Dialogue Recording and Synthesis. Where to Philanthropy? Reading the tea leaves

Following on from our launch dialogue of the Blueprint 2025 with Lucy Bernholz, we are joined here by philanthropic support networks worldwide to reflect on an unprecedent convergence of challenges facing civil society and philanthropy. With WINGS, IPASA, Ploughshares, One Project and Philea. You can watch the recording on our YouTube channel here.

“What amazes me most about these times, is not how extraordinary they are, but the mundane ways in which we and our institutions respond.”

LUCY BERNHOLZ, BLUEPRINT 2025

The Global Context: Democracy Under Threat

The conversation opened with a stark assessment of democratic decline globally. Sameera Mehra provided the context:

“According to the CIVICUS monitor 2024 73% of the global population now resides in countries with highly restricted civic spaces, categorized as either ‘repressed’ or ‘closed’. The Economist Intelligence Units (EIU) Democracy Index further reports that of the total population globally, 7.4% live in ‘full’ democracies whilst 39.4% live in authoritarian regimes.”

Hanna Stähle emphasised that in Europe,

“we no longer speak about shrinking civic space, but really closing civic space… We see clearly that civil society and philanthropy is under direct threat, under direct attack.”

Moving Beyond Fear: Building Alternative Systems

Drawing from her experience in Belarus, Hanna shared insights about fear as a tactic and the need to move beyond paralysis:

“There is a lot of fear, remembering my time back in Belarus, this is one of the tactics. The feeling of fear, and the feeling of inability to act, inability to do something meaningful… We need to accept that we will not be able to get back. We will not be able to build back. The fundamental question is, actually, how can we build new? How can we create new alternative systems?”

She emphasised the importance of creating hope and recognising collective strength:

“This is really the time not to be afraid, not to share this feeling of fear, but for actually creating hope, creating hope and showcasing what works… and sharing the feeling of not being alone, but actually being a massive movement.”

The Polycrisis and Intersecting Challenges

Emma Belcher articulated how various crises intersect through the lens of nuclear threats: “Rising authoritarianism, spread of misinformation, unrestrained artificial intelligence, climate change, pandemics and all of these are fuelling anger, violence and instability… these issues intersect with nuclear threats, amplifying their dangers.” She emphasised that “Nuclear threats are quintessential examples of the poly crisis phenomenon. A single detonation could derail decades of progress on other global challenges.”

Evan Steiner highlighted the importance of understanding complexity: “If we haven’t integrated the poly crisis, it means that we’re going to suck at strategy, because we’re going to be engaging with the world the way that we’d like it to be, rather than the way that it is.”

Practical Challenges in Different Contexts

Louise Driver provided concrete examples from South Africa, where 54% youth unemployment and government restrictions on nonprofits demonstrate how abstract challenges manifest in reality: “The nonprofit directorate worked out that 56% of the nonprofits in South Africa were non-compliant, and therefore were threatened with de-registration, which would have a real ripple effect on services to the poor.”

She highlighted how government failure to recognise local philanthropies limits their ability to scale solutions: “The private foundation have a certain pool of money, but we cannot escalate our solutions without government support.”

The Moon Landing as Metaphor: Human Hubris and the Roots of Crisis

Gerry turned to Dylan to connect threads of the discussion about the pace and scale of societal destruction and invite reflection on human hubris using the moon landing as a symbol of both human achievement and overreach.

“Man thinks ‘cause he rules the earth,
he can do with it as he pleases,
and if things don’t change soon, he will,
Oh, man has invented his doom,
First step was touching the moon”

BoB dylan, licence to kill

This sparked a broader discussion about how to reimagine human values and relationships beyond the current paradigm of endless growth and development. This sparked a deeper historical analysis, with Lucy Bernholz noting how quickly (just two centuries since the steam engine) humanity had created current crises.

Barry Knight traced the roots even further back to Enlightenment notions of growth and development that replaced earlier societies’ emphasis on balance and harmony.

“The Enlightenment invented the idea that societies had to develop, whereas many societies actually saw themselves as finding balance within, within and between each other. And the big problem that was invented through the Enlightenment was free market economics, which prioritised economic growth, and it’s become a cancer, because that’s actually lies behind so much of the idea of scarcity… we never reach the point of enough.”

He connected this to the need for fundamental transformation:

“We have to think, what is it to be human? And we need to go back… Because while we are seeing ourselves as a as an ego, egoic self, where careers and we need to make money and we need to be part of an industry, we’re actually going to keep making the mistakes and we’re never going to collaborate, we need to see ourselves as a transcendental self who sees ourselves as part of nature.”

Barry concluded that “philanthropy is a means, not an end. Philanthropy is not, in itself, the solution. It’s the means to which we can achieve a new sense of what it is to be human.”

Power, Resources, and Transformation

Katherine Fulton shared a crucial perspective on power, quoting Martin Luther King:

“Power without love is reckless and abusive, and love without power is sentimental and anaemic. Power at its best is love implementing the demands of justice.”

She suggested that people on the left-hand side of the spectrum distrust of power stems from deeper issues about how modern society conceptualises progress, growth and human relationships. “But” she highlighted “you can’t fight the kind of concentrated power that’s there without building power, without coming to terms with the need to act with power.” It means that progressive forces must learn to build and use power effectively.

