Taking stock
The rising tide of populism in Latin America and Central Europe, failed elections in countries like Kenya and Armenia, and the tightening grip of authoritarianism in Russia have fuelled pessimism over the state of democracy in recent years. Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, one might be inclined to think philanthropy’s work in civil society building and democracy promotion around the world has achieved little. But is that a fair assessment?
As many of our contributors assert, nurturing democracy is a long-term, ongoing endeavour. The complexion of many countries that laboured under authoritarian regimes before 1989 has changed almost beyond recognition. As we contemplate the recent accession of countries like Bulgaria and Romania into the EU; South Africa’s fourth democratic (and peaceful) election in which 77 per cent of the electorate exercised their democratic right to vote; and the fact that the current president of Brazil was a former trade union leader and Chile’s first woman president lived in exile during the Pinochet regime, it seems worth digging a little deeper in considering the role that the private donor community has played.
This special feature is intended to do just that. It does not presume to present the definitive view on the subject; rather our aim is to offer readers a selection of articles reflecting a variety of views and perspectives.
There is no doubt that mistakes have been made over the past two decades and our thinking about building civil society and democracy assistance has evolved. It is easy to criticize with hindsight but it is worth remembering that the work of the donor community was evolving to address unfolding political developments around the world. Bill Carmichael recalls that when he started at Ford in 1968 the word ‘governance’ was not in organized philanthropy’s lexicon. Such work required vision and courage – and the ability to persuade senior management back home.
In this essay, I have tried to capture the recurring themes that emerged during my research and interviews with philanthropists, community leaders, academics and activists who shared their thoughts on what progress has been made, what role philanthropy has played (constructive or not), lessons learned, and the future role and challenges for organized philanthropy. It is our hope that this special issue will make a meaningful contribution to the broader debate and challenge donors to examine their work and to recommit or alter course in order to find more effective practices that achieve greater impact.
Western models
A flaw frequently cited by those we spoke to is the fact that, by its very nature, Northern (or Western) democracy assistance grew out of Western paradigms of democracy based on Western ideologies and capitalist models of society. The conventional wisdom was that the West had a working democracy and could ‘export the model’. Many now say we have (re)discovered that context is everything and recognized that a given model may not work in other settings. I was struck by Olga Alexeeva’s assertion that democracy was seen by some in Russia as the substitution of one ideology for another (communism) and as such resisted.
One programme officer active in the CEE region during the decade after 1989 reflected that foreign donors came with money, models and implementation ideas; it was an intoxicating combination that was embraced in the vacuum that followed the implosion of non-democratic regimes. She recalled the frenzy of activity in the early 1990s – institution building, establishing NGOs, etc – and with hindsight she concedes that these were not homegrown, did not germinate in the local culture and traditions, and so in many cases were not sustainable when foreign funding came to an end. Christa Kuljian’s essay highlights similar setbacks in South Africa.
Democracy – a journey not a destination
John Gaventa has argued that democracy is not a ‘set recipe that can be promoted elsewhere’ but rather a process through which citizens exercise ever-deepening control over decisions. He and others maintain that much northern democracy assistance has been overly focused on ending a non-democratic government – for example, ending apartheid in South Africa or unseating a dictator. But when the long, hard process of building democracy got under way, donors often moved on and NGOs dried up for lack of funding.
Many critics argue that donors underestimated (or misunderstood?) the hard, slow work of building civil society and democracy and so did not commit enough resources and time. As Tom Carothers puts it, ‘the overall task of strengthening civil society is inherently much longer-term than enthusiasts imagined in the early post-communist years’.
Civil society and democracy
I was reminded on several occasions to step back and ask: what is the relationship between civil society and democracy? Is one a reliable path to the other? Many people believe that civil society organizations play a critical role in the vibrancy of democracy. Pavol Demes and Joerg Forbig (eds) note in their book Reclaiming Democracy: Civil society and electoral change in Central and Eastern Europe that in the period after 1989, private foundations and public agencies in Europe and North America supported ‘the full spectrum of civic activities’ and that ‘there has been hardly any democracy assistance program that did not include civil society as a specific target for support’. So building a robust civil society has been viewed as a path to democracy, provided that civil society mechanisms and institutions are developed, embraced and powered by a country’s own citizens and by strong leaders from within. As you will read in several of the articles, this has proved to be a tough challenge.
Funding ‘both sides of the equation’
Several people I spoke to contend that much democracy promotion funding from the North has focused mainly on institution building (‘top-down change’) and much less on the other side of the equation, namely building an informed, aware, active citizenry that can hold its government accountable (‘bottom-up change’). They argue that it has to some extent ignored the contribution of a mobilized citizenry.
Some describe societies across Central and Eastern Europe as having the formal mechanisms of democracy without the participation. Tom Carothers’ article in the March 2000 issue of Alliance cautioned against ‘equating NGOs with civil society itself and assuming that the growth curve of NGO proliferation is a good measure of civil society development’. Some activists put it more bluntly. According to Agnieszka Graff, writing on the Trust for Civil Society in Central & Eastern Europe’s website: ‘We wanted a vibrant civil society, and all we got were NGOs.’
