Nonprofits and Revolutions
I have always thought of the nonprofit sector as a necessary component of capitalism. Because capitalism requires economic losers and even poverty. There can be no “winners” without “losers.” Wall Street and Main Street depend on losers. And, I was never that good in math, but it seems mathematically obvious that one cannot be rich unless someone else is poor. Capitalism therefore depends on poverty as much as losers. And nowadays, it seems that the number of poor people necessary for every rich person is only increasing.
Nonprofits serve one purpose but they have two effects in a capitalist system, one licit and one illicit perhaps. The purpose is to rescue people from need, especially but not only material need. Nonprofits raise people from need. But nonprofits have a second effect beyond relief of need. By relieving need, they also invariably perpetuate the socio-economic status quo. This is all high school taught political science so I am not claiming any great insight. By relieving revolutionary stress caused by the inevitability of losers and poverty, nonprofits reduce the chance of challenge to the socio-economic status quo. This is all high school tuaght political science (that I have oversimplified, I am sure) so I don’t claim any great insight. But it does force the question whether nonprofits are complicit in the perpetuation of a system that generates the very thing — material need — that nonprofits exist to eliminate.
“The Politics of Poverty: Elites, Citizens, and States” discusses the importance of civil organizations to stable, conflict free societies. The report notes that civil society addresses inequalities that fuel revolution, thereby giving disaffected people — those who economist refer to with cold amorality as “losers” — hope to participate in the market without resorting to revolution. Thinking about nonprofits from a political science standpoint perhaps helps draft laws, tax or otherwise, in a way to preserve or eliminate nonprofits’ role in passively preserving the status quo. We might, for example, severely restrict the extent to which nonprofits participate in the political process because we think that is counter to an unacknowledged view that nonprofits ultimately exist to support government. Our jurisprudence is not that far from the notion. Or we might greatly liberalize the extent to which nonprofits may be organized as “action organizations,” because while we want nonprofits to address immediate material want, we do not necessarily want them putting more bricks in the government’s edifice. So I am looking at material that describes nonprofit roles in maintaining the social compact. Here is an excerpt from the source linked above:
The research argues that the political settlement is central to all development; and one that does not exclude powerful players is more likely to prevent conflict. But settlements also need to work at the grass roots level, representing the interests of social groups. Security is a precondition for development; this is a matter of survival and must be prioritised in countries recovering from conflict. Evidence presented here shows that in countries where cultural or ethnic groups feel there is economic, political and social inequality, wars are more likely. The future face of insecurity is not restricted to civil wars – more and more people are dying in social violence, particularly in cities [Chapters 2, 3 and 4].
The research looks at how governments can become more inclusive, and therefore more stable. States that are accountable only to some groups or that do not regard some members of society as ‘citizens’ create inequalities that can fuel conflict. When citizens actively participate in society through local associations and movements outside the state, there are benefits to both state and society [Chapters 5 and 6].
The poor, more than any other group, rely on basic public services. For vulnerable families, access to education and healthcare are important routes out of poverty. The politics matters: services work better for the poor when poor citizens participate in reform of service delivery and the research looks at how this can be most effectively achieved. In conflict affected states the provision of services is very sensitive. Service delivery targeting excluded groups can reduce political tensions and improved security [Chapter 7].
DFID-funded research has made a key contribution in drawing attention to the importance of taxation in building effective states. Taxes, raised in ways that encourage economic growth and promote political accountability, build the political legitimacy of the state and offer the eventual ‘exit strategy from aid’. Tax revenues allow states to provide security and public services while prioritising their own (rather than donor) policy concerns. Tax reforms can encourage interest groups in society to mobilise politically – an important bargaining process between state and citizen-taxpayers who perceive they may have a genuine stake in better government [Chapter 8].
Economic growth allows people to escape cycles of poverty and countries to end dependency on aid. But the findings shown here question some of the blueprints donors recommend for achieving growth. Some of the most successful examples of rapid economic growth in the developing world, such as China and Vietnam, have certainly not followed the ‘investment climate’ prescription. Donors may need to acknowledge the political dynamics of growth, including that some forms of informal relationships between business and state in developing countries can succeed in generating and sustaining high levels of growth [Chapter 9].
The report concludes [Chapter 10] with a proposal to improve how the international community commissions and uses governance research, indicates why further governance research is needed, and how DFID plans to respond.
dkj