Partners say yes to demands

MS Uganda’s future higher demands and requirements to the partner organisations doesn’t seem to scare them off

By Maja Halleen Graae, SHRA

Three participants at the annual general meeting were asked about their views on MS Uganda putting tougher demands on their partnerships.

Betty Aol Ochan from Gulu’s Community Welfare Initiative (CO-WII), believes that higher demands are good for the effectiveness and the sustainability of the organisations. She says that MS has built CO-WII’s capacity through high demands, and if MS leaves tomorrow CO-WII will still be able to survive.

Rita Popo from Arua’s Education Access Africa (EAA) said that MS has been relaxed in dealing with partners because of a wish for them to take responsibility themselves, and build a stronger feeling of organisational ownership. However the baseline survey has revealed that many partners are not living up to MS’ expectations or the ones created through the partnership agreements. Rita Popo believes that MS needs to change the approach so that partners will be sustainable and able to achieve their goals.

Simon Sentamu a member of the Policy Advisory Board (PAB), questions whether the demands really are tough.

"Are these not just the expectations and responsibilities that have been commonly agreed on in the partnership agreement?" he asks, stressing that by challenging each other, both partners and the partnership are strengthened.

All three actually thought that it would be ok and even beneficial for MS to demand rather categorical action in some cases. For example if MS demands that a partner sack a responsible person, where MS funds have been misappropriated. Or if MS puts demands on a partner where a partner is not performing, for example if nine trainings have been planned and funding provided by MS, and only two have been carried out.

However, Betty Aol Ochan believes that ideally an organisation’s board should make these decisions, and MS should try to co-operate with the board in solving these problems. But she stresses that a partnership is based on a common understanding and if this understanding breaks down, then there is no longer meaning in continuing the partnership.

Simon Sentamu believes that if one party continues not to live up to what has been agreed on, then one of the parties is not living up to the partnership.

"If the motivation to work together has died, then either partner is justified in terminating the partnership, however the radical decision to terminate a partnership, shouldn’t be taken before the arbitration process provided for in all partnership agreements, has been attempted", he says.

The participants were also asked whether they felt that tougher demands by MS were contrary to the principle of "equal partnership".

Once again there was general agreement between the interviewees, in that it was believed that "equal partnership" isn’t jeopardised through higher demands by MS, so long as these demands are related to activities or values agreed upon in the partnership. However, Betty Aol Ochan is sceptical of the whole concept "equal partnership", as the reality is that partners are often very financially dependent on MS.

Simon Sentamu puts the whole issue in a different light, "equality should not be looked upon in terms of size or resources, but in terms of equal negotiating power in regard to what you agree to achieve together", he says.

"If equality is looked at in terms of resources, than a partner organisation will definitely get an inferiority complex, when MS puts demands on them", he says.