Civil institutions between the humanitarian and the political

Dr. Michel E. Abs

Secretary General of the Middle East Council of Churches

Non-governmental organizations, NGOs, or so-called civil society institutions, and at certain times called private voluntary groups or PVOs, are non-profit organizations that are established according to a special law that defines their work and regulations. These institutions are considered a reliable basis for a wide spectrum of actions in the public domain, from the legal to the environmental passing by the humanitarian. That is, all that has nothing to do with political or economic work, which are the two sectors that dominate the decision-making of societies in the modern era.

Civil organizations have demonstrated a high capacity for innovation and creativity, to elaborate new concepts in social life, to serve marginalized and vulnerable groups in society, and to struggle for human and social issues of all kind. Therefore, this sector, the civil organizations and civil society sector, has grown steadily over the past half century and includes institutions and even coalitions of institutions, or the so-called consortium. It has become a determinant factor in the social policies of countries and a partner in social protection and development.

All segments of society have intended to establish civil organizations that bear their orientations, aspirations and outlook on life, humankind and society. Religious communities have their own organizations, parties have their own, social activists have their own, various cultural identities have their own, and even profit-seeking corporations have theirs too in the framework of their social responsibility (CSR).

There is no deed without a target, and targets differ from one organization to another: all of them have religious, political or economic backgrounds, so how can these institutions serve society?

The criteria reside in the working norms and transparency.

For these institutions to serve on the basis of their religious, political, intellectual or economic background, this is their right, but what is important is that they should be at the service of the deprived, tormented and heavily burdened who live a plight in their livelihood, health, or undergo other sorts of human sufferings.

These organizations, despite some exceptions, continue to stand by all these people without discrimination, preference or favoritism. These bodies do not ask the vulnerable who you are or what is your religious, ethnic, political or intellectual affiliation, but their criterion is the amount of injustice or prejudice that this person suffers.

Every action in this world has side effects and consequences, and civil humanitarian work is not an exception to this rule.

That certain groups benefit from a service that has been rendered to a tormented, persecuted or needy person, this is possible, but civil organizations are not concerned with that, as their focus is always on the performance of the service and on dealing with the need. Neither the philosophy nor the values ​​of humanitarian work is to deprive a destitute person, because there is a possibility that a third party may benefit from this support. This is a crime against humanity. When humanitarian action goes into discrimination and takes into account these considerations, it has lost its significance and its raison d'être.

The goal of humanitarian work is to support people in their difficult times, in their crises, and in their paucity, and serving people is the outcome of everything that it does; its focus is exclusively on them, and everything else is a human heresy that is not worse than heresy against the Creator because serving his creation is equivalent to prayer.