Can Philanthropy Step Up for Gender-Inclusive Democracy?

A recent Devex Report looked at whether, and how, other types of funding mechanisms might fill the gap left in international development assistance as USAID merges with the State Department and assistance spending is estimated to decrease by close to $60 billion. The report discussed four potential sources of funding that could be considered, including non-USG government donors, multilateral development banks, philanthropic capital, and engaging with innovative finance. This question about whether it’s possible to replace USAID funding with alternatives is critical and one many people working in the development sector have been thinking about. 

That said, it is necessary to take this a step further and wonder if all types of development assistance can be replaced in the same way or through the same kinds of funding sources. In particular, are any of the options Devex explored able to realistically replace the financial (and technical support) USG and its implementing partners historically provided for democracy aid (90% of DRG aid in 2023 came from USAID and State)? Unlike other development sectors, democracy and governance work may be one of the hardest areas to secure alternative funding for, largely because of its inherently political nature. This includes activities like multi-party candidate training, support for non-partisan citizen election observers, cross-party parliamentary strengthening, and assistance for peace and political transitions, all of which engage directly with a country’s political systems and actors, and therefore depend heavily on recipients' trust in and the legitimacy of the donor and implementor. And while it’s still unclear whether democracy aid will remain at least a part of the USG foreign policy agenda, the termination of key democracy funding agreements makes clear that the global democracy assistance sector will need to identify new and diverse sources of support should there be a desire for the work to continue at the same scale. 

One area of democracy work that has consistently needed to seek alternative and additional sources of funding is the effort to advance gender inclusive democracy. While traditional democracy donors have increasingly acknowledged the importance of supporting women’s civic and political leadership, and of driving systemic change to make political systems more inclusive, this remains one of the lesser funded areas within the broader democracy portfolio. As such, even before the current changes in USG development funding priorities, stakeholders working to advance gender inclusive democracy have tried to identify new and alternative funding sources, including long standing efforts to attract philanthropic and private sector investments. As the broader democracy sector grapples with the need to diversify its funding base, I wanted to share a few anecdotal lessons from efforts to attract private capital for gender focused democracy work. These are insights that may reflect what many in this space already know, but I hope they can help spark further and more nuanced conversations about which funding sources may be best suited to support this area within the wider push to sustain democracy assistance, as well as those focused on advancing gender equality and women's empowerment.

1. Philanthropic and private donors do invest in gender based democracy, human rights, and governance work. However, they have historically been more comfortable focusing on traditional gender based human rights issues, such as trafficking in persons and gender based violence. In contrast, they have typically shied away from programs that engage directly with political systems and structures that address political power, such as working with political parties to adopt formal rules aimed at increasing gender equality in political parties. This reticence is often driven by concerns about perceived political neutrality and the reputational risks associated with supporting initiatives involving political actors or processes. Foundations are wary of being viewed as partisan or having a political agenda, as this could jeopardize their ability to operate in certain countries. 
2. Even when investing in women’s leadership in public life, support for women’s political leadership, including party leaders, women electoral candidates, or elected women, is often not included. For example, the Gates Foundation's Women’s Leadership Program, which aims to accelerate women’s full participation in leadership at all levels of decision making, focuses on economic, legal, and health sector leadership but does not include women in political leadership. This is likely to avoid any risks associated with work that may be perceived as intentionally influencing political power. However, the challenge is that we are unlikely to see sustainable progress for women’s leadership in these other sectors if we don’t also address women’s political participation and leadership deficits. This is because the degree of decision making power women have in politics directly impacts the degree of gender equality and women's empowerment they have in other sectors as well. 
3. Even when philanthropic and private donor support is provided for women in overtly political roles, it often focuses on individual level interventions rather than on political processes and the rules that govern them. This typically includes things like capacity building, networking, or mentorship, which are valuable efforts, but insufficient to drive the systems level change needed to create the enabling environment required for women's political empowerment. Programs must also include targeted interventions to address barriers rooted in the formal and informal rules of political institutions, including civil society organizations, electoral management bodies, political parties, and elected bodies. This is necessary to truly shift political power structures at the root of women’s underrepresentation in politics.

I’ll end with a few questions I’ve been thinking about: What can be done to reduce the real or perceived risks for private sector engagement in democracy work? Would key stakeholders, such as political party leaders, transitional governments, or election administrators, be willing to work with private donors? Would they trust them? How can new donors build the trust and legitimacy needed to engage effectively? What role can longstanding implementers in the democracy assistance sector play in bridging that potential gap in trust and credibility between private donors and country partners? And finally, what should philanthropic and private sector actors consider to ensure their investments in democracy, especially gender inclusive democracy, are evidence based and technically sound? How can they leverage the extensive body of resources, lessons learned, and thought leadership in the sector?

The views expressed here are my own and do not reflect those of USAID or the U.S. government.

I am posting in a personal capacity.