QUELLING UNREST/
RELEASING PRESSURE
This may make addressing the divisions within society sound like an overwhelming task and hence an unappealing
prospect for philanthropists, but any reluctance must be put to one side. Firstly because it is in addressing such
challenging and potentially awkward issues that philanthropy really proves its worth. And secondly, because the
opportunity cost of not addressing these divisions is potentially so great. Winston Churchill put this starkly in a speech
during his time as a Liberal:
“The greatest danger to the British people is not to be found among the enormous fleets and armies of the
European continent... It is here, close at home, close at hand in the vast growing cities of England and Scotland,
and in the dwindling and cramped villages of our denuded countryside. It is here that you will find the seeds
of imperial ruin and national decay – the unnatural gap between rich and poor, the divorce of the people from
the land, the want of proper training, and discipline in our youth, the awful jumbles of an obsolete Poor Law, the
constant insecurity in the means of subsistence and employment... Here are the enemies of Britain. Beware lest
they shatter the foundations of their power.”
[6]
Fear of unrest as a motivation for philanthropy has been around for hundreds of years. Thomas Barnardo (the founder
of the children’s charity which still bears his name) even made it a central plank of his fundraising strategy, arguing that
“every boy rescued from the gutter... is one dangerous man the less”
and that he feared there would come a time
“when
this seething mass of human misery will shake the social fabric, unless we grapple with it more earnestly than we have
yet done.”
[7]
But is philanthropy in any way an effective tool for quelling unrest? Many wealthy donors in the past thought that their
beneficence would by itself solve the problem, because the poor would be so struck with gratitude that they would forget
their concerns about inequality and go peacefully on their way. However, this seems like a rather naïve and patronising
view, and any modern philanthropist who thinks that their generosity will, in and of itself, be enough to overcome resent
and division is in for a nasty shock.
That is not to say that philanthropy cannot play a part in quieting unrest,
but rather that this will not simply happen automatically: the causes
supported and the approach taken are absolutely vital. For one thing,
it may not simply be about supporting causes which seek to convince
the world of your own views: instead it may be necessary to support
organisations which offer a constructive way for those on the other side of
the argument to channel their concerns so that they do not spill over into
vitriol and even violence.
Acting as a “pressure relief valve” in this way is one of the most important
functions of civil society, but one that is often not fully appreciated by
governments and others, who instead mistakenly try to repress civil
society and stifle its voice and are then surprised when people turn
to demonstrations and riots to vent their anger. My colleague Adam
Pickering, International Programme Manager at CAF, has previously
written about this situation playing out in Egypt in a piece for the
New Statesman. [8]
In order for civil society to play this role as a pressure relief valve for dissent, two things are absolutely vital. The first
is that there is a plurality of organisations representing the full range of view points within society. The second is
that those organisations are able to engage in political discourse (with a small ‘p’) in order to highlight concerns and
challenge public opinion and government policy, and that arbitrary or unwarranted restrictions on their right to speak
up are not imposed. That is why the current global trend of the ‘closing space for civil society’, in which governments
seek to curb the voice of CSOs is so worrying. And it is already a problem in many countries; including the UK – at CAF
we have previously explored the impact of recent changes in legislation and policy on charities’ right to campaign
and found cause for concern. [9]