Why do Non-Governmental Organizations cooperate with oversight bodies in countries considered among the most corrupt?

The question of why NGOs cooperate with oversight bodies in countries with low levels of integrity and transparency, countries plagued by internal conflicts, fighting for power, divisions, and strife raises legitimate questions about the effectiveness and impact of this cooperation and its professional, ethical, and practical limitations. This is a reality when international reports, always issued by the same organizations, confirm the low levels of integrity in these bodies and the prevalence of corruption within them.

NGOs do not operate with the logic of "eliminating corruption," but often according to the principle of damage control, risk reduction, and management of the issue. Working in such politically fragile and security-wise weak environments imposes difficult constraints, making radical reform an unattainable goal. Instead, NGOs focus on gradual improvements in transparency, integrity, partial gains, capacity building, and the development of institutional frameworks.

In addition, geopolitical obstacles play a huge role that cannot be ignored. This is why donors and funders of NGOs are interested in more politically stable environments, or at least environments that allow them to anticipate tangible results, even in the long term, where costs are lower and outcomes are more measurable. However, in countries torn by armed conflict and deep divisions—where no one can speak up and corruption overrides the rule of law—oversight work becomes highly risky and has limited or even no impact at all, with uncertain results. Often, it backfires, exposing anti-corruption committee workers to the risk of death, arrest, or the theft of funds.

Conversely, some of these oversight bodies in countries considered among the most corrupt exploit this international cooperation to polish their image both domestically and internationally. Participation in international conferences, events, workshops, and signing agreements becomes a form of publicity, a trend promoted as an achievement and a qualitative leap forward, while the true essence of genuine and desired reform is obscured by these international occasions. The focus shifts from the quality of results and outcomes to the number of participants and attendance, and from institutional impact to media presence. Furthermore, some of these oversight bodies in these countries are hijacked politically or tribally, where the head of the oversight body becomes part of a system of influence, exploiting and manipulating their institution's granted powers and resources to bolster their political position or serve their group and cronies, instead of protecting public funds and combating corruption. Recommendations of the International Observatory for Anti-Corruption and Promoting Integrity:

We strive to identify and address weaknesses, transforming from flaws and gaps into achievable goals. We summarize the recommendations as follows:

1. Adopt an international code of conduct that binds states that have signed anti-corruption agreements, prohibiting the exploitation of oversight for any purposes that benefit, such as political, economic, media, or other forms of action that violate the principles of integrity, transparency, and impartiality.

2. Require post-participation reporting, obliging oversight bodies to submit reports on what has been gained from participation, how it has been implemented, and what has actually been accomplished.

3. Strengthen verification and follow-up mechanisms through joint international committees, with visits conducted in a secure and defined manner, taking security considerations, and aimed at evaluating progress and ensuring the protection of staff and the confidentiality of oversight activities.

4. Redefine success in international cooperation by shifting from a logic of quantity and presence to one of impact and institutional sustainability, through a guide and map detailing: programs, detailed processes, implementation mechanisms, responsible parties, timelines, success indicators, and notes.

Anti-corruption in fragile environments could not succeed with slogans or propaganda; it needs political courage, clear standards, and real accountability. This relationship must avoid political hypocrisy and suspicion. Finally, Ignoring the corruption in the name of reality may temporarily reduce the damage, but in the long run, it perpetuates corruption rather than dismantles it.