In NGO’s White Supremacy Hides Under the Guise of Being “Apolitical.” By Sara el-Solh
Sara el-Solh is a physician-anthropologist, researcher and organiser using health as a lens through which to radically reimagine a just world. She works nationally and internationally on a range of issues, including racism, migration justice and access to healthcare. In this paper she invites us to challenge the notion of being “apolitical” in the charity sector.
Whilst many people are familiar with the term NGO, very few understand the complex nature in which imperialism and racism remain functional parts of this industry. Sara El Solh explains what NGOs are and what we often get wrong about their role in normalising hierarchies and promoting white supremacy.
The presence of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) worldwide, especially in the global south, is seen by many as a force for good; the collective effort of ‘good people’ drives us towards a more equal and sustainable world. However, the prominence of NGOs as a political and social force compels a questioning of their role within global white supremacy.
Many on the political left have come to view NGOs as co-opted by neoliberal agendas, functioning to maintain the status quo. This is because, whilst NGOs operate using the aesthetics of social justice and the language of human rights, they are often entrenched within the very systems they purport to be challenging.
Much criticism has also been (rightly) aimed at the ‘white saviour’ mentality that frequently dominates within NGOs, particularly those that operate in the global south. However, beyond the discourse of “white saviourism, it’s crucial to name how white supremacy features in the lives of non-white staff at such organisations who are left to bear the weight of racism, paternalistic colonialism and hyper-exploitation.
What are NGOs?
The term “non-governmental organisation” was initially coined by the UN in the aftermath of the Second World War and was mainly applied to international organisations operating within a UN context.
However, in recent decades, the term NGO has become popularised as a catch-all for a wide variety of societal actors engaged in diverse issues. Within this deep pool, their most important defining quality is that they are financially and ideologically independent of governments. In practice, this is not always the case, as it is not uncommon for them to become dependent on governments in times of financial hardship or to be subcontracted and thus subsumed into the state apparatus.
The other main characteristic widely agreed to define NGOs is that they are non-profit-making. This characteristic seeks to differentiate NGOs from other profit-making nonstate actors, such as private companies whose primary purpose is the pursuit of financial gain. In contrast, NGOs' primary purpose is advancing their designated goals, usually socioeconomic or cultural. In search of these, they often become prominent players in local, national and sometimes even international politics, putting pressure on governments and shaping public discourse. As a group, this seemingly ragtag assembly constitutes a powerful political actor for influencing global and local affairs. In some places, NGOs provide more vital services to people than either local or national governments.
A complicating factor in the debate around NGOs is that - even with the above criteria in mind - they are a hugely varied group. Even their name - non-governmental organisation - is a negative rather than a positive, defining what they are not without defining what they are. There are many different interpretations of what falls under the banner of “NGO,” and the vastness of this umbrella term can obscure vast differences in politics and ethics between organisations.
Considering all the variations currently at play, a comprehensive definition of NGOs takes time and effort. Still, broadly, they can be identified as independent social groups united around common goals with the primary aim of promoting these at the national or international level.
Racism and Neocolonialism in NGOs
“There is so much money at stake in these short-term programs: most of the time, it's about precarious, well-paid labour that is offered to international bourgeoisie classes.” - Estella Carpi.
In the public eye, NGOs are usually associated with progressive social change and positive societal effects. In reality, they have often been critiqued for being an integral part of systems reproducing inequality and violence.
Racism and colonialism are structurally embedded into every aspect of our society, so it should be no surprise that they are rampant in the NGO sector. Yet these organisations generally do not even recognise their power in maintaining and creating systems of exploitation. This begs the question: Is true radical transformation even possible under NGO-ization? This is especially true in larger international organisations primarily operated by nations in the imperial core.
Recent whistleblowing by staff at the UN, MSF and other organisations has publicly confirmed what many of us have known for a long time: people of colour - who are often also from the global south - are undervalued, underpaid and underpromoted in NGOs while also dealing with the ideological terror of white supremacy.
It is also important to continuously recognise the significance of colonialism as many international organisations perpetuate violent social and economic hegemonies that maintain Western domination over the global south.
“Africa is a paradox which illustrates and highlights neo-colonialism. Her earth is rich, yet the products that come from above and below the soil continue to enrich, not Africans predominantly, but groups and individuals who operate to Africa’s impoverishment.”-Kwame Nkrumah.
The notion of “development”- a paradigm under which most NGOs operate - has been widely critiqued as promoting racist and Eurocentric ideas of socioeconomic progress. At their worst, NGOs promote these notions as the desirable outcome of their activities in the global south with little to no consideration of local contexts or the needs of local communities. Naturally, this systemically prejudiced environment also affects racialised staff, often making NGOs challenging workplaces for people of colour. Many racialised NGO workers have reported being bullied at work, pressured to take on more dangerous or difficult tasks, and paid less than their white counterparts for the same job.
Yet, it is always necessary to ask: is there the possibility of transformation? What are our opportunities for resistance against racism, colonialism and imperialism in the NGO sector?
What does a radical vision for NGOs look like?
“Radical simply means "grasping things at the root.”― Angela Davis.
The NGO industrial complex is real and unquestionably a tool of white supremacy, mainly through its links to colonialism and white saviourism. To date, a significant role of most NGOs - particularly outside situations of acute disaster relief or conflict - has been camouflaging governmental abdication of responsibility and, hence, indirectly stifling radical, political responses to chronic crises of poverty, racism and other forms of structural violence.
My time working in a children’s NGO in Central America exemplified this tendency well. We ran a youth centre that supported children and young people experiencing urban poverty. The vision was education as a route to stability and prosperity. However, this narrow, apolitical focus neglected the root causes of these children’s hardship and placed the onus on their efforts to educate themselves out of poverty. When I founded a youth club dedicated to addressing these politics - which increased in popularity, I was forced to stop accepting new sign-ups - I was warned to shut it down because “the kids shouldn’t be talking about these things”. This response is typical of organisations that have become comfortable with political neutrality.
Despite NGOs' collectivist potential, these organisations have come to view their actions through a lens of charity rather than solidarity. This position is borne out of the white saviour paradigm under which many NGOs operate, particularly those working in the global south with funding from the global north. The pervasiveness of this paradigm within NGO culture is why racism is such a constant for non-white staff members, with an extra layer of discrimination for staff who are also locally employed. Indeed, in my experience, locally employed staff were treated and paid worse than their international colleagues. Non-white international staff usually received better pay, but we also faced racism and discrimination.
Yet despite this, my experience - both working on the ground and as a consultant - has also shown that many NGOs run innovative and valuable social programs with a solid commitment to social justice and grassroots organising. At their best, organisations like SOAS Detainee Support, Migrants Organise, and ACORN represent the potential for individuals and communities to come together and resist violence or neglect from states and their apparatuses. Many, such as No Name Kitchen and Lesbians and Gays Support the Migrants, approach their work from a position of deep solidarity. This is undoubtedly powerful and transformative. Most of these organisations fit well into the category of NGO, although many do not self-identify as such - likely due to the negative connotations of the term discussed above. There are genuinely progressive organisations working on an extensive range of global issues, from migration to human rights accompaniment to climate justice to health justice. A common thread in those doing radical, grassroots work is the explicit recognition of the inevitably political nature of oppression; they grasp injustice firmly at the root.
