Over the past year, organisations working in the democracy, rights and governance (DRG) space have faced layoffs, wind-downs, project handovers, mergers, cancelled benefits, enforced volunteerism, and more amid brutal aid cuts.
While some government funding for development work remains, betting on long-term sustainability through donor grants alone looks increasingly short-sighted. It is easy to forget how recent the current model is.
The professionalisation of DRG work largely took shape in the early 1990s, following the fall of the Berlin Wall and democratic transitions in Eastern Europe and the Balkans. The logframe-driven, top-down world of governance programming did not exist in the same way before this time; the field was smaller, more informal and more precarious, and there was less funding available.
So how did organisations structure themselves and sustain their work? Looking back, they adopted at least eight broad approaches that meant they were more agile, more rooted in communities, and more financially diverse.
As the current model comes under strain, these approaches do not offer a simple blueprint. But they do suggest a direction – towards work that is leaner, more politically connected, and less dependent on a single source of funding.
The past, in that sense, may offer a glimpse of what comes next.
1. Keeping costs low
Many DRG efforts grew out of volunteer networks, student organising or professional associations, with minimal fixed costs and significant in-kind support.
Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan, founded in India in 1990, began as a grassroots movement against corruption and wage theft and, over time, helped drive the passage of the Right to Information Act.
In Serbia, Otpor!, a student-led movement, mobilised civil society to oust dictator Slobodan Milosevic in 2000. It relied on students and civil society coalitions to monitor elections, plan general strikes, and build popular support against the regime.
To this day, smaller, less bureaucratic organisations like these often proved more sustainable precisely because they were built to operate with less.
2. Building a membership base
Membership models offered both financial stability and political leverage – rooting organisations in a clear base rather than external donors.
The Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) is a strong example. Financed through membership dues in the late 1980s, it sustained itself while pushing for major reforms during and after apartheid. What began as 500,000 workers across 33 unions has grown into a federation of more than two million members.
That was important not just financially, but politically. COSATU’s emphasis on self-sufficiency meant costs were covered by its own base, while its union structure enabled coordinated action: organising for a living wage, advancing workers’ rights, and playing a role in shaping South Africa’s post-apartheid constitution.
3. Diversifying philanthropy
Institutional and community philanthropy played a critical bridging role – supporting early organisations, research, and networks before larger funding streams existed.
Smaller intermediaries such as the Institute for Democracy in South Africa and the Aga Khan Development Network helped sustain local ecosystems, while larger foundations – including Ford and Open Society – backed emerging groups and independent media in democratising contexts.
That kind of mix is still important. But as funding pressures grow, the question is how far the field is willing to expand its sights. Significant private wealth exists – from high-net-worth individuals to donor-advised funds – yet relatively little is directed towards DRG work.
The challenge is clarity: making a sharper, more compelling case for why this work matters, and why it should be funded. Efforts led by figures such as Sudanese-British businessman Mo Ibrahim, whose foundation champions sound leadership and governance in Africa, point to what is possible, but there is still far more room to build.
4. Revisiting faith-based support
Faith-based giving has largely dropped out of current DRG debates – but historically, it was central to funding and organising.
In Kenya, the National Council of Churches, founded in 1913, mobilised membership contributions and grassroots networks to advocate for fairer elections in the late 1980s and 1990s. Organisations such as Catholic Relief Services and Christian Aid, before becoming major aid contractors, provided flexible support to small governance and anti-corruption groups, while also backing organising around related issues like land rights.
These institutions are not without their own contradictions. But at a moment when funding is tightening, faith networks remain a significant – and underexplored – source of support for accountability work.
5. Embedding within institutions
Some organisations were housed within academic institutions or research bodies, gaining administrative support, partial cost recovery, and institutional credibility.
The Center for the Study of Democracy, founded in Bulgaria in 1989, set out to bridge scholars and policymakers, contributing to governance and anti-corruption reforms. Today, similar models persist – from the GovLab at NYU to the European Research Centre for Anti-Corruption and State-Building at the Hertie School, and accountability programmes housed within universities in Mexico and elsewhere.
These arrangements can provide stability and legitimacy. But they also come with trade-offs – from bureaucratic constraints and high overheads to the unpredictability of academic funding and partnerships.
6. Working collectively
Organisations often came together in loose networks – what we might now call “translocal” – that gradually became more formal over time.
Early formations like Transparency International began as affiliations of groups and individuals pooling knowledge, resources and reach. That logic still holds. Closer ties can help share costs, reduce duplication, and strengthen impact – while also providing more stability in how decisions are made.
As funding tightens, deeper collaboration is likely to accelerate, including new partnerships, alliances and mergers across the field.
7. Generating income
Many DRG organisations built sustained income streams by producing something of value – research, training, technical advice – rather than relying solely on grants.
The International Budget Partnership developed research partnerships with donors, governments and multilateral institutions to support its advocacy work. Others, like the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, funded accountability efforts by providing analysis and services to state actors. Some even ran service delivery programmes – schools and health centres, for example– to cross-subsidise their organising.
Today, many organisations are trying to do the same, but in a more crowded space. The challenge is not just finding new revenue streams, but clarifying what value is distinct – and whether current skills and models are fit for that shift.
8. Stay rooted in movements
Finally, DRG work was more explicitly tied to political movements. Organisations were often embedded in broader struggles, drawing on trade unions, parties and community networks for support.
Movements such as Poland’s Solidarity and Czechoslovakia’s Civic Forum operated through horizontal networks with limited formal budgets but deep social roots.
The Coordinadora Nacional del Movimiento Urbano Popular in Mexico mobilised urban communities in similar ways. Political foundations also played a role in resourcing this ecosystem, particularly in the early decades.
Take the Stiftungen model, in which a non-profit foundation (a stiftung, in German) holds a controlling or majority stake in a commercial company, which then operates to serve a long-term purpose, rather than to maximise short-term profits for individual shareholders. This model funded political DRG work from the 1960s, and was later mirrored by US bodies such as the National Democratic Institute and the International Republican Institute in the 1980s.
Blair Glencorse is co-CEO of Accountability Lab and founder of Civic Strength Partners. Shally Baloch is partnerships officer at Accountability Lab.
