 |
Al-Ahram Weekly 10 - 16 June 1999 Issue No. 433 
|
||
Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
|
Al-Ahram Weekly 10 - 16 June 1999 Issue No. 433
|
||
| Published in Cairo by AL-AHRAM established in 1875 |
| ||
Egypt Region International Economy Opinion Culture Profile Features Books Living Travel Sports Time Out Chronicles Cartoons Letters What is at stake
By By Ziad Bahaaeddin
After a long debate, the new law governing the registration and activities of non-governmental organisations has passed, despite significant protests by a number of voluntary associations, particularly those active in human and women's rights. Although the government claimed that the new law accorded such organisations wider freedoms, a small but significant lobby insists that the law will obstruct their activities altogether and narrow Egypt's margins of freedom and democracy. The issue, however, is more complex and, in the heat of the debate, most of the details were lost. It may be useful at this point to try and understand what the effect of the law will be.
Ziad Bahaaeddin
A good starting point is to observe that "ordinary" non-profit organisations were not significantly affected by the new law, certainly not as much as those registered as civil companies, such as various human and women's rights organisations. In fact, the most important effect of the new law is to include under its scope all entities active in voluntary work, including civil companies, whereas the old 1964 law only regulated registered organisations. This is relevant because, previously, those who wished to undertake non-profit activities had the option of establishing either a non-profit organisation, in accordance with the old law and under the supervision of the Ministry of Social Affairs, or a non-profit company (referred to as a civil company), under no supervision at all. In order to avoid often cumbersome state supervision, most human and women's rights activists opted for the unregulated civil company. This situation, however, was seen by many as a legal loophole; hence the new law states that no entity -- whatever its legal form -- may undertake any of the activities pursued by non-profit organisations, except if it is registered in accordance with the new law, and subject to the supervision of the Ministry of Social Affairs.
Five provisions in the new law are identified by its opponents as the most restrictive. First, the approval of the Ministry of Social Affairs is required for establishing an organisation. Second, organisations are prohibited from undertaking any political activity. Third, foreign donations to Egyptian organisations as well as their affiliation with foreign entities are subject to approval by the ministry. Fourth, the ministry has the right to object to the appointment of members of an organisation's board of directors. Finally, the ministry is empowered to apply for a court order dissolving the organisation.
What makes these constraints particularly relevant to non-profit civil companies? On one hand, all these constraints have been in force since 1964, and the 14,000 or so ordinary non-profit organisations have had to operate under them for the past 35 years. In fact, of the five points mentioned above, two have been softened in the new law. Establishing a voluntary organisation required the prior approval of the ministry, whereas in the new one such an organisation is established automatically following the submission of the right documentation, unless the ministry objects within 60 days. The result is therefore the same in substance, but different in terms of procedure. As regards the dissolution of organisations, this was previously effected by a decision from the ministry, and the organisation had the right to challenge it in court; now, it is the other way round, since the ministry is the party that must obtain a court order for the dissolution of an organisation. Registered non-profit organisations, in a sense, do not stand to lose from the new law; they could even stand to gain a little from the minor improvements it contains.
On the other hand, the two most contentious issues of the five mentioned above, namely constraints on foreign funding and political activity, are likely to affect human rights organisations more than those active in various other fields. World interest in human and women's rights means that greater funds from development agencies are available, and human rights advocacy is by its very subject matter as close to political activism -- whatever the specific meaning of that may be -- as any other voluntary work.
The distinction between what is at stake for organisations and civil companies is not intended to defend the law as it stands now, but rather to show why the debate that accompanied its passing was dominated by certain organisations and voluntary civil companies for which the stakes were particularly high. It is, however, necessary to judge the new law on its own merit.
Returning to the main issue, the inclusion of civil companies and other entities under the same umbrella governing all non-profit organisations seems like a perfectly justifiable principle. In fact, there has never been any legal or rational basis for subjecting some non-profit organisations to strict regulation and supervision, while allowing others to operate in a regulatory vacuum. Consistency in regulatory treatment is a virtue in itself, particularly with regard to non-profit activities, as the scope for potential financial profiteering is enormous, and the lack of a regulatory framework means that the virtuous voluntary framework may be abused for achieving personal gain. In other words, it is the content of supervision that should be subject to scrutiny, not whether or not there is any supervision. And here again, the two key issues seem to be foreign funding and political activity.
Foreign funding has become a public concern since a number of incidents were revealed where funding by foreign institutions was directed towards what the state considered to be explicitly political objectives. But it is necessary again to distinguish between the principle proposed and the way in which it will be applied. The principle of regulating the flow of foreign funding to voluntary work seems quite justified. It is understandable for any state to regulate the flow of foreign donations to voluntary organisations in order to ascertain two things: first, that the money is not directed toward illegal or undeclared political activities; second, that in cases of funding for voluntary work, the recipient is a genuine non-profit entity and not a front for achieving personal profit.
If the principle is acceptable, however, the manner of its implementation is crucial. Supervision of funding must not deprive voluntary organisations of what, in certain cases, may be their only source of finance. In fact, the reason for the existence of a voluntary organisation is often precisely the promotion of a cause for which there is no local official or unofficial funding, although there is some international interest. Ten years ago, no one would have donated money in Egypt to promoting environmentally friendly measures, but foreign funding was available. Certain international development agencies may have funding for assistance to the disabled, homeless children, the promotion of equal work opportunities, or consumer awareness -- all of which are issues that do not get sufficient local funding.
The problem with the current provision concerning foreign funding is in the absolute powers accorded to the supervisor. It would be preferable if the law had established an effective mechanism to channel foreign funding, by emphasising disclosure over approval, stating that an application for funding has been accepted unless explicitly denied within a certain time period, and by specifying the cases in which such an application will be denied.
The constraint on undertaking political activities is a more delicate matter. But again, the same distinction between principle and application must be invoked. It is necessary to differentiate between political and developmental work for two reasons. First, the non-profit nature of an organisation allows it to benefit from a number of privileges, the most important of which is to be perceived by the public as a promoter of "non-partisan" concerns. Second, voluntary organisations are allowed to receive foreign and international funding that is normally prohibited by rules barring donors from addressing political issues. The development of any society's civil and political structures requires that a distinction be made and maintained between the two spheres. It may be a coincidence that this distinction seems to be directed now against human rights organisations, but years ago, the same distinction would have been used to prevent the Islamist movement from using the civil association framework.
Still, if the principle of distinction is justified, its application is too obscure and again, the powers of the supervisor remain undefined. It is necessary that a reasonable definition or understanding of what is and what is not political be stated somewhere, or settled in practice. More importantly, organisations must know categorically whether or not their activities are defined as "political", instead of remaining at the supervisor's mercy until the last moment.
The law has been passed, but this should not be seen as the end of the issue. The involvement of voluntary organisations with the Ministry of Social Affairs should continue further. The new law, as is the case with most legislation, only deals with the broad principles, leaving all the details, operational procedures, and required documentation to be settled by the executive regulations, which are issued by the Minister of Social Affairs. Now that the new law is out, voluntary organisations must maintain their involvement with efforts to improve it, whether through the legislation itself, the executive regulations, or the practices based on both.
