This blog post is prompted by the provocative article entitled Institutional Philanthropy and Popular Organising in Africa: Some Initial Reflections from Social Movement Activists by Halima Mohamed which draws on the experiences of activists from 13 different movements across Africa. I am part of one of those movements. Social movements are proof of ordinary people’s collective organizing power, assets and capacities with or without external funding. They are also proof of their agency and their refusal to be nothing more than the outcome of our pasts; they – we – carve the paths that make sense for our existence.
Social movements are proof of ordinary people’s collective organizing power, assets and capacities with or without external funding.
Movements differ from formal organizations in a variety of ways and they have tended to gain ground in Africa as elsewhere, where traditional NGOs are deemed to have lost any connection to the grassroots. Nevertheless, this piece is not about whether social movements are better or worse than NGOs. It’s about how funders, particularly institutional philanthropy, need to realize and take account of those differences.
Within the institutional philanthropic gaze
When NGOs were new, their organizing, like that of social movements, was rooted in the experiences of the people, but as they attracted the attention of funders, the balance shifted. They began to be dependent on their funders and to heed their preferences rather than those of their constituents. If movements are to avoid the same fate, the nature of the relationship between funder and movement is critical. Conditional funding with all its demands can make us forget to meet four criteria expressed by the acronym ‘ours’ – (a) owned, (b) useful, (c) robust and (d) simple. Money is important, but it is not central. Energy is the primary force and it’s essential for me to continue using my own ‘voice’ and to have the space to apply my own contextual and historical experiences. Failure to recognize movements for what they are often leads to one-way power flows that do not take account of the agency of activists which can easily turn a movement away from its path and block its ability to function on the edge.
Conditional funding with all its demands can make us forget to meet four criteria expressed by the acronym ‘ours’ – (a) owned, (b) useful, (c) robust and (d) simple.
An example from my experience: a philanthropic institution interested in us was concerned about our lack of a centralized decision-making system. They wanted a leader with whom the movement could be identified. It seemed a harmless concession, right? Fortunately, I was lucky to have learned from the experience of a fellow movement in Tanzania which had grabbed the attention of funders. They had identified a hero from the movement. took them to meetings and conferences to talk about the movement, which created an opportunity for more funding and profiled the movement in ways that made the state pay attention. Before long though, accountability had shifted from the movement base to the funders, the core focus of political land rights had been watered down into service delivery and rifts had opened between them and other movements, which they had begun to view as competitors for funding.
So what can be done to build healthier relationships between philanthropic institutions and movements?
Beyond the purview of this research
Mohamed’s article is a brilliant examination of the kinds of support that are currently needed, and central to these are the practices she believes funders should consider supporting, such as political education, collaboration and solidarity between movements, international advocacy of the movements and issues, and support and capacity building of all kinds for movement members. I would like to add some suggestions of my own for ways in which institutional philanthropy can advance the work of movements that are not invasive, directive or which detract from their efforts and which start from the premise that internal reliance and dependence are core to movement resourcing, and that movement support and strength is not just about money, but about a philosophy of independent action, self-reliance and agency:
- Meet movements where they are; institutional philanthropy must take time to understand the movement and its ways of working, decision-making and agenda-setting.
- While there are some easier issues to support, the political and often dangerous work of movements is essential and must be supported.
- Find ways of supporting movements that do not pit them against each other in competition for resources.
- Have honest conversations about power and status and avoid the damaging pretence of equality with the groups they support.
- Appreciate that those most affected are also the people with the greatest motivation and clarity to lead transformational change. They have wisdom, courage and creativity which can become reservoirs of power for change.
- History teaches us that fundamental change is made possible through the sustained demands and organized action of movements over time. One-off funding can’t sustain a movement. Long-term commitment is vital.
My story is not one of right and wrong, or assigning blame. It’s about the challenges that movements face in advancing our work and about questioning the relationships with philanthropic institutions so that these don’t create dependence but contribute to sustainable, self-determining efforts by movements. Philanthropy cannot be the solution for movements and community organizing across the continent, but at a time when money exerts a grasp on the levers of change and inequality exists, a better alignment between movements and institutional philanthropy is needed.
A more detailed version of the arguments made in this blog is available here.
Hope Chigudu is a feminist activist with decades of experience in feminist movement building and feminist leadership development. Over the years, she has honed her skills in organizational development, and the health and well-being of individuals and the collective; a holistic approach where people are the focus and their needs, emotions, and senses are supported and enhanced as outlined in the book she co-authored with Rudo Chigudu: Strategies for Building Organizations with a Soul. Hope’s homes are Uganda and Zimbabwe.