Sameera Mehra referenced Stephen Heinz’s observation that

“the greatest danger in times of turbulence is not turbulence itself” … change comes when the pain of staying the same can no longer be tolerated.”

Building on this theme, Lucy Bernholz noted that institutional philanthropy only changes when it feels pain, observing that “the only thing I know of, at least in the US context, is the federal government. It’s the only thing that’s ever made them feel pain or scared them enough to actually just stop talking and do something different.”

Katherine Fulton then emphasised that philanthropy’s discretionary resources are crucial precisely because they can “help buy key actors discretionary time, because people’s time is having the time to figure out what to do differently” – suggesting that while philanthropy itself may not feel discomfort, it can help create space for those who do to drive change.

“We’re in a age when philanthropy has to embrace a greater risk tolerance in order to stand in solidarity with people and organisations on the ‘frontlines’ … Philanthropy has to commit to hanging onto, and building, hope and supporting resistance” Alan Moolman.

The Urgency of Action

Lucy Bernholz repeatedly emphasised the immediacy of the threat to US democracy: “I believe that we have 90 days to save the United States Democracy… Within those 90 days, there will be direct attacks.” She highlighted that

“civil society is the only thing that will stand in the way to stop the complete restructuring of the United States experiment and the end of the Democratic Republic.”

Hanna Stähle responded to suggest that this is unlikely to be possible in 90 days “because the problems are just so systemic… to actually being able to act.” This tension between immediate crisis response and systemic change became an important theme of the discussion.

Allan Moolman raised the urgent need to move from talk to action: “We have been making commitments to behave differently for years now… I think it’s really time that philanthropy actually puts its money where its mouth is.”

Institutional Challenges and Governance

Erika Gregory highlighted institutional barriers: “There’s a mismatch between what those of you who are on the front lines of grant making and investment are sensing right now, and the speed with which we really do need to act… and to get buy in at the board level.” She expanded on the board governance challenge:

“how might boards enable bold action, remove roadblocks, lead cultures of risk-taking and decisive, timely action rather than oversight per se. There are tensions to be managed between management autonomy and board oversight, strategic agility vs. risk management.”

Lucy Bernholz added a critical perspective on board alignment” Board members are absolutely key. AND I think we need to be very clear on things we don’t like to talk about. Such as the fact that many board members are likely to align themselves with the current rulers than with those they make grants to.”

This connected to Alexis Frasz’s point about reform opportunities: “JD Vance’s attack on philanthropy is an opportunity to embrace reforms and dramatically increase the flow of resources that are currently tied up —and also requires smart strategy so that reform efforts don’t get co-opted to dismantle the entire sector.”

Eva Rehse highlighted lessons from existing movements: “‘Fighting the bad’ while ‘building the good’ is a key tenet of the just transition framework… we can learn much from the movements and actors who have been thinking and working on this. It strikes me that many of those active in these spaces are better prepared now and less unsettled, because they have been here all along in the US and further afield, and have many strategies we should study and connect to (and resource!).”

Cameron Jacobs emphasised how institutional frameworks can impede progress:

” Civil society requires time and flexible resources to foster open conversations. These spaces enable civil society actors, social movements, NGOs, and community-based organisations to pause, reflect, and explore new strategies to navigate an ever-evolving landscape. This kind of work doesn’t always neatly fit into frameworks we use to measure progress.”

The Role of Knowledge and Research

Megan Haddock emphasised the importance of research infrastructure, particularly in contexts where civil society is under attack: “When civil society in these countries is being attacked by governments, what sources of information do they have to even present their case?”

Sterling added historical perspective, noting that “we have been here before” and citing examples from colonial times, the French Revolution, civil rights movement, and the creation of the UN, suggesting that periods of progress often face pushback but can ultimately lead to positive change.

Solutions and Ways Forward

Several approaches emerged from the discussion:

• Sameera Mehra on collective action: “Philanthropy needs to organise. It needs to collaborate. It needs a collective and inclusive voice at the global stage that represents the diversity of our sector.”
• Hanna Stähle on relationship-building: “It is essential to build trust, it is essential to be in conversation, it is essential to really strengthen relationships. That this is the foundation of everything that we do.”
• Evan Steiner on economic alternatives: “Exploring alternative economic models and building capacities like mutual aid, economic democracy and a solidarity economy.”
• Louise Driver highlighted new initiatives in South Africa including “a social justice funders group initiative” and “a climate pledge of South African funders,” showing progress in collaboration and innovation.
• Emma Belcher highlighted their efforts to build a cohort of funders and practitionerswith a shared vision and commitment to reinvigorating the the nuclear field with intersectionality and long-term vision at its core to maximise the chances of long-term success.

Conclusion

The dialogue demonstrated the complex interplay between immediate crisis response and long-term systemic change needed in philanthropy and civil society. It highlighted the tension between maintaining hope while acknowledging serious threats, and between building power while remaining true to democratic values. It emphasised that change requires action at multiple levels – from immediate tactical responses to deep systemic transformation – while maintaining focus on human relationships and values.

Lucy Bernholz concluded by reflecting on the nature of such dialogues: “Conversations like this are really good to talk about ideas that we’re not familiar with individually.” She suggested that different spaces are needed for different purposes – some for exploring ideas and human values, others for strategic action. In sum, she said, “We have the will and there’s the way… getting people to learn it and act on it and understand it. That’s a different challenge.”