One programme officer with a large foundation recalled that when donors began their work in the region in the early 1990s, people were mobilized and funders believed that the institutions they were helping to establish were an expression of the people’s will. With hindsight, she wondered whether that was wishful thinking.
While many people lament the current low levels of citizen engagement in several CEE/NIS countries – Rayna Gavrilova reports that the CEE Trust’s recent focus groups highlighted lack of citizen participation as the biggest concern among survey participants – some caution that participation levels need to be viewed in light of the reality that many people are doing two or more jobs to make ends meet: civic participation requires the luxury of time they do not have.
In addition, some contend that civil society has lost its perceived sense of value in many parts of the world: recall the scorn heaped on President Obama by Governor Palin and her supporters during the 2008 US presidential campaign for his work as a community organizer – apparently a job of little value.
As it became apparent that the pressing issue was a lack of citizen engagement and participation, some long-term funders in this area like the Mott Foundation seem to have recognized that their initial focus on building formal democratic institutions in the early 1990s might have been a case of ‘putting the cart before the horse’. The mid-1990s marked a shift in focus for Mott towards support for citizen rights and responsibilities and efforts to mobilize citizens towards democratic governance, with less focus on state and institution building and more on ‘everyday democracy’ and creating space for NGOs and citizen participation.
Democratizing the democracy debate
John Gaventa and others argue that many of the most exciting, innovative models of democracy are emerging from the South (participatory budgeting in Brazil, accountability tools in India) and influencing approaches in the North. Some may see this reversal as ironic: now we are asking what the mature democracies of the North can learn from emerging practices and democratic innovation in the South. Just last year a Ford Foundation report[1] drew attention to the fact that the US (at least pre-Obama) has a lower voter participation average than almost any other functioning democracy. Perhaps more donors could be encouraged to support the process of North/South learning and exchange; or, as John Gaventa and Nick Benequista put it, ‘democratizing the democracy debate’.
Russia
Many contributors to this special feature have expressed deep reservations about the success of their work in Russia. Quite a few describe their efforts as having failed. Aryeh Neier of the Open Society Institute, for instance, sees Russia as OSI’s biggest setback. The assassination of Anna Politkovskaya in 2006 and of a human rights lawyer and another journalist from Novaya Gazeta earlier this year serve only to deepen these concerns. And yet a few northern donors continue to work in the country despite the obstacles and there are notes of optimism in the responses of younger Russian activists and ordinary citizens that are included in this feature.
Responding to the crisis
Any guest editor comment would be remiss in not mentioning the economic crisis that continues to wreak damage in communities across the world. As the recession grinds on, it is increasingly evident that the Western ideal of democracy, free markets and widespread prosperity has been badly tarnished. In a recent Carnegie paper, Tom Carothers refers to the increasing talk of a global ‘democratic recession’. When the Wall came down in 1989 and during the ensuing decade, many viewed the West as the proverbial shining city on a hill, attracting the admiration and envy of countries emerging from under authoritarian regimes. No longer. And some argue that the loss of trust and confidence in the Western economic model has given alternative development models such as the ‘China model’ and others more credibility.
In Central and Eastern Europe, many argue that as a result of the crisis, it is not just the economic development of vulnerable countries that is at risk; it is their political stability as well. Writing in the Financial Times earlier this year, Stefan Wagstyl warned that ‘mounting anger over recession, unemployment and debt could fuel populism with unpredictable consequences’. Also in the Financial Times, Chrystia Freeland observed that ‘the region’s democracies, as well as the institutions of the EU itself, are being stress-tested as never before’.
We are learning still …
As governments, private and public sector institutions and individuals around the world grapple with the magnitude of the current crisis, it seems that the donor community’s challenges are as daunting as they have ever been. But a crisis is also an opportunity, a turning point. The articles in this special feature make clear that there is much for philanthropy to learn from the experience of the past 20 years of civil society building and democracy assistance. The current crisis engulfing much of the world has dislodged hope of a pause for reflection, and we need more than ever to sharpen our listening and learning skills, apply lessons learned, and focus our (undoubtedly reduced) resources more effectively.
Guest editor for the Alliance special feature ‘Twenty years since the fall of the Wall’
Georgie Shields is a corporate responsibility consultant and freelance writer based in London. Until November last year she served as Vice President, Philanthropy at American Express and secretary of the American Express Foundation. Email georgie_shields@yahoo.com
1 Ford Report, 2008, Vol 37, No 3 www.fordfound.org/impact/fordreports/strengtheningdemocracy/making_every_voter_count
Acknowledgements
In researching this special feature I was fortunate to speak not only to those who have contributed essays or opinion pieces for this issue but also to many other experts in the field whose willingness to share their experiences and views helped provide the framework for this feature and shape its content.
I would like to offer sincere thanks for their time and valuable insights to: David Bonbright, Steven Burkeman, Vera Dakova, Michael Edwards, Christine Forrester, Alan Fowler, Irena Gross, Christopher Harris, Marcos Kisil, Shannon Lawder, Ross McLaren, Hedwig Morvai-Horvat, Juliet Prager, Boris Strecansky, Andrés Thompson, Ivan Vejvoda, Valerie Wattenberg and Jacek Wojnarowski.
