Opinion: Dear INGOs, localization needs local leaders, not boxes ticked

A critical gap persists in global development’s ongoing discourse on localization — one that poses a potential showstopper for the entire agenda: The absence of genuine local leadership. This threatens the democratic legitimacy of the process, risks tokenistic tick-boxing, and raises questions about who is truly setting the localization agenda. Democratic legitimacy Invariably, the agenda-setting power rests with international nongovernmental government organizations and donors. Global events, conferences, and initiatives on localization are predominantly framed and hosted by these agencies. There is also a risk that a few local organizations become the go-to spokespeople for the “local context” and yet there is no democratic process for these ambassadors. There is no mechanism for them to be representatives of the interests and views of a broader constituency of local civil society organizations. This raises concerns about legitimacy. The process seems random and more based on prior relationships with INGOs, national visibility, or the happenstance of being in the “right room” at the “right time.” There are literally thousands of local CSOs but no local coordination for their global-level engagement. As a consequence, their selection fails to meet the basic democratic principles of representation. This risks decisions being made on behalf of local groups rather than fostering genuine local leadership. This seems a perverse starting point. If the future is local leadership then surely local leaders need to decide with communities what this should look like and then agree with INGOs and donors what the role of international agencies will be as enablers and supporters of the local leadership. “Local organizations themselves need to decide how they will realize their own leadership; otherwise, the whole exercise is top-down, paternalistic, and colonial.” --— For organizations to speak on behalf of communities requires a transparent democratic process of representation and accountability. Communities need to decide who speaks on their behalf and to what end. In turn there needs to be a reporting back mechanism to ensure true accountability to rights holders. 3 harmful trends in localization Beyond ensuring there is a democratic process for local organization representation, here are three pitfalls INGOs need to work on avoiding: Localization-washing: There is a significant risk of “localization-washing,” where quick win actions undermine genuine efforts at fundamental change. Donors must ensure that the inclusion of local partners in funding proposals goes beyond a tick-box exercise. Local organizations must be able to actively participate in program design and decision-making, rather than being relegated to mere implementing partners. When INGOs “localize”: The localization of international organizations is similarly problematic. This involves INGOs registering as national organizations, increasingly nativizing their names, and accessing national and international funds intended for local organizations. As a consequence, they become direct competition for Indigenous, community, and local organizations, and jeopardize local leadership by genuine grassroots players. Ideas appropriation: There are also instances where local CSOs identify new issues and approaches, only to have INGOs take over leadership once international attention is garnered. This appropriation runs counter to the principles of local leadership and ownership and local organizations are often powerless to call out these damaging practices. Pendulum shift There is increasing consensus that the power pendulum that has swung so strongly toward INGOs now needs to shift to local organizations and communities. The localization process needs to be led by local organizations. The current focus on changing the role of INGOs is arguably not looking at radically disrupting the system of aid, which would involve seeing how it can be done differently with alternative groups, resources, ideologies, and locus of control. There is something almost impertinent about international organizations setting out the changes they will make to achieve local leadership. Local organizations themselves need to decide how they will realize their own leadership; otherwise, the whole exercise is top-down, paternalistic, and colonial. There remains a significant need for investment in collaboration between local organizations. Donors should focus on enabling local organizations to convene, discuss, and model local leadership, thereby empowering them to set the agenda, create the narrative, formulate the approaches, and drive the changes they wish to see. Even the words used around “shifting the power,” “decolonizing aid,” and “localization” need to be generated by local organizations. The language chosen by local CSOs might differ from the current narrative. For example, this could lead to the emphasis on alternative concepts such as “realizing our power,” “internationalization,” and “liberation.” Creating forums for this discourse to flourish among local CSOs is essential to ensure genuine localization. Local CSOs have the power of local practitioner knowledge. What they lack is access and influence nationally, regionally, and internationally. Local organizations need resources and access In the push for localization, the issue of resourcing comes to the forefront. INGOs often receive funding for their own transformation, while investment in local organizations is lacking. This would allow them to form their own umbrella organizations and consortia, helping create representative constituencies. Local leadership led by local leaders means the resources to design the future sit with local CSOs and communities. Narratives around fundraising should shift from quantity-focused approaches to showcasing transformative changes at the grassroots. Local leadership Local leadership by local leaders is pivotal for the localization agenda to succeed. This requires a reorientation of power dynamics, a genuine commitment to equal partnerships, and substantial investment in supporting local organizations to lead the discourse, set the agenda, and drive the changes needed in their communities. It is time for local grassroots organizations to view ourselves as a community of practitioners who create new theories and possess empirical evidence validating new approaches and strategies. This is bound to bring about the socioeconomic and political changes in society we want to see.