The late Helder Camara, Catholic Archbishop of Recife in Brazil, famously asked, Why is it that when I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor, they call me a communist? He also posited, in a little-known monograph called Spiral of Violence, that the poor are not the raw material for your salvation. Really? Has anyone told George Soros, Bill Gates or all those state governments that habitually outsource their social programs to the whims of the super wealthy?
Originally the term philanthropy signified a love of humanity. It told of a willingness to care for, nurture and enrich what it means to be human. Regrettably much contemporary philanthropy - including even well-meaning aid and development offered by reputable global institutions, but in stark contrast to that used simply as a device for tax avoidance - has divorced itself from such intentions, succumbing to the deceits of social media and the public relations machine. In an age when literally anything under the sun can be portrayed as being of benefit to us, many public personalities are using the "look-at-me-doing-good" mantra to help sustain the veracity of their personal brand and manipulate public opinion in their favour.
In the meantime, as philanthropy is institutionalised and public social programs progressively privatised, the media focuses our attention on sensational tales and trivia, hungry for gossip and images of celebrities among the destitute and starving.
The corporate world, too, refuses to be left out of this most lucrative game. To be known as "a force for good" has been a brilliantly effective marketing strategy adopted by some of the most destructive and cynical of today's corporations as a lawful means of seeking additional respectability for their products. With a few notable exceptions, they care not a jot for the environment or for people. This is simply another way of maximising profits. Moreover, the corporate attitude concerning any kind of moral or social contract, most commonly assigned to those responsible for Corporate Social Responsibility is, at best, one of dispassionate pragmatism.
All of this is alarming. It results in pop idols and movie stars being hailed as protectors of the poor and companies being regarded as industry game changers when their business models are clearly anything but that. But there are also far more serious consequences to consider.
Charitable foundations established and funded by the super wealthy present us with a range of problematic issues - especially in terms of their functional systemic design. So, for example, by consenting to the removal of the general public from crucial decision-making processes, we undermine the legitimate obligation of the state to provide relevant social programs for its citizens. When "we the people" no longer determine what programs are needed or where, how they can be funded, and how they should be managed, democracy itself is compromised.
The incongruities inherent within the relationship between the state and private foundations are also quite bizarre. Consider this. When governments cut social spending the tax burden on the well-to-do is also reduced - in essence providing both affluent individuals and companies with a direct financial benefit. Moreover the super wealthy in our society make their money not through income, like most of us, but through dividends based on stock ownership. The tax system has been constructed in such a way that dividends attract far lower rates of tax than income. But that is not the end of it. Individual obligations can be minimised still further, through tax write-offs, by making donations to one's own foundation. In effect whether or not to pay tax or to pursue a specific philanthropic cause aligned to personal values has now become a choice available to the wealthy.
While it is dangerous to make rash assumptions about the motives behind any individual's charitable acts it is clear that this system can be manipulated and abused to whitewash the sins of those who may have acquired their wealth through exploitation, stealth, coercion or other dubious means. In effect it enables almost anyone with money to purchase false legitimacy.
Allowing wealthy people to donate to their pet projects, when they are already minimising the amount of tax they pay in general, raises three fundamental questions vis-a-vis the intentions and performance of the philanthropic system. Is it plausible that the wealthy be given such freedom of choice as to how they use capital that would otherwise be collected in tax? If it is deemed acceptable, to what extent should they be required to give back to the society from which their wealth was derived and should this be on their own terms? If these terms favour the status quo, how should we then deal with the gaps that could potentially open up in the welfare system where certain groups of people are less-favoured and therefore exposed and vulnerable as a consequence?
There are no simple answers to such questions. But when important matters such as these are taken out of the hands of government the effect is tantamount to a new aristocracy engaging in its own distorted form of noblesse oblige.
Which brings me to a startling yet perverse truth. It concerns the design of the current system - a system that from my perspective conceals unpalatable ironies concerning interpretations and practises.
The principal capitalist notion of putting the economic means of production in the hands of private ownership is simple yet brilliant. It has brought astonishing benefits to many people, including a quality of life that was barely imaginable just decades ago. But it has also caused untold misery to millions - misery we now seek to alleviate through a mix of philanthropy and government regulation. So explain this to me. How can we tell the poor and the disadvantaged that the economic system which created their misery is now the system they should trust to save them from that misery? Won't they simply see through such propaganda for what it is?
By and large so-called democratic governments no longer adequately represent citizens. In some jurisdictions government has merged with private sector financial interests to the extent they are no longer distinguishable from one another. Indeed in the US the locus of power is now so obviously on Wall Street and not in Washington. The Occupy movement did not just give voice to a sense of economic injustice and corporate greed, it threw a spotlight on the failure of political representation and the inadequacies of the current system of wealth-creation and preservation. On one level this puts the wealthy in a privileged leadership position. But it has reciprocal (mostly undesirable) consequences. In psychology this unhealthy condition is called codependency. Within our philanthropic context the wealthy depend on politicians to maintain control of their corporations while politicians rely on the wealthy to keep the economy ticking over. Those deprived of the capacity for happiness and financial independence are marginalised. They are the discarded serfs in a neo-feudal world. But sooner or later such a system has to collapse. It is not viable.
It goes without saying that the majority of those who create foundations, give to charity, or work in developmental organisations, are well-intentioned people who care passionately about those less fortunate than themselves. Generally speaking they do not regard the poor as raw material for their own salvation. I know this for a fact as I have many well-to-do friends I admire and respect. They worry about the state of the world and the capacity of poverty to retard societal progress, and are expressing their most deeply-held values through charitable works.
Arising from genuine compassion and the need to make a difference, a new school of thought has arisen over the past couple of decades that may well alter philanthropy in a number of profound ways. Focused on "socially responsible investing" as well as ventures that have measurable social and environmental impact rather than on the maximisation of profits, these are too few in number at the moment to know whether they can help eradicate the root causes of endemic poverty. My guess is that they could. But we are still left with a political problem that is not going away anytime soon.
Comments