Strengthening Democracy: Philanthropy’s Role in Building Agency and Participation
By Janet Love, Vice-Chairperson, Independent Electoral Commission (IEC)
Perceptions about democracy and voting
South Africa’s democracy was won at great cost, and the right to vote in free and fair multi-party elections remains its most visible achievement. With the country heading for the polls in the local government elections on 4 November, that right is being tested. The IEC’s 2026 Voter Participation Survey shows that many citizens still see voting as a civic duty, but support for democracy as the preferred system of governance has declined, and trust in core institutions, including the Electoral Commission itself, is at historic lows. In a country where poverty, unemployment, and inequality remain deeply entrenched, the message from non-voters is clear: democracy will not command loyalty on principle alone. It must deliver a tangible dividend, and it must be felt most immediately in the local sphere of government, where people judge for themselves whether their participation makes a difference to their lives.
Dissatisfaction with democratic functioning and local service delivery has deepened, and a notable proportion of non-voters attribute their political disengagement, disillusionment, and abstention to the lack of tangible democratic dividends they experience. These findings are significant, and they are concerning.
Democracy is under threat and multi-party elections are one of its key components as they provide the primary opportunity for citizens to choose their leaders, express their policy preferences, opt for the programmes they believe will assist them and identify their priorities. The content of these choices is often not as clear as it ought to be – a key reason being that personality politics stands in the way of any exchange of ideas. Party manifestos rarely constitute a frame of reference and promises made, are seldom accompanied with any information that indicates how and when promises will be realised. Philanthropy has supported several important initiatives, including to promote participation in elections, to provide information to citizens about elections, to enable confidence in the process through citizen election observation, and to combat digital disinformation. However, even those who have thrown their weight and energy into these endeavours, acknowledge that at the heart of popular disenchantment with South Africa’s hard won right to vote in free and fair elections, is the lack of conviction that voting will make a difference.
Fragile conditions for democratic success
Democracy is not a ‘silver bullet’ that necessarily realises the tangible benefits for most citizens that are needed for any system of government to sustain popular support. Effective statecraft with appropriate planning, monitoring, adjustments; checks and balances against abuse of power, including a constitutional framework and independent judiciary, also need to be met. Importantly, the essence of democracy’s potential for success lies in its inclusion of and participation by those who are governed, in-between regular elections. This is easier said than done.
There are processes and systems that are codified in law to enable popular involvement in governance: School Governing Bodies, Integrated Development Planning, Ward Committees, Community Police Forums – to name a few. While several citizens step forward and engage in these structures, and others contribute through civil society organisation and faith-based initiatives, the numbers are relatively low.
Any assumption or hope that a significant proportion of those who are disillusioned will take on the further burdens of civic responsibility does not grapple with the insecurity of unemployment, homelessness, and hunger. The chains of poverty are very heavy to bear. This is a key reason for the shrinkage of civic organisation in all its forms.
Philanthropic investment and electoral outcomes
In this context, philanthropy embodies contradiction: on the one hand, it is the manifestation of how wealth and its associated power has been accumulated without democratic agency; and, on the other, it represents the opportunity that this wealth and power can provide – albeit from structures and individuals whose power does not derive from popular support. Of the very few in our society who have amassed significant wealth, some individuals seek to use a portion of that wealth in the interests of the common good and seek to support democracy including through grant funding of and, to establish more sustainable financing mechanisms, through investments in social justice, education, and entrepreneurial programmes.
This takes us to the question of how such grants and investments protect and advance democracy – that is, the securing a belief by most citizens that choosing one’s representatives in regular, multi-party elections enables a better life. Globally, democracy is in recession. The framework of human rights, international cooperation, and commitment to the well-being of all people cannot be taken for granted. This lies at the heart of the uncertainty of our world.
If democracy as a system of governance is to be defended, then there needs to be a focus on how philanthropic choices enable electoral outcomes to support the realisation of tangible benefits through local participation. Put differently, initiatives to promote the social good that run completely outside of elected government’s programmes may provide benefits and short-term relief but are unlikely to contribute to government that is for the people, by the people and of the people.
