Close to fifteen hundred people gathered in Brussels at the beginning of April at BE Philanthropy, a one-day event to talk about the work of philanthropy in Europe. The convenor of this tri-annual gathering was the King Baudouin Foundation (KBF), Belgium’s largest public foundation and one of the largest in Europe. The Brussels conference brought together participants from around western Europe including European foundation leaders, advisors, researchers, intermediaries, nonprofit leaders and fundraisers.
I attended the event this year with Myriad Canada, a cross-border giving foundation launched under KBF sponsorship in 2018. I had first participated in the conference in 2023 when the world was still coping with the aftereffects of the pandemic. That year, as I noted in my blog on the conference, the pandemic, war, inflation and social unrest had darkened the mood in Europe. Since then, the continuing war in Ukraine and the policies of the United States towards Europe (and the rest of the world) have only added to the mood of worry. In convening the 2026 conference, KBF’s goal was in part to inspire philanthropy to step up its game in the face of the multiple pressures on European civil society and on the continent more broadly.
What struck me as an increasingly prominent focus for European philanthropy is the need to strengthen democracy in the face of the polarizing and systemic impacts on their societies of economic stress, the increasing use of social media and artificial intelligence, the dislocations of war and the felt decline of local communities. The rise of populist political leaders has been in response to this increasing sense of pessimism about the future and a longing for a past where people had more hope and communities had more social capital. Liberal democracies are facing political challenges to their legitimacy. At a deeper level, the forces of inequality and withering local and civil/social communities are pushing against a liberal democratic model that is being found wanting.
A panel discussion at the conference highlighted the trends and concerns that philanthropists are feeling about the threats to democracy. These threats are linked politically to the rise of more authoritarian and right-wing populist political movements and governments in Europe. As these gain power, they are undermining global coordination and collective action, as well as shrinking the space for civil society. Panel members agreed that philanthropy can play a more active role in supporting mechanisms for integration rather than division, in bringing people together to foster their understanding of other perspectives, and in funding independent and trusted sources of information.
Recognizing the challenges posed by threats to liberal democracy, European funders are reacting with increased commitment. They are directing money to community partners; some foundations are also delivering their own programs. The KBF itself has a Democracy program to “strengthen and defend democratic values”. It does this through projects and support to organizations working on what it sees as five essential components (and leverage points) for a healthy democracy:
The KBF increases its impact in this area by joining in pooled funds. For example, in 2020 it co-founded the European Artificial Intelligence and Society Fund, which supports organizations across Europe working on AI and democracy. KBF also participates in Civitates, a pooled fund dedicated to addressing democratic decline and strengthening civil society, media and digital rights in Europe, which was created in 2017. Increasingly the KBF sees its role as evolving from funder to ecosystem builder and steward, taking a long-term view about the need to invest in an information system that is pluralist and trustworthy, and that strengthens individual democratic agency.
Philea, the European foundation network, is promoting the defense of democracy as a priority for funders. A year ago, it published a briefing for European funders on democratic backsliding on the continent, with opportunities for philanthropic action to address the root causes of such backsliding. Philea runs a Democracy Network for interested funders who want to exchange on strategies to defend and develop democracy. Philea also takes a strong interest in democratic and pluralist media networks. It recently published a research report on how philanthropy is funding journalism and media in Europe. To quote the report, “the field of journalism and media is widely recognised by funders as essential for democracy, accountability and countering misinformation, but it still receives only a tiny slice of philanthropic budgets. Despite this, there is growing urgency, a slow but visible increase in investment, and a shift toward more flexible, long‑term funding, as the field grapples with a rapidly changing media landscape, unstable business models, and rising threats to independent journalism”. Many of the questions and experiences shared at BE Philanthropy are shared across the Atlantic in Canada. We also face multiple challenges to our social cohesion embodied in loss of local civic space and social capital, loneliness, youth isolation and continuing inequities of all kinds. We too are experiencing huge changes in our sources of information and in the organization of work. Our trust in media and in government is declining. Philanthropy’s response to these challenges is similar on both sides of the Atlantic: more investment in local infrastructure and neighbourhoods, more work to counter the effects of digital harms and to bolster public interest media, and more innovative uses of collaboration, pooled funding and investment tools. What we need in Canada is more urgency of action, and greater alignment of philanthropic efforts. We can learn from the Europeans who are already moving in this direction with a real firmness of purpose.
