A funder recently told me how they do not work on ”identity politics.” I was confused by this because we both acknowledged that civil society is in crisis. Most especially, with the recent economic reprisals experienced by civil society. Including to my organization Success Capital that have led us to take a government health agency to court.
The pushback against identity politics means being colour blind and “objective”, and inevitably implies centering privilege and whiteness. As opposed to co-existing in the diversity of groups. What is deemed acceptable, “inclusive” and standard is any “proximity to whiteness.” Silk pressed hair, tone in messaging and decorum in public. Ironically, anti-rights and anti-gender movements deploy the same tactics in pushing back against human rights gains. History reflects how deeply violent white institutions and social structures became whenever there was progress for people of colour.
I thought it regressive to reduce certain broad-based movements into the narrative of “identity politics”, often weaponized by anti-rights groups. Our identity politics acknowledge people’s differences and affirms their existence in organizing and solidarity action. It is not about division but about enabling marginalized groups to move beyond isolated struggles toward collective liberation. Meeting the complexity of issues where there are, rather than just intellectualizing or co-opting them.
The framing of identity politics by those against it drives a wedge to destabilize and distract us from owning our agency and collective organizing. As ownership implies relevance, authenticity and sustained struggle because those affected are involved. I am inclined to think that those who are deterred by – and opposed to – the framing of issues as identity politics are not used to living in the margins. They cannot decenter themselves in anything that exists or works without them. Instead, they want to impose and ensure that they matter and are considered as the world works and centers them. So, they insist that we must align with them. That we must meet their standards, shape our narratives, work in line with their strategies and their narrow views.
I am inclined to think that those who are deterred by – and opposed to – the framing of issues as identity politics are not used to living in the margins.
Alternative spaces of solidarity and imagination exist among those most impacted by injustices and inequities. Donor needs assessments and conventional civil society theories of change are assumed as the only spaces for critical thinking. This is a form of violence. It undermines our critique, agency and adaptability within our own lives and contexts. These assessments and theories rely on statistics and historical knowledge conceptualization that never included diverse groups – because they were blind to identity politics. The narrative was never about diverse groups, but rather the benefactor and owner of the narrative. Any development or civil society intervention that isn’t created, and contributed to, by an affected community, cannot be owned by said community. All this happens as we continue to endure stigma, discrimination, gaslighting, underemployment, a lack of social protections, health inequity, reprisals and/or sexual harassment.
Philanthropy is in control: it shapes ecosystems by enabling just enough civil society networks and organizations that align with its strategy. In a learning or work environment, this would be considered “groupthink.” Each player has a defined role, and if fortunate, is supported within a set timeframe. Creativity, disruption and imagination cannot be pre-determined or confined. Yet rigid controls and success metrics are prioritized in the support granted. It reminds me of the Bechuanaland Protectorate, where three chiefs negotiated for British protection against the Boers and other colonizers. No creativity or imagination could occur under such conditions, let alone colonial rule. Yet, we had the ”support”, were allowed to keep our traditional governance systems but always needed permission from the Empire. Creativity and imagination cannot occur when control and influence comes with ”support.” This is why Botswana struggles with economic diversification and high inequities 59 years after independence.
Creativity, strategizing and solidarity only in authenticity. This is the essence of activism: flawed, deeply human and impossible to package neatly. A pursuit of joy and serenity in meaningful work. Rather than a system built for the convenience of funders and enablers who set up barriers that take time and space away from us. For example, I have received funding from three different intermediaries for work designed and controlled by one bilateral funder. This alone reflects how artificial barriers create a demand for productivity whilst extracting as much time as possible, as a grassroots actor navigates three different donors reports, reviews and stakeholders from one source of funding. The value chain leaves most of the risk, productivity and impact (good or bad) below the hierarchy – yet the value in influence and returns grow exponentially as one moves upstream.
Philanthropy is in control: it shapes ecosystems by enabling just enough civil society networks and organizations that align with its strategy.
The prioritization of efficiency and effectiveness fails us. Our shared humanity and worries lie in relationships and proximity to the frontlines. As Kim Stanley Robinson stated: “Efficiency was just a measurement of how fast money moved from the poor to the rich. We prefer the opposite…justice.” Justice is never the norm: it’s inconvenient, costly and disrupts unequal systems. For instance, it’s risky to align with movements, as seen when the Kenyan government targeted the Ford Foundation while simultaneously granting the Gates Foundation diplomatic privileges. In other contexts, movements must navigate regressive and over-regulating countries like Mali and Zimbabwe which historically relied on neo-colonial donor systems for development and economic growth. While philanthropy is rarely named as part of these systems, it increasingly functions as a parallel hierarchy. As traditional aid structures erode, philanthropic networks – dominated by Western elites and NGOs – step in to fill the gap, often replicating the same colonial hierarchies they claim to dismantle.
There is no perfection in creating change, just as there isn’t in creating art. Philanthropic practitioners must sit with the discomfort of decentering themselves. Across the world systems continue to fail the social contracts they were meant to uphold; from the Sustainable Development Goals to national policies and legal frameworks. Understanding the full picture won’t change the realities of lived experiences and injustices around the world. But how resources are deployed can make all the difference. Any gardener will acknowledge that all flora, fauna and living organisms have distinct roles to play in the beauty of a blooming garden. The thorn on a rose, the weed beside a dandelion, the bee that stings when provoked but pollinates in excellence, and the spinach that nourishes when plucked. All coexist, each deserving of sunlight [read sunshine] without limit. Each contributes its natural resources, as activists do in their own agency and right. Acknowledging alternative thinking, strategizing and organizing in solidarity to their realities. After each storm, all can look up to the sunlight and rainbow. Activism is an art that requires freedom. As Nina Simone defined it: “Freedom is no fear.” If the conditions of your enablement elicit fear at any point of design, implementation, reporting, or learning, is it truly liberating?
Dumi Gatsha (they/them) is the first ever gender diverse parliamentary candidate in Botswana, former facilitator of the #ShiftThePower UK Funders Collective and founder of Success Capital, a grassroots organisation working in the nexus of human rights and sustainable development. Part 1 of this blog was previously published here.