Subscribe

Philanthropy and Democracy: Bridges and Battlegrounds?

10/29/2024
Hilary Pearson

I often get insights from the blogs written by the ever-thoughtful Phil Buchanan of the Center for Effective Philanthropy (CEP).  Phil’s most recent blog reflects on two difficult questions for philanthropy in these polarized times. How to defend and nurture democracy? How to bridge differences of opinion? He swiftly notes that he doesn’t have answers. But he has thoughts, which sparked some of my own.

The two questions are related. And while we are not going through a heated federal election campaign in Canada as is happening in the US, some of the same concerns may arise when we do. As Phil points out, democracy is not simply about having a safe and accessible voting experience, it is about feeling empowered as a well-informed citizen to have a voice and to be free to express a view. In a democracy, citizens should be able to engage in debate with others who don’t share the same views. At the same time, people need to believe that debate will not be overtaken by extremist viewpoints, or that productive discussion will become impossible because it is not based on agreed facts or premises.

Phil believes that donors or funders should care about protecting the space within which democratic debate can take place. He isn’t prescribing how that might happen. But he raises an interesting choice for funders around “when to bridge or when to fight”.  By this he means when to try to understand or perhaps persuade, and when to oppose or forcefully counter what is simply wrong.  He notes “on the one hand, we won’t make any progress if we just engage with those with whom we already agree — as so many do. But, on the other hand, we don’t want to normalize extremism by platforming or legitimating it. So how do we get it right?”

It's an important question, and not an easy choice. But it assumes that funders are considering it in the first place. And that funders are willing to act as, or to fund, bridgers and battlers. For many Canadian charitable funders, the response to this is to “stay out of it”. This means not just staying out of public debate but not even convening or holding space for debate, let alone funding the capacity of others to engage in debate. Only a small number of Canadian foundations make public statements about policy questions; fund policy advocacy work by charities; convene public discussions on policy issues; fund public interest journalism, or policy movements/coalitions/networks advocating on behalf of an issue or group of charities.

Why the reticence, at this moment when it seems so important to counter the negative statements and untruths of social media, and to encourage active and positive citizen participation?

There could be several reasons. Are Canadian charities and foundations still inhibited by government regulation that discourages what used to be described as “political” activities?  Is policy work not part of a philanthropic mission? Is it not credible or too risky for foundations to fund advocacy efforts or to support democratic infrastructure such as public interest media? Do foundations lack resources or expertise or tools to convene or contribute opinions? Foundations have suggested all or any of the above.

On the question of whether government rules inhibit charities from engaging in public policy related activities, we know that the rules were made significantly less constraining in 2018 when the federal government changed the Income Tax Act, removed a reference to “political” activities and replaced it with the term “public policy dialogue and development” activities which can be counted as activities in pursuit of a charitable purpose. Yet it seems that this has not changed the behaviour of many charities. The Charity Insights Canada Project at Carleton University has surveyed charity leaders to understand how they are adapting to the new rules. As summarized by Prof Susan Phillips and Dr. Kim Nguyen in a recent article reporting on the results of the survey, “most Canadian charities do not engage in advocacy and there has been little change in the five years since the regulations were relaxed.”

According to the survey, many charities (and their funders) do not think that policy dialogue and advocacy are relevant to their missions. Many don’t have the time or expertise to engage directly. The rule change has not been sufficient to stimulate more engagement. Phillips and Nguyen conclude that “the organizational, funding and sector environments in which charities operate implicitly shape strategic decisions to avoid policy participation… For all the talk about trust-based philanthropy, funders, including governments, foundations and individual donors, spark fears that being activist will result in lost support. The lack of coordination and collaboration by the sector itself further inhibits policy engagement. The charitable sector could help itself by sharing information about charities’ policy concerns and facilitating stronger networks and coalitions.” Here is a real opportunity surely for foundations to have an impact on more effective citizen participation in democratic dialogues. It would be empowering and powerful to fund networks and coalitions to engage in evidence-based dialogues, to represent communities in discussions with policy makers and to engage with the public through media of all kinds. Bridging, and sometimes battling, as Phil Buchanan has put it, could be important philanthropic contributions to increase the vibrancy of democracy in Canada. And charitable funders could lead the way in de-risking and modeling these activities for other charities. Worth a conversation at the next board meeting, regardless of the electoral calendar or outcomes!

Never miss a new post. Subscribe.
twitter-squarelinkedin-squarearrow-circle-upenvelope-square