The idea that an NGO shouldn't be political is baffling to me. We should leave anything that might affect how people live purely to political parties and companies?
I'd say individuals but a big way the every day person supports change is through supporting an NGO. Be it on human or environmental issues and anything in between.
In some cases be as neutral as possible will be the key for an organisation to secure access to civilians in need. Depending on the context it can be very effective, allowing them to deliver with minimal interference from armed groups.
For others, they are there to make "noise" like raising awareness on some issues.
Some will do a bit of both. That's also why quite a few are facing issues at being allowed to work in Gaza, Israel don't like what they may have said. Russia did the same. Mali and Burkina Faso are also adopting similar stances yet a bit different.
Doctors without borders France is likely the most dogmatic about neutrality. It will basically takes direct and targeted violence at a large enough scale to the population they aim to support before they'll raise a voice. Basically when they cannot work anymore, so staying neutral wouldn't allow them to work anyway.
Some will say that being neutral is giving legitimacy to one side or another. It is sadly harder than that. It can mean witnessing bad things and having to live with it in silence as raising a voice could mean the end of supporting anyone in some context.
8
u/at-least-2-swans 22d ago
The idea that an NGO shouldn't be political is baffling to me. We should leave anything that might affect how people live purely to political parties and companies?
I'd say individuals but a big way the every day person supports change is through supporting an NGO. Be it on human or environmental issues and anything in between.