Good intentions can have bad results

Have you ever seen a flock of people in one place protesting for an agenda in which they truly believe? Walking together on the street, or yelling out slogans while having posters in hand, and their eyes shining in their determination to change the world? 

Would you believe that the same people might have to spend hours dealing with administrative tasks, justifying why they took an Uber instead of a tuk-tuk, negotiating lunch expenses with the finance department, or explaining why they had to pay for a bottle of water out of their pocket because it wasn’t funded?

Yes, both scenarios exist, and they coexist. This co-mingling of somewhat opposite scenarios happens most times to a non-governmental organization (NGO) or a civil society organization (CSO) seeking to mobilize public opinion for a particular purpose and at the same time attract the attention of policymakers. 

For development practitioners, it is a challenging job to balance making a living with creating social change. This dual responsibility demands that development practitioners prioritize the missions of the movements and the ways they fulfill them over organizational and job security. A professional wears the hat of an activist, and an activist when the opportunity comes turns into a professional.

Let’s delve into this professionalism-and-activism conundrum. The global civil society, encompassing NGOs, international agencies, and grassroots movements, operates at the intersection of activism and professionalism. 

This duality offers advantages as well as disadvantages. Professionalism provides structure, responsibility, and expertise; activism inspires and drives social change. But in the current world of Development, the lines separating these two domains are becoming more blurred, which makes the job of development experts more difficult.

In the modern nonprofit sector, whether in the Global South or North, professionalism and activism are inherently at odds. These two dimensions of sector clash because they value and prioritize different aspects of services, are shaped by different institutional logics, and have incompatible attitudes toward rationalization processes. 

While it is important to coexist with both the sector and its logic, negotiating this balance often proves to be a challenging endeavor, and could have profound impact on peoples development practitioners are aiming to help.

Questionable activists, problematic professionals

In the Global South, nonprofit organizations are legally designated entities often exempt from federal income taxes. In many countries, such as those in South Asia like India, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh, nonprofits have significantly influenced political culture. 

For example, Bangladesh’s development post-war and amid climate challenges has been heavily shaped by numerous NGOs. In India, grassroots collectives have spearheaded environment-friendly, women-led movements that have deeply impacted the current narrative. 

But issues arise when these narratives are dictated by larger voices, often those of the government or foreign funders. Foreign interpretations of local cultures can be diluted, leading to decisions that negatively impact the local populace.

To understand the complexities between social change movements (often led by activists) and social services (administered by professionals), we must consider the imperial history and political context behind it. 

According to the book Development Dictionary, the age of development is the specific historical period that began on Jan. 20, 1949 when then U.S. President Harry S. Truman, during his inauguration speech, first labeled the Southern Hemisphere as “underdeveloped areas.” 

This terminology quickly became ingrained in the global consciousness and provided the conceptual framework for various dynamics that ensued. It fueled a sense of arrogant interventionism from the North, which viewed itself as the benevolent helper (“White savior”), while simultaneously fostering a narrative of helpless self-pity in the South, which saw itself as dependent on external aid and incapable of independent progress. 

This duality has profoundly influenced international relations and development policies ever since, and Truman’s rhetoric has had enduring implications. It is now widely acceptable that the North’s interventions are often imbued with a sense of entitlement and superiority, which can lead to misguided policies and actions.

A poignant critique of these seemingly well-meaning, yet flawed interventions was addressed more than half a century ago by Austrian philosopher and Roman Catholic priest Ivan Illich. Addressing U.S. volunteers at the 1968 Conference on Inter-American Student Projects (CIASP) in rural Mexico, Illich’s speech, “To Hell with Good Intentions,” remains influential among development practitioners and civil society. 

Illich’s blunt and sarcastic critique targeted the paternalistic attitude of U.S. volunteers who presumed they knew what was best for the Mexican communities. He pointed out that their efforts, though rooted in good intentions, often resulted in more harm than good. 

