Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Democracy Donors: Let's Make Lemonade Out Of Lemons

The gauntlet has been thrown: People want change

Opinion

Democracy Donors: Let's Make Lemonade Out Of Lemons
people holding us a flag during daytime
Photo by Dyana Wing So on Unsplash

The United States, once hailed as the world’s foremost pioneer of democracy, has lost its luster. In recent decades, complacency about its hallowed status has blunted the American establishment’s reckoning with our country’s democratic deterioration, fueled widespread disenchantment with the system, and paved the way for an authoritarian turn.

The first quarter of the 21st century has been marked by accelerating change, disquiet, and tumult. On the right and the left, among institutionalists and populists alike, people are signaling that the way democracy is practiced today isn’t meeting their needs. Nearly three-quarters of American voters don’t think their country is a good example of democratic governance.


The 2024 election results in the U.S. mirrored those in other liberal democracies: the incumbent candidate was rejected in favor of a populist disruptor with an authoritarian tilt. While these outcomes undeniably pose a serious threat to democracy, they must also be seen as presenting an unrivaled opportunity to lay the groundwork for democratic renewal and transformation, something that is sorely needed and too meekly confronted. Philanthropic actors are in a position to provide that nurture. To do so, however, they will need to rebalance their priorities.

Defense is necessary but insufficient

The cascade of actions that disregard democratic norms and practices, attack the administrative state, and challenge the separation of powers merit a robust response from pro-democracy actors. They will face pressure to react to every new shock to the system, as they have before.

Even before January, most philanthropic democracy funding had already been used to shore up existing institutions and electoral processes. This will mean even less mental space and fewer resources to identify opportunities for innovation and positive change amid all the chaos, disruption, and defensive responses, opportunities that ultimately will hold the key to making democracy work better.

The conundrum facing pro-democracy forces is protecting the foundational elements of our current democratic operating system while also renewing and reinvigorating our political and democratic practice with some much -needed system updates and applications. In other words, we must innovate, even as we selectively defend. And when we defend, we must also articulate a vision of what could be better, why it matters, and how it will affect people's daily lives.

Given the torrent of authoritarian and anti-democratic actions to respond to and the suboptimal nature of the status quo, donors will need to be more strategic, forward-thinking, and selective. They will need to refresh their strategies for a new era of disruption and use this democratic crisis to lay the groundwork for a version of democracy that will be broadly appealing to the public.

It’s widely taken for granted that the cornerstone of democracy is free and fair elections. In reality, though, democracy relies on so much more than elections (which, of course, can legitimately elect anti-democratic candidates). All too often neglected are several lanes of democracy work that focus on reinvigorating day-to-day democratic practice and changing how the public experiences a democratic form of government.

The U.S. federalist structure, which gives considerable power and authority to states and localities, creates opportunities for strengthening democracy at the subnational level, even under a presidency bent on weakening democratic institutions. It is, therefore, essential to cultivate democratic innovation at the state and local level while capitalizing where possible on select opportunities for national innovation.

Innovative efforts exist but need to be woven together

The good news is that ma ny actors are already advancing innovative strategies to reform and transform how we experience and practice democracy. Collectively, their work presents an opportunity to improve representation and access, amplify voice and agency, restore trust, strengthen our collective connective tissue, model successful problem-solving, create incentives for long-term thinking in politics, and improve government effectiveness. These are some of the areas that are ripe for expansion and support:

  • Use of technology to give a greater voice to the people and improve government effectiveness and performance, for example, by creating accessible platforms for engagement and channeling artificial intelligence to improve feedback mechanisms and enhance existing processes and delivery of services

Alongside these efforts, developing social infrastructure to improve cohesion, create shared understandings and aspirations, reduce polarization, and counter mis- and disinformation is critical. This could include community media, civic renewal initiatives, social media platforms, pro-social narrative content like speculative fiction that imagines how innovations could change democratic practice, and a TV series that shows us what a more positive future could be.

How Democracy Funders Can Help

In this unstable and rapidly changing environment, donors need to innovate to support democratic innovation and this emerging ecosystem of actors. As explained in Democracy Funders Network’s recent publication, transformational times call for fresh thinking and bold action. Donors need to be nimble and curious, humble about what they do and don’t know, take more risks, experiment and iterate, and be willing to fail to succeed. In short, donors must truly inhabit the “good ancestor” role by leveraging their assets, long lifespan, and independence for collective well-being.

Suzette Brooks Masters is a Senior Fellow at Democracy Funders Network, where she focuses on democratic innovation and renewal.


Read More

White House
A third party candidate has never won the White House, but there are two ways to examine the current political situation, writes Anderson.
DEA/M. BORCHI/Getty Images

250 Years of Presidential Scandals: From Harding’s Oil Bribes to Trump’s Criminal Conviction

During the 250 years of America’s existence, whenever a scandal involving the U.S. President occurred, the public was shocked and dismayed. When presidential scandals erupt, faith and trust in America – by its citizens as well as allies throughout the world – is lost and takes decades to redeem.

Below are several of the more prominent presidential scandals, followed by a suggestion as to how "We the People" can make America truly America again like our founding fathers so eloquently established in the constitution.

Keep ReadingShow less
How Gavin Newsom’s Prop 50 is Reshaping California - For Better or For Worse
Getty Images, Mario Tama

How Gavin Newsom’s Prop 50 is Reshaping California - For Better or For Worse

Prop 50 is redrawing California’s political battlefield, sparking new fears of gerrymandering, backroom mapmaking, and voters losing their voice. We cut through the spin to explain what’s really changing, who benefits, and what it could mean for competitive elections, election reform, and independent voters. Plus, Independent CA-40 candidate Nina Linh joins us to spell out how Prop 50’s map shifts are already reshaping her district - and her race.

Keep ReadingShow less
Texas redistricting map
A map of new Texas Senate districts can be seen on a desk in the Legislature.
Tamir Kalifa/Getty Images

SCOTUS Upholds Texas Map, Escalates Gerrymandering Crisis

In the closing weeks of 2025, a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court moved our democracy in the wrong direction by clearing the way for a gerrymandered congressional map in Texas to be in place for the 2026 midterm elections in its Abbott v. LULAC decision. Aside from the fact that the new Texas map illegally discriminates to weaken the voting power of the state’s Black and Latino voters, the Supreme Court’s ruling is deeply problematic on a number of other levels.

Most disturbingly, the majority in this opinion takes an appalling new turn on the issue of partisan gerrymandering. To illustrate the Court’s backward slide, consider that in 2004 then-Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote as a concurrence to an opinion in a key redistricting case that, if a state declared it would redistrict with the goal of denying a certain group of voters “fair and effective representation” for partisan reasons, then the Court “would surely conclude the Constitution had been violated.”

Keep ReadingShow less