“The world is more dangerous and divided, and this moment calls for a renewed focus on strengthening the bonds that hold our society together. As Canada’s population becomes more diverse, fostering community and civic engagement and a collective sense of belonging is becoming increasingly important.” This is a statement from a federal media release announcing a new Advisory Council on Rights, Equality and Inclusion. “The new [Council] will help build a more inclusive and united Canada; one grounded in our shared values, with a strong focus on community involvement, and rooted in the belief that far more unites us than divides us”, says the federal Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture.
There is a lot to agree with in this statement. The suggestion of shared values. The focus on community involvement. The idea that we are more united than divided. But is this perspective shared by the many people and by organizations across Canadian civil society who have been working for years to build stronger relationships and more trust and cohesion in our communities? Are their efforts bearing fruit? We hear more about the divisive than the cohesive forces: the negative impact of social media, isolation and loneliness, hate speech and racism, polarized politics, eroding trust in the media, in business, in democratic processes. While we may seem more united as Canadians these days in the face of political and economic threat, does this paper over some deeper cracks? There are clearly divides in Canada along geographic, socio-economic and identity lines, to name three. Will they worsen in spite of our current resolve?
And what can foundations and their community partners do to close the gaps and build more cohesion? Some foundations in Canada today are paying more attention to the need to strengthen our democracy. This can mean countering the forces of hate and division. This can mean building stronger information systems for public benefit. This can mean strengthening public service and safeguards for fair democratic participation. Ultimately, all of this involves building and reinforcing trust in our systems, our leaders and our fellow Canadians.
Yuval Harari the Israeli historian has said: “Democracy runs on trust. Dictatorship runs on fear. The moment trust erodes – whether in institutions, elections, or truth itself – democracy crumbles.” Trust is fundamental. And, as many have noted, once lost it’s not easily regained.
Some years ago, Liz Weaver, a former leader of the Tamarack Institute, and a deeply experienced leader of community-level collective efforts to solve complex social challenges, wrote a thoughtful paper on Turf, Trust, Co-creation and Collective Impact. In this paper she unpacked trust as an emotion, and as a multi-dimensional practice. As she noted then, “our cities are trying to solve increasingly complex issues. These complex issues require us to collaborate across sectors with people we have not collaborated with before. At the same time, levels of trust between citizens and groups in society are declining. Citizens are expressing a lack of trust in leaders, institutions and systems”. Citing Adam Kahane in his book Collaborating with the Enemy, Weaver talks about the ‘enemyfying syndrome’. People who do not agree with one’s own point of view or perspective become ‘the enemy’. But, she says, “creating enemies does not lead to co-creating communities. It leads to increased turf, isolation, alienation and a blindness to the needs, challenges and aspirations of others. Kahane urges us to embrace our enemies. To embrace enemies, we must understand how to foster trust.”
This remains both true and difficult. While Weaver goes on to sort through the ways in which one can understand and build trust, it is not easy or short work. It takes time, skill, personal commitment and opportunity to build empathy and common purpose.
Again, what can philanthropic funders do to help build trust within communities and among people? Weaver and others point to the interpersonal and local levels as the places where trust must begin. Funders do frequently work with community and local partners but more often in one-to-one relationships. Is there a role for them that goes beyond support for individual organizations? A timely set of suggestions are presented in a report from the Freedom Together Foundation, a US foundation working on democracy, justice and belonging. This report, A Bigger We, offers a strategy to strengthen belonging, bridging, and collective agency in the American (and our) democracy.
A Bigger We pinpoints agency – the act of exerting our will to remake the world around us – as the key to overcoming alienation and conflict. The lack of agency experienced by many people is, in the view of the report authors, not a crisis of demand but a crisis of supply. People want to participate but don’t have the civic structures and leaders to create opportunities for participation. Collective agency and shared leadership are required, they say, for sustained engagement in public life. They go on to say that philanthropy has a critical role to play in cultivating collective agency. The report suggests that funders can support the development and training of community organizers who can foster agency, fund research and data collection work at local levels to measure community agency and make long term and flexible funding commitments to community organizers.
We have some extraordinary resources for Canadian funders interested in strengthening community trust and agency at local levels. The Tamarack Institute is an excellent Canadian resource for funders. The Shorefast Institute is another. MakeWay and other intermediaries for funders provide opportunities for collective funding. But there is still a gap that Canadian philanthropy can think about filling as they consider how to support efforts to provide both agency and a sense of belonging across the country. It’s a gap in support for developing and supporting the movement leaders and capacities that will drive sustained trust-building within communities. We have some excellent leaders and thinkers already in this field like Adam Kahane and Paul Born who has given us yet another terrific guide to community organizing with his recent book Breakthrough Community Change. Perhaps a discussion topic for funders now contemplating how they can play their own part in building cohesion across our country?