The Democracy Space Needs More Than Defense

The notion of defending our status quo as a field, while meaningful, feels incomplete.

The last few months have undoubtedly been difficult for those of us who work at the intersection of democracy and philanthropy. Some of us have found ourselves facing external political threats, while others are fighting tooth and nail for the necessary funding to keep the doors open.

While I am encouraged by the way our space has courageously come together to “defend” our work and collective impact in this moment, I do wonder if we’re missing a broader opportunity.

The notion of defending our status quo as a field, while meaningful, feels incomplete.

The moment we are in is certainly unique, but the harsh reality is that our democracy has been fraying for quite a while. We would be remiss if we did not use this moment of great debate to examine our own role in that reality as a field.

85 million eligible Americans did not vote in last year’s General Election. Whether at the federal, state, county, or local level, most Americans are simply not consistent voters. And that’s just the surface: Only 66% of Americans can name all three branches of government. Then, there are the many other components of civic engagement for which we don’t have strong data or collection practices.

What percentage of Americans attend their local city or town council meetings?

How many have spoken at one? The list goes on.

Sure, taken individually, these points might seem negligible, but to me, they tell a compelling story of a democracy and, consequentially, a civic society that has lost its way.

The decline of American civic engagement is not the fault of our community alone as practitioners. However, as leaders, organizations, and funders in the democracy space, we must be honest that simply defending our status quo is insufficient.

Our program models, funding paradigms, and discourse have been insufficient.

Too many people have been left behind.

We’ve spent far too much time trying to diagnose “what’s wrong” with young people, low-income folks, pick your category, and not enough time asking what might be wrong with us.

I’ve spent the last few years as a Black, male, non-profit leader in the democracy space. As I traveled around to “all the things,” I was consistently floored by how insular our field has become.

There is a lack of representation in the rooms of dialogue, power, and decision-making, not simply along the lines of race but also along the lines of class, age, location, and perspective.

I’m amazed at how many ideas and leaders go unheard and under-resourced because of the high barriers to entry into the field and the misplaced partiality we give to longevity (and familiarity) over innovation.

Certainly, there are spaces in our field where there is diversity (yes, I said that word) of thought, where there are new leaders and fresh ideas, but we should all agree that there is not enough.

The consequence is that our efficacy suffers. Our ability to create dynamic and responsive programming and funding models is blunted. We create dangerous echo chambers. We unknowingly contract our field while trying to solve issues that grow more expansive daily.

If we are to meet this moment as a field, we need brave new ideas, voices, and lived experiences.

Despite the rhetoric, there is indeed great value in diversity, and we should not shy away from it.

Our orientation as a field must be unapologetically about growing and opening ourselves as a means of growing our very democracy and, in turn, saving it.

Thanks to the advocacy efforts of many, the philanthropic democracy sector is as large as it’s ever been and will hopefully soon be as resourced as it ever has been. Now is the time to be bold and courageous about our deficiencies as a field and what we plan to do to overcome them.

How can we create room for others? Lots of them.

Vast segments of our country still need to be brought into our democracy. A new generation needs our support in understanding the intrinsic value of democracy and civic participation. The voices of far too many people are missing from the conversations at the local, state, and federal levels of our country.

This is the work we are uniquely suited to do.

But we have to start from a place of humility and curiosity, knowing that what we are trying to save and defend has not been and is not enough.

Our country has changed, and we must as well with a great sense of urgency. Our best and most effective days are still ahead of us.