Decades later, Illich’s message continues to resonate, urging so-called activists to reflect on whether their actions genuinely aid or inadvertently harm the communities they aim to help.

Further complicating the landscape of social change are critiques like those found in “The Revolution Will Not Be Funded: Beyond the Nonprofit Industrial Complex” by the INCITE! Women of Color Collective.

Published in 2007, this work challenges the effectiveness of nonprofit organizations in fostering genuine social change. The authors introduce the concept of the “nonprofit industrial complex,” highlighting how political and financial systems can monitor and control progressive movements. 

This critique underscores a significant tension between professionalism and activism within the nonprofit sector, suggesting that the very structures meant to support social change can also serve to constrain it.

The three arguments highlight different aspects of imperialistic behavior, especially how it often stifles grassroots movements as it is difficult to get funds for grassroots reasons. Hence, the influence of imperialism is still affecting efforts for change.

Challenges and tensions

In the Global South, the picture is more nuanced. The South is often seen as the underdog, frequently underdeveloped, yet it possesses a rich pre-colonial history and bears the burden of seeking aid. Revolution here spans from Adivasi (Indigenous) communities to urban areas, resulting in the proliferation of many CSOs, NGOs, and nonprofit organizations.

The contemporary development sector in the South operates on a spectrum between activism and professionalism. Activism is characterized by grassroots mobilization, advocacy, and a focus on immediate social change, driven by passion and a deep commitment to social justice. 

In contrast, professionalism in the development sector emphasizes strategic planning, project management, and evidence-based interventions, aiming to achieve sustainable and scalable outcomes through structured programs and policies. 

These roles often overlap, however. Advocacy campaigns require strategic planning and project management skills, while professional development projects need the passion and moral commitment that are hallmarks of activism. This overlap creates a dynamic yet complex environment where the lines between activism and professionalism are increasingly blurred.

The tension between social change and social service can seem unresolvable. On one hand, society is deeply unjust, with many people subjected to structural violence. On the other hand, there is a lack of expert skills necessary to drive development progress effectively.

The challenges and tensions can be found between:

Identity and credibility. Development practitioners often grapple with their identity – are they activists, professionals, or both? This duality can affect their credibility. Activists may view professionalization as a betrayal of grassroots values, while donors and governments may question the reliability of activist-driven initiatives;

Accountability and flexibility. Professionalism demands accountability through measurable outcomes and adherence to donor requirements. Activism, however, requires flexibility to respond to emerging issues and adapt strategies. Balancing these demands can be challenging, as rigid frameworks may stifle the innovative and responsive nature of activism; and

Resource allocation and funding dependency. Professionalization often brings increased funding and resources, but it also requires significant administrative overhead. Activist-driven initiatives may struggle to access similar resources, leading to disparities in capacity and impact.

Aside from these, the integration of corporate practices into the development sector can lead to ethical dilemmas. For instance, the focus on results and efficiency may conflict with the need to engage deeply with communities, as well as to respect their autonomy.

At the same time, there is the behavior-change agenda to consider and be on guard against. In the realm of development work, there is often a tendency for practitioners to adopt a “parental” role, viewing the communities they serve as “children” in need of guidance and support.

This dynamic can create an imbalance in the relationship, where the development workers see themselves as knowledgeable providers and the communities as passive recipients. This perception distorts the natural divisions between the roles of researcher and researched, as well as between developed and underdeveloped regions.

While imperial history should be acknowledged, a decolonization process is also needed. Moreover, funds should be coming from both top to bottom and bottom to top. Allowing resources to be allocated where local leaders see fit will create greater freedom to engage in advocacy activities, thereby bringing about the necessary justice in the world.

Activism, as a profession, demands commitment despite the risks, and prioritizing larger goals over immediate challenges to achieve lasting impact. Professionalism calls for accountability and smooth running of the program. 

But establishing open lines of communication with grantees and respecting their priorities is also crucial. Systemic change requires collective efforts to navigate the tension between pursuing social change and delivering social services in an unjust society where structural violence persists. ◉