The democratic dividend
Protecting democracy means ensuring not only that citizens make informed choices and vote, but also that voters are enabled to experience how their participation in governance processes and structures can realise direct benefits. There are many examples and possibilities. School feeding schemes are sponsored through the fiscus. They have the additional potential to promote food gardens of local residents whose efforts could be supported by non-government organisations to enable the provision of this paid service to schools. Initially this was the basis and practice of these schemes. During the significant support for education that has come from the philanthropic sector, poverty was not necessarily the focal point and this potential for employment received little, if any, attention.
While the various government programmes relating to the construction of RDP houses provided beneficiaries with shelter and some relief, this was and remains an opportunity to use the associated fiscal resources to support development of housing and associated infrastructure that depends on the labour and financially supports those who will live in the houses. The infrastructure planning, technical support, and the bulk sourcing of materials are examples of complementary services that philanthropy sponsored a few decades ago and seem to have lost their sheen.
The critical point is that without the experience of one’s own agency, there is rarely a possibility for any person to obtain a realistic understanding of what democracy is about and to take hold of the potential of participation in government planning and implementation. The importance of the civic ecosystem need not be detached from participation in government programmes and the integration of government’s investment in citizens. This not only has the potential to take initiatives to scale but also provides a basis for citizens to realise the potential democratic dividend that participation in democracy ought to provide.
Opportunities for funders
Today, there are significant opportunities, including through digital inclusion, that offer additional scope and can be supported to enable citizens to exercise personal agency and access the dignity of work as the primary, direct benefit from elected government structures. Education, knowledge, laws, and systems are the ‘raw materials’ which need to be turned into immediate democratic gains for people who do not have jobs and cannot depend on others – including government – to provide them. Recognising undervalued work – for example in relation to homebased healthcare and recycling – with philanthropic support could be connected to corporate activity and government programmes to a far greater extent and involving more flexibility than what is currently in place. Philanthropy can support new voices that challenge established methodologies with a range of innovations thereby contributing to strengthening government and enhancing government , while at the same time promoting a better balance between materialism social value in the ‘for profit’ sector.
The deep-rooted, structural inequality that persists in South Africa is unique in form but not in the widening gap between rich and poor throughout the world and the alienation of young people from elections. Local government is the most immediate sphere of experience that citizens have of democratic governance. If it does not work, faith in democracy will dissipate further. In addition, monitoring the work within the local elected structures – including Ward Committees – planning and implementation is supposed to be accompanied by civic engagement. But often the reality falls short of anything meaningful causing the energy of civic organisations to dissipate. However, initiatives that monitor the plans, and disseminate information regularly through local formal and informal communication platforms are very important to support.
In between government elections, there are initiatives within schools and tertiary institutions dealing with election of representative structures and curricula that are vital to support. To the extent that philanthropy seeks to support democracy, it is important to look beyond elections and to address making democracy work. This implies accepting those elected by the people and supporting initiatives in whatever forms including cooperatives and other community structures that enable people to engage with and in government delivery in a manner that promotes the innovation, individual agency and income generation potential of the majority who are poor.
About the Voter Participation Survey
Ahead of every general election, the Electoral Commission organises for an independent survey of adults in South Africa to be conducted to ascertain key issues and attitudes that are likely to impact on the organisation of the elections. This Voter Participation Survey includes the views of people who have previously voted as well as those who have not and serves as an important indicator of public sentiment.
Conducted by the Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC), the study draws on a sample of citizens aged 16 years and older, residing in private households across all nine provinces. A total of 500 Small Area Layers (SALs) were selected using Statistics South Africa’s census geography as the sampling framework, with 3,500 addresses issued.[1] SLAs assist with the identification of demographic trends at neighbourhood, suburb, or village level.
The results of the survey were released by the Commission in March 2026.
[1] https://www.elections.org.za/content/Documents/Research-and-Statistics/Voter-Participation-Surveys/IEC-Voter-Participation-Survey-2026/