage of these doubts to weaken our position.
Why do you think these CSOs do so while you claim you promoted their interests? What do you think are the possibleunderlying motivations?
Limited resources and the lack of a formal structure hindered our ability to effectively communicate our goals and engage with all CSOs. This could lead to confusion about our intentions and the full scope of our work.
Thankfully, the establishment of the Council with legal recognition has significantly improved our situation. Now, every CSO organization can be confident that the Council acts as their official representative.
The Prime Minister’s recent remarks to Parliament seem to contradict your assertion of a positive shift in government attitudes towards human rights organizations. He spoke critically of human rights organizations receiving foreign funds, implying they might be influenced by external political agendas. He implied the need for closer scrutiny from the government. How do you view this apparent contradiction?
We would rather focus on the general facts than dwell on eventualities and specific comments. We believe the amended proclamation stands as a strong testament to the government’s positive stance on CSOs. This progressive law, established with government approval, empowers us to effectively carry out our duties. It is undoubtedly one of the best practices globally.
The government likely has more information about specific situations that prompted the Prime Minister’s remarks. We do not necessarily know the full context.
That does not mean we overlook the potential implications of the PM’s comments. Recently, we have proactively requested a general meeting with the Prime Minister, not driven by this particular remark but to discuss the overall challenges we face. This collaborative approach strengthens our working relationship with the government. And the meeting will give us the opportunity for open dialogue and perception checks, fostering a stronger working relationship.
