We need to face some uncomfortable truths about how our behavior is undermining the claims of philanthropy to be a legitimate force for good in the world.

This article draws inspiration from the work of Naila Farouky, CEO and Executive Director of Arab Foundations Forum, who is due to  give a  keynote address at the Fifth African Philanthropy Conference in Zimbabwe that begins today.  Judging from her recent excoriation of the sector for its performance on Gaza, we must begin a conversation about what she has to say.

In the article, Naila Farouky challenges philanthropy and development aid on two counts.  The first is its poor logistical response:

‘Traditional avenues of aid are failing to meet the acute needs of the Gazan population, who are grappling with the immediate challenges of survival and displacement in the face of insurmountable violence, forced starvation, and the demolition of hospitals and places of worship.’

The second is the conspiracy of silence in discussing Gaza:

‘Much of philanthropy’s failure to effectively address the crisis is rooted in this silence – a silence steeped in colonialist, supremacist, and racist ideology. That ideology runs so strong in our sector that many of those who oppose it are too afraid to speak up in Gaza’s defense – and some have even dared to ask me and many others to remain silent or face professional consequences. Threats we have defiantly ignored.’

‘The mismatch between what people say and what they do matters because it drives a strong sense of inauthenticity in the sector. Our reluctance to admit failure means that truth is obscured, and we get silence on critical issues such as Gaza’

The article makes uncomfortable reading for those of us sitting in comfortable offices in the North.  It is yet another wake up call for the sector – this time about how it buries its head in the sand and refuses to examine its failures – both logistical and moral.

The evidence of our failure is everywhere.  For example, the billing for the second day of the Stockholm Forum on Peace and Development on 7 May 2024 stated:

‘Conflicts are escalating. Humanitarian needs are soaring. But at the same time, development funding is being cut, and trust is low in institutions designed to ensure peace and security. Those working on the ground in fragile and conflict-affected settings are openly questioning whether today’s humanitarian, development and peacebuilding systems are breaking or may even already be broken.’

So, what are we doing about it?  The answer, so far as I can see,  is very little.  We regress into safety, ignore the elephants in the room, and follow the cyclical pattern of developing projects, talking on Zoom calls, attending conferences, and presenting our work without ever getting down to the nitty gritty of whether what we are doing makes any difference or not.

In the process, we fail to spot the gap between what we say and what we do.  Evidence suggests that this is a big problem.  In a series of studies for Philanthropy for Social Justice and Peace Selim Iltus and I unwittingly unmasked the extent of cognitive dissonance in philanthropy.

For example, in a study on risk in philanthropy, we found that 94 per cent of foundations agreed with the statement that ‘foundations have a responsibility to take risks in their programming decisions’, while the proportion that agreed that they would ‘take risks that could result in negative public relations’ was 31 per cent. The equivalent proportion that would ‘take risks that could result in damaging its relations with government’ was 30 per cent, and the proportion willing to ‘take risks that could result in loss of capital due to programme investments’ was just 19 per cent. A sector that says risk is part of its core purpose turns out to be highly risk averse in practice.

We found similar results where we asked people what would turn their foundation from a good foundation to a great foundation and then compared results with their institutional attitudes and behaviour.  The gap was so big that, when we presented the results, we joked that we could  develop  a ‘hypocrisy index’.

The mismatch between what people say and what they do matters because it drives a strong sense of inauthenticity in the sector. Our reluctance to admit failure means that truth is obscured, and we get silence on critical issues such as Gaza.  We resort to high flown abstract language detached from the ordinary lives of most people.  Anand Giridharadas notes:

‘… there are terms such as “social impact” and “social venture capital” and “impact investing”. They are ways of encouraging us not to use words like “power” and “justice” and “dignity”. They are an attempt to make us not speak about unions and taxes.’

Rather than living in a fantasy bubble, where we believe that we are the moral arbiters of what should happen in the world,  we must face the shadows that are within us and recognize that we are all complicit in some of the problems that are actually occurring.

To make progress, we need to have different kinds of conversations – particularly ones that allow us to admit our vulnerabilities.  This involves purging the performative culture that pervades our sector because our usual tools of strategies, plans, policies, and action plans often do not serve us well when we work with emergence and ambiguity.

There are some examples where a more creative approach is already happening.  One such approach is described in Mindset Matters. This demonstrates the power of an action learning set that enables people:

‘…to practise curiosity, to practise holding different perspectives, and to offer each other a safe, brave space in which to acknowledge the multiple ways in which transformation is hard: personally, and professionally.’

Such an approach may help us to reach the goal that Naila Farouky identifies in her article:

‘There are other solutions – we just need to find them. As we navigate these complex dynamics, the ultimate goal is clear: to transform the philanthropic landscape in a way that truly serves humanity in its moments of greatest need.’

In the next phase of our work on Reforming International Development, we will follow this goal and suggest ways in which different kind of conversations can achieve it.

Barry Knight is Secretary to the Trustees of Centris, Adviser to the Global Fund for Community Foundations, and a Member of the Management Team of Philanthropy for Social Justice and Peace