Democracy’s Unelected Defenders
Foundations are structurally undemocratic. But in an era of retreat and attack, they’re being cast, accurately or not, as the defense against the dark arts. (Except for the Death Eater ones.)
I sat in a conference session this week titled “Funders’ Role in Defending Democracy” and found myself wrestling with a tension the panel never quite named. It’s the cognitive dissonance that arises when foundations, some of the least democratic institutions in civil society, position themselves as defenders of democracy.
In this particular session, what I heard was largely a defence of progressive values (values I share). Defence against the dark arts?
But it left me wondering: isn't democracy broader than that? If we define defending democracy solely through a progressive lens, where does that leave pluralism? After all, Project 2025 is also being presented as a bold, coordinated vision for the future, crafted through aligned actors, donor-supported research, and policy infrastructure. Was that not, by some definition, a co-created and transparent effort to shape a democratic agenda? Are Death Eaters people, too?
To be clear: many foundations are earnest in their efforts. Foundations fund civic education, journalism, legal advocacy, election reform, and the protection of rights. They support progressive policy goals in a world that often feels like it’s sliding backwards. Conservative foundations fund these issues as well.
Within that framing, the contradiction is hard to ignore. If defending democracy becomes synonymous with defending a single ideological perspective, we risk losing the pluralism that democracy requires. Foundations may be trying to protect the system, but they also have to reckon with how they're shaping it and who gets to belong in it.
NGOs Gone Wild
Then yesterday, we had this reality check.
The U.S. House hearing titled “NGOs Gone Wild” was less about oversight and more about airing political grievances. While framed as a review of nonprofits in public life, it quickly turned into a one-sided attack on civil society, especially support for racial justice, climate action, and democratic participation.
Witnesses were chosen to back a narrative that nonprofits are politically biased, and lawmakers used the hearing to suggest, without real evidence, that charitable dollars are fueling partisan agendas. As The Chronicle of Philanthropy noted, the hearing lacked basic fairness and cast entire parts of civil society as suspicious. It wasn’t a serious discussion about nonprofit accountability; it was a warning sign of how political power can be used to silence dissent and discredit civil society.
When congressional leaders are using tabloid headlines to attack civil society, we may have to stop expecting principled defences of democracy to come from the floor of the House. So the question is: who or what is left to defend it?
Let’s funnel more money?
Meanwhile, north of the border, there are signals that Canada may be setting the stage for even more capital to flow into philanthropy. In the orbit of Mark Carney’s policy circles and social strategies, there's talk of incentives to unlock wealthy assets for the public good. The logic: more money into philanthropy equals more progress.
I’m not opposed to more funding. Let’s be clear: civil society needs resources. But what often happens is predictable. Money flows into institutions, such as foundation endowments, and activity ramps up; then, the legitimacy questions start again.
Why them? Who decides? What’s the mandate?
How to (Actually) Defend Against the Dark Arts
Beyond these familiar legitimacy proxies, such as disbursement quotas, endowment spending, impact investing, or claims of non-partisanship, foundations must confront a more fundamental question: What does it mean to be part of civil society?
That’s the real work of legitimacy, not ticking boxes or building dashboards, but getting clear on what foundations are actually here for.
As philanthropy grows, whether to fill gaps left by government or to give new wealth a sense of purpose, we need to name foundations as part of civil society. That shift grounds them in public responsibility, not just private ambition.
As Ingrid Srinath recently reminded us:
“The only long-term guarantee of protection for civil society actors is a strong sense of ownership from their publics.”
For foundations, this means the public needs to understand not only the outputs but also the orientation behind what they do. Not just how much they spend, but why they exist.
Without that, the critiques will continue. Rightfully so.
Back to where we started
And here we are, back where we started: with the foundation-as-saviour narrative on one hand and a growing critique of elite-driven solutions on the other.
If foundations are to play a meaningful role in defending democracy, they’ll need to take their paradox seriously. I’d like to see that reckoning brought to the surface. No more hiding behind legitimacy proxies. Maybe it starts with something as simple (and as uncomfortable) as a panel titled: Trust Us, We’re Not Elected: The Legitimacy Paradox of Foundations, not as performance, but as purpose. An honest account of how foundations understand their role in civil society. Their purpose, approach, and roles.
Calling foundations in: There are no lone heroes, only institutions and individuals willing to show up in the public square. Will our unelected defenders show up with pluralism in mind, or remain above it all, sealed off in their ideological silos?