He then repeated the same line of thought using different phraseology - paternalism erodes independence, you do not want to be over dependent on state handouts, it is unhealthy to depend on government, and so on. He then added that his Ministry is willing to advise Emang Basadi on how to become self-sustaining or find alternative forms of dependency. It must have been hard for Emang Basadi to know how to interpret these sentiments, as it will be for all the country's concerned NGOs. Is there, for instance, a tangible difference, in the Minister's view, between acceptable dependence and unacceptable over dependence? Or is any level of dependence, unacceptable? Where would lines be drawn and what level of government funding, if any, could be anticipated? According to what criteria would decisions be made? Would account be taken by the government (his Ministry?) of the enormous differences between NGOs, between those that are national, regional or merely local? Would assessment be made of the capacity of each NGO, not least Emang Basadi, to fund raise (a full time job) and to identify sources of support that are potentially available to each one? Some will always be better placed than others. NGOs in Gaborone and Francistown might be able to generate some funds from costly dinners but this option is hardly available to one in Bobonong or Moshupa. And in any case, such forms of income can only provide very short-term gain. Similarly an NGO concerned with recognised priority needs, say HIV/AIDS, will have a better chance of obtaining support than an NGO whose concerns are for forestry or libraries. How is anyone today to know what government hopes of the country's many NGOs, how it perceives their role and its relationship with them? With whom should NGOs be in partnership if not with our own government? Some years ago, when the country was poor, there was a working understanding that a new NGO project, supported by foreign funding, would have to prove its value to the government before it would move in. If it chose to sustain the project, it would take it over. This pattern was repeated again and again. The process worked well and an enormous amount was achieved. But there were, and still are, government policy differences, and little consistency. With one NGO project, the government would routinely cover all recurrent but no capital costs, with another it would only provide erratic support which ensured that even short term planning became an impossibility. Yesterday, it was understood that foreign funding was subject to constant change, new development fashions and buzz-words and that dependence on it could prove hazardous, as occurred with Metlhaetsile. It was also understood that the maintenance of national self-respect meant avoiding excessive reliance on outside support. Far better, it was believed, that approved NGOs and their projects should depend on the support of the national government. When the major foreign, aid supporters of local NGOs became convinced that, with diamond wealth, they could pull out, there was an assumption that the government would fill the gap they had left. But is that what happened? Maybe BOCONGO can tell us. But as of now, Minister Tibone's comments must be causing real concern to many NGOs up and down the country. While they believe themselves to be working in partnership with government, the minister has indicated that it is their dependence on government he recognises, not any sense of partnership. Because most NGOs have no hope of ever becoming self sufficient, their survival will now depend on successfully exchanging dependence on the government for dependence on some other body or bodies. But by making it so clear that it wants to opt out, the government may have ensured that only few will chose to opt in.
