Amid concerns of government influence

Amid rising concerns about governmental overreach, civil society organisations (CSOs) are demanding amendments to the CSO (Amendment) Act 2022.

They argue that the current structure of the CSO Authority (CSOA), with its governance board predominantly composed of government-appointed members and chaired by the Minister of Home Affairs, poses a risk of biased decision-making that could favor state interests over public welfare.

The Act currently mandates that only two out of seven board members are representatives from CSOs, raising fears that decisions by the CSOA could disproportionately favor the government. This concern is compounded by the board’s chairmanship under the Minister of Home Affairs, who is viewed by some as a direct conduit for governmental influence.

In 2022, the 7th session of the Third Parliament amended the original CSO Act of 2007. The Act allowed board members to elect their chair, ensuring a degree of independence from government interference. The recent changes, however, have caused unrest among CSOs, who are now calling for more equitable representation to ensure fair and balanced governance.

“There’s an urgent need for CSOs to unite and advocate for amending the CSO Act within the next two to three years, a time when the government is open to discussions to improve the overall governance system,” a senior executive director said.

The concern is that without timely amendments, the CSOA’s decisions, influenced by a board with only two CSO representatives and a ministerial chairperson, will continue to favor the government.

Another executive director said that Parliament should amend the CSO Act to ensure more equitable representation and decision-making power within the CSOA.

Under the 2007 Act, the board members elected a chairperson, secretary, and treasurer from among themselves, ensuring a balanced governance structure. The inclusion of a senior member from the Ministry of Finance was intended to provide oversight without overwhelming influence.

However, since the 2022 amendment, which stipulates seven board members, the balance has shifted. “The CSOA board is for the CSOs, not the government,” one executive director noted, proposing at least equal representation, if not a majority, of CSO members on the board. They also suggested that the chairperson should be elected or rotate to ensure diverse leadership perspectives.

During debates in the Parliament, concerns were raised about unregistered CSOs, transparency in fund management, and the operation of CSOs. Regulatory challenges include the proliferation of informal groups, unauthorised fundraising, and the complexity of monitoring diverse funding sources.

One key dispute was around the composition of the CSOA board. The National Council (NC ) proposed a seven-member board chaired by the Home Secretary and included two CSO representatives. The Assembly (NA) countered with a proposal to make the Home Minister chair the board, with three CSO representatives from government agencies. This disagreement resulted in 24 disputed clauses, necessitating a joint committee to resolve them.

A former ruling government member justified the inclusion of the Home Minister as an ex-officio chairperson, stating that the intention was to regulate bureaucracy while promoting CSOs. They argued that having a politician on the CSOA board could help advance CSO interests.

CSOs’ role in governance

CSOs play vital roles in supplementing government efforts, promoting civil space, and providing checks and balances on government functions. However, some fear that CSOs, as the third sector, could become too powerful, challenging bureaucratic interests.

“The CSO sector has not enjoyed a policy environment that allows them to grow, mature, and flourish,” one executive director said, noting that CSOs are stunted in their development.

CSOs also face internal challenges, including allegations of being family-run and lacking transparency and integrity. At a recent workshop in Paro, journalists questioned CSO officials about the issue of family-run organisations. An official from CSOA admitted that while no formal complaints have been received, the issue is an open secret.

A former executive director highlighted that governance, not family involvement, is crucial. “If CSOs maintain strong governance and independent audits, they can be effective regardless of family involvement. Many CSOs are born out of personal struggles and passion,” she noted.

The endowment fund dilemma

A significant stumbling block for the CSOs is the CSO Endowment Fund, mandated by the CSO Act. This fund, according to executive directors, was intended to provide financial stability for CSOs, yet recent amendments have escalated the required endowment amounts dramatically— from Nu 50,000 for MBOs to Nu 4 million for PBOs, combining endowment and operational costs.

“Such figures are daunting, especially for organisations that struggle to cover even basic monthly expenses,” one programme officer said.

The revised policy raises critical questions about feasibility and timing. The authorities have set these high financial bars without adequate consultation with the CSOs or a clear study of their capacities and needs, according to executive directors. Many in the CSO feel that sufficient transition periods for fundraising and adaptation have not been provided, making these requirements seem more like hurdles than support.

Contributed by Rinzin Wangchuk with support from Bhutan Media Foundation, Helvetas Bhutan and European Union

Advertisement