Where Civil Society Meets Democracy: Philanthropy’s Crucial Role in Troubling Times
Sometimes, it’s “democracy.” Sometimes, it’s “the climate.” Other times, it’s “polarization.” Philanthropic donors and professionals often ask me what they can do about these issues that are so deeply influencing our society and yet are so difficult to grasp. These questions usually come with a disclaimer: It’s such a big challenge. I don’t know where to begin; I want to make a difference.” And, they usually add, “But don’t let it get political. I want to promote certain values, but not if it labels me.”
Funders, foundation board members, and philanthropic professionals have increasingly sought my advice on possible philanthropic strategies amid the existential threats in the past few years, particularly in the past year. They have different opinions, interests, and notions about making an impact. However, they all expressed two underlying themes. The first is a profound uncertainty about the role of philanthropy and civil society in the face of overwhelming, complex, and seemingly intractable crises. The second is a fear of addressing legitimate social causes due to the widespread polarization and partisanship and the apparent risk of being labeled “political,” which may, in turn, threaten their social cause.
The feelings of uncertainty are valid. The complexity and magnitude of the erosion of democratic values, rising polarization, and ongoing environmental crisis can lead to a sense of helplessness. For many in the philanthropic sphere, the question is not “What should I do?”—but “Is there anything at all I could do to make a difference?” It is easy to question the value of a singular intervention in the grand scheme of things. The problem is that helplessness often leads to paralysis or a sense of futility.
The concerns about the perceived risks associated with philanthropic actions are entirely reasonable, too. As global challenges grow more politically charged and ideologically divisive, philanthropic leaders often grapple with the fear that their efforts will brand them as political or partisan. This fear can cause hesitation and self-censorship, preventing those with the ability to create change from addressing the most pressing issues.
A fundamental tension lies at the heart of these two themes: recognizing the urgent need for action versus the reluctance to step into the fray due to the perceived risks in terms of impact and reputation.
In my meetings with philanthropic practitioners, I often ask them to pause before we dive into the practicalities of HOW we can make a difference or decide where to direct our efforts. We pause by asking ourselves, “WHY are we engaged in philanthropy?” Understanding the deeper raison d’être of philanthropic work is crucial. It helps us navigate complex challenges and craft strategies that not only respond to immediate crises but also align with the broader values and aspirations we seek to uphold in society.
Let us explore some basic perceptions and questions that can guide you through this reflective process. We can start by clarifying the context, risks, and opportunities involved in philanthropic work in the current civil and political atmosphere.
The Context: Civil Society, where Democracy Lives
Civil society is the meeting point of individuals and communities, where values, cultures, and personal desires are balanced against the collective needs of society. It includes a vast network of civil organizations, local communities, cultural institutions, and research centers—a vibrant, dynamic fabric that binds democratic society together.
Civil society is essential for democracy. It is a bridge between government bureaucracy and the citizens it serves. It is where diversity is acknowledged, the marginalized find expression, and the voices of the unheard are amplified. Civil society has another crucial role: it holds up a mirror to the government, reminding it of the limits of its power and the necessity of equity and inclusion.
At the same time, democracy is vital to the very existence of civil society as it safeguards fundamental freedoms such as expression, assembly, and the ability to critique those in power. Civil society depends on democratic institutions to uphold human rights, equality, and the inclusion of diverse viewpoints. Free and innovative thought thrives in a vibrant academic discourse, a dynamic cultural scene, and open institutions that engage with their communities. Democracy protects all these factors and opposes those who limit thought and silence critical voices.
In today’s political climate, where equality, rule of law, and personal freedoms are challenged by an anti-liberal rhetoric, it is unsurprising that academic institutions in Israel were among the first to be attacked. These institutions revere critique and cherish challenging and questioning society.
The deterioration of the rule of law and declining trust in public institutions are not isolated issues but interconnected challenges. Therefore, it is also unsurprising that civil society and philanthropy became targeted as ‘enemies.’ The role of philanthropy and civil society is to observe and highlight government neglect, spot and address the needs of marginalized and minority communities, and challenge the status quo. However, philanthropic work is thwarted when authoritarianism rises, civil space shrinks, and widespread social mistrust increases.
Philanthropy and democracy have a symbiotic relationship: philanthropy depends on democracy to function freely and protect civil society in all its forms, while democracy relies on philanthropy to uphold values of equality, human rights, and social cohesion. Recognizing this mutual dependency can help philanthropic foundations and funders understand their commitment and shape their strategies.
Risk or Opportunity?
Polarization is being increasingly recognized as a “hyper-problem” in democracies. It is not a singular dilemma but a web of interconnected conflicts, each exacerbating the next and ultimately threatening the very fabric of democratic societies.
Polarization also poses an acute social risk because it undermines the core values at the heart of civil society and philanthropic efforts: solidarity, equal opportunity, and humanism. Simply put, philanthropy and polarization cannot coexist, and social cohesion and philanthropy are mutually dependent. Without a foundation of shared understanding, no civil society can remain stable and philanthropic and civil society organizations cannot advocate for social justice and human rights. A polarized society, where every issue is framed through divisive, extremist lenses, will inevitably reject or suppress philanthropic efforts that do not conform to its narrow worldview. These forces are not merely external challenges but fundamental barriers to the very existence of a functional, inclusive society. This is why philanthropists must actively use their power to address the forces of polarization.
When discussing the perceived risk in engaging with issues like social trust, solidarity, and polarization that challenge these core principles of democracy, it is perhaps more accurate to acknowledge the risk of abstention. By first recognizing and understanding this risk, we can proactively shift from a mindset of caution to one that focuses on opportunity.
The climate crisis is a good case study in this regard. It is an intersection of the full spectrum of challenges of our day—from the erosion of democratic values to economic disparity, from the collapse of trust in science to the rise of misinformation. As the planet faces increasingly catastrophic changes, the consequences are not equally felt. Underdeveloped societies, particularly in vulnerable regions, will bear the brunt of these effects despite contributing the least to the crisis.
This disparity further deepens social divides, highlighting philanthropy’s role in amplifying the voices of those most affected but least heard. Philanthropy and proactive civil society can challenge economic models that fuel inequality and environmental degradation while supporting sustainable, community-driven solutions. If we broaden our perspective, we will also see the connection between scientific research and academia’s role in creating social and environmental justice. Therefore, while climate change is being politicized, philanthropists can encourage innovative scientific research, make it accessible to the wider public, and help restore trust in science and academia.
Climate change is not just an environmental challenge; it is a social, political, and economic crisis that touches the very foundations of civil society. Hence, philanthropy’s role in addressing the climate crisis is not just a question of funding specific projects; it is a sweeping moral force. It envisions and shapes a future that honors the principles of justice, sustainability, and global cooperation.
A Deeper Reflection
Once we grasp the context in which philanthropy works and the interconnected challenges of democracy and civil society, we can move on to a deeper examination of our philanthropic DNA. This analysis will help us understand how comfortable we feel about possible routes of action, how we define our goals, and the kind of impact we hope to achieve.
Openness and courage are vital in this self-reflection, and we may feel uneasy about accepting our identity and limitations. Some will find they feel comfortable supporting activist groups; others will feel comfortable supporting research, civil society field building, or long-term development. My next posts will delve into the various routes of action. Whatever route we choose, we must first acknowledge our core truths to take bold, impactful actions that reflect our values and address the challenges we aim to overcome.