Should philanthropy become political? It depends whether the aim is ideological, or a richer, more deliberative form of democracy itself
Two interesting pieces from the website Alliance, from its “Philanthropy and Politics” issue.
The first piece observes the philanthropic convention that their investment is civic, meaning neither commercial nor political - which charity law in many countries would seem to enforce. But the actions of conservative philanthropists freely skate into the political realm.
Today’s capitalism has given birth to a new kind of muscular philanthropy. Take Paul Marshall, the founder of one of Europe’s largest hedge funds, Marshall Wace, as well as the Seqouia Trust, his family’s charitable foundation. Marshall can be credited with influencing the political sphere and wider culture more than most.
A committed Christian and Conservative party donor, he funded the successful campaign for the UK to leave the European Union and – more recently – the media titles UnHerd and GB News, the latter alongside Legatum Ventures, a Dubai based company.
Marshall has also partnered with its sister body the Legatum Institute – set up by philanthropist Christopher Chandler – to promote its new ‘Alliance for Responsible Citizenship’. The organisation held its first conference in London in October 2023 fronted by conservative firebrand, Jordan Peterson.
Alongside media and political causes, the Seqouia Trust committed £50 million to the London School of Economics’ Marshall Institute for Philanthropy and Social Entrepreneurship. Housed in The Marshall Building, the venture promotes social impact ventures and accelerators and teaching and research on philanthropy and social entrepreneurship.
Should this work be seen as separate from his media and political funding? Technically, the answer is probably ‘yes’. But is the line between philanthropy and politics – while it exists in charity law – existing so sharply in the mind of philanthropists like Marshall? I doubt it. Rather, I’d simply see this as the deployment of a spectrum of capital, to use a popular term, to achieve certain goals – strategic philanthropy with a political dimension.
The piece then turns to Alexander Soros’s Open Society Foundation as a countervailing force. But this seems like an all-too-obvious liberal-progressive move. Indeed, as the writer notes:
There are signs that liberal funders are keen to avoid being dragged into ‘culture wars’, instead funding small ‘p’ political projects such as increasing democratic and electoral participation, countering polarisation, and doubling down on support for evidence-based policy-making.
The second Alliance piece shows that very funding pattern in action:
Professor Johanna Mair of the Hertie School in Berlin has characterised in her paper, The Emerging Field of Political Innovation, “an ecosystem of political innovation that has begun to diagnose the problems of the political system and work collectively to find solutions to strengthen and revitalise democracy”.
The examples are countless, and we have defined three broad categories to centre our funding and support work:
1. Initiatives that prepare new political leaders to run for office, such as Brand New Bundestag and Join Politics in Germany, Tous Elus and the Académie des Futurs Leaders in France or Fantapolitica! in Italy.
2. Organisations working to find effective ways for people and communities to mobilise and build political power, such as Démocratiser la Politique, documenting the underrepresentation of working-class people in French politics and supporting their mobilisation towards realised representation in electoral and political spaces.
3. Initiatives aiming to build more inclusive and human political cultures, such as Glitch, an NGO committed to eradicating online abuse, which Seyi Akiwowo founded after her experience as a Black politician in the UK.
Despite their ambition and the demonstrated impact of their initiatives, these innovators are facing considerable obstacles to their mission, from the persistent scepticism of (some) funders to the difficulties of scaling their work in a continent with dozens of different codes of law and political systems, to a sense of loneliness and disconnection, to a lack of infrastructure to share good practices and lessons between similar initiatives, but also across countries.
The writers of this piece both work for Multitudes Foundation - which they present as a solution to some of the aforementioned issues:
Multitudes Foundation was conceived to address these challenges by offering financial support for initiatives in different stages of their growth (ideation, incubation and scale), practical and strategic support and a community of practice for political changemakers to learn and strategise together.
We are what Professor Mair calls an ‘enabler’, ‘groups of individuals and organisations inside the political innovation ecosystem trying to achieve social change through formal political change’.
The list of such enablers includes Luminate, Daniel Sachs Foundation, Democratie en Media and Robert Bosch Stiftung, who are funding our work. We all agree that reimagining politics as more inclusive, human and hopeful is a must, not a nice-to-have.
Because no matter the field, systemic change will happen much faster with political leadership that can bring their experience and expertise to the table and the trust and support of their communities to advance ambitious policy agendas that meaningfully improve the lives of many.
We are excited and encouraged by the work of these organisations. And we’ll be in touch, about the viability of a “parallel polis”…