Funding leadership

The OPM’s press release said the Government remains committed to working with the IRO and others to further the development work in communities throughout Trinidad and Tobago. To do what exactly? It is true that measuring the impact of development work in terms of value for money is very challenging, but there is real value in, and indeed clear methodologies for, evaluating the impact of the work that organisations such as the IRO undertake.

The CSP, for instance, has not only kept audited accounts but has monitored its impact over time against the intended outcomes of the interventions in various communities.

Yet, all indications are that funding will dry up for the CSP in the near future.

This is not an attempt to compare the work of the CSP with the IRO, nor is this necessarily a suggestion that one organisation should get funding rather than the other. However, blind faith that the good intentions of apparently well meaning organisations will bring about change at the community level is clearly an unsatisfactory strategy for national development.

In short, for development work to be meaningful, the work has to be constantly responsive to the needs of the beneficiaries and mindful of what is in the national interest.

Furthermore, there is an inherent responsibility in development work to be accountable to the public for delivery of the organisations’ mandate. At the same time, the public has the right and responsibility to demand higher and higher levels of performance on the part of organisations purporting to work on their behalf.

The IRO, in this case, is performing far below its potential.

In defending its demand for payment of subventions, IRO president Brother Harrypersad Maharaj described the kind of work undertaken by the organisation, “such as prayer sessions, counselling, mediation and mentorship (that) have proven not only beneficial to the social and spiritual development of our citizens but are also keenly required to assist in the national crisis of crime and societal decay that our nation currently faces.” Frankly, these are all activities undertaken by every faith-based organisation within their faith communities.

What is required of the IRO is something of much greater import, requiring far more vision and leadership. It is true that in 2014, in testament to its convening power, the IRO brought together some of the most committed and analytical minds in the country to explore the use of ancient wisdom in resolving the issues of modern times. What has been the impact of that? Only significant organisations are incorporated by an act of Parliament as the IRO was in 1973, in recognition, one would suppose, of the commitment to respecting the diversity of the country while promoting common national values.

Three years prior, in 1970, when the country was, as it is now, strapped for cash and full of social turmoil, the IRO was founded under the leadership of a devout Muslim, the then president of the Senate, Dr Wahid Ali.

It was felt that faith-based communities together had a particular role to play in helping to point the way forward for the nation.

During the emotional debates on the practice of child marriage, the IRO’s role was disappointing and divisive. Seeking to shut down debate rather than encourage discussion. The country needs and deserves more.

The IRO should be exercising its unique convening power for inter-faith dialogue in order to better understand and respond to the “societal decay” and “crisis of crime.”