By: Marija Jakovlevic
Note: use automatic page translation tool in Google Chrome when accessing links that are not in English to be instantly translated into your preferred language
Ups and downs – food for thought
As I’m doing outreach to groups led by young feminists and LGBTQ+ youth in the earthquake-affected zone, I feel a huge frustration because of uncoordinated relief, the fact that money fails to reach these groups, and that only crumbs manage to get to Syria. Last year, in parallel with supporting rapid participatory grant-making to young feminist groups in Ukraine, I did an outreach to the Russian anti-war movement to map their needs and ways of resourcing them. Not only did philanthropy ignore feminist and queer groups resisting the war and left many people to be prosecuted, but it also discriminated against those who managed to flee to neighboring countries on the basis of their nationality. Years ago, when Kurdish women were fighting for their survival against ISIS, our discussions in peace-building circles to support them stayed futile.
Why is it that after so many sectors’ learning, conversations, campaigns to be bolder, and commitments made to make philanthropy better, do so many critical struggles remain poorly resourced? What we can do to strengthen movements going forward?
Firstly, we need to deal with collective oblivion. Let me remind us of the experience of my country. Serbia used to have significant anti-war, workers', students', and other progressive movements. Unresolved issues of past wars were accompanied by imposed privatization of public resources and infrastructure; commercialization of social services; environmental depletion; spiraling of GBV, xenophobia, racism; and overall worsening of social divides. In this scenario, movements’ efforts to push back and build alternatives were not adequately supported. Fast-forward to the pandemic and we see that established pieces of critical movement infrastructure are endangered. For example, some of the remaining community centres, which were used by many organizations for gatherings, learnings, protest planning, collecting in-kind community support for people in need, and so many more, are at risk of shutting down. They don’t have the resources to pay fixed bills and rent. Their core team are already unpaid volunteers, and community donations won’t fill the gap. Other collectives, especially in smaller places, operate in hostile environments without resilient safety-nets. Many activists and professionals left the country or changed the capacity through which they contribute to movements due to the existential pressures and burn out. I believe we now call this non-profit starvation cycle.
This post-Yugoslav region and Eastern Europe, although diverse, share the challenge of accessing adequate resources for progressive social change. Candid’s pre-pandemic data show that only 2% share of human rights funding from foundations was allocated to the region of Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and Russia. Grassroots organizing and Security and Resilience are among the least funded strategies in an already underfunded region. In addition, our experience shows that usually the smaller the funds, the greater the restrictions attached. The post-Yugoslav region has a long history of voluntary work for the public good. But volunteering is not enough to push against harmful tendencies and keeping progressive spaces. With a lack of adequate resources, mobilized talents, effort and time get wasted, people burn out, and collectives dissolve.
Jointly we can do better
We, sitting in and working with progressive funders, need to ask ourselves what kind of resourcing is accessible to the people on the front lines. We must ask that question acknowledging what insufficient resourcing looks like. Today, many of those defending labor rights work without adequate contracts in their organizations, and without social benefits and pensions. Despite full-time employment, others are remunerated so little they’re unable to access housing security and sometimes forced to live in their offices. Underfunding social change organizations increases the risk that only those with pre-existing financial safety nets will have the capacity to participate in the long-term; which limits the modalities of engagement for the most affected due to financial constraints.
In this context we must begin to ask, what does it mean to resource a just social change? It's encouraging to see the #ShiftThePower movement expand the definition of resources as more than funds moved by donors to include people's time, skills, knowledge, connections, all sorts of in-kind donations, etc. Simultaneously, there is increasing talk about "shared responsibility" across the globe, which centers on the narrative of being grassroots-led, with donors "stepping behind". While these are both positive shifts in principle, we must be cautious that the progressive initiatives don’t get hijacked or become performative like many before them have been. These should not become justifications for donors withdrawing or reducing funding to certain geographies and issues. Nor should it relieve donors from the responsibility to move more funds in an agile and responsible manner. Centering grassroots and sharing power with local actors is long due. However, this doesn't mean less but more responsibility for the donor community. It means they, and those that guide them, must actively resource infrastructure, safe spaces, safety nets and people’s development while also expanding the understanding of the scope of the issues and adjusting their own procedures. Without proper comprehensive funding, movements can become stagnant and what is achieved will be lost.
The wisdom of many
There is an opportunity here for donors to shift their responses from firefighting mode to investing in critical, holistic, long-term work. Efforts should be channeled towards currently underfunded strategies like grassroots organizing, litigation and legal aid, to mention just a few. Here is where professionals with experience in grassroots activism can provide intersectional perspectives and strategic guidance on how to better respond to changing circumstances, without creating competition among different issues and groups. More funders should engage advisors with activist backgrounds because they understand the interconnectedness of various struggles. Such actors have the experience of being on the frontlines and also serving in various organizations and international bodies, which brings an understanding of different demands on both ends and the wisdom of meeting both without jeopardizing one side.
Coordinate with other donors to cover the whole of social and environmental issues
Learn from people on the ground instead of coming with pre-cooked "solutions", and co-design meaningful resourcing programs
Don't ask people to tick the boxes; use intersectional lenses to understand the complexity of social issues and address different forms of oppression
Find adequate modalities to support various organizational forms, including informal collectives
Pay attention to the power dynamics on the ground and find ways to include the margins
Avoid ageism – there is no "too young" to be supported, and also don't leave behind those who are no more young
Establish agile and accessible procedures, so those who are not proficient in one of the colonial languages nor equipped to deal with overwhelming bureaucratic procedures can also access needed support
Roll up the sleeves along with the people on the field and stay for a long haul.
The bar is raised. The stakes are high. The main tasks in front of the donor community are to provide comprehensive funding, and to be accessible and accountable to the people on the ground. And this is only possible by listening to grassroots voices that can point to the minefields and shepherd the process of co-creating comprehensive approaches. Progressive social change depends on collaboration and coordinated resourcing done wisely.