The participation of the civil society. How money and power are not enough for foundations to reach their goals

Foundations polarize and raise questions. On the one hand they receive a lot of public support because they claim to promote the common good. On the other hand their critics object that they often act in accordance to their own interests because there is no such thing as a "free gift". This, and the fact that they have abundant resources and can thus seemingly impose their will on others, exposes them to harsh criticism. Moreover, neither they nor their often very ambitious goals are subject to democratic debate and processes – they can not get voted out of office or dismissed by the public. Unlike other organizations, foundations do not have to engage in sophisticated front-stage management. While others have to at least formally agree to certain standards, procedures, and appropriateness of goals in order to receive access to resources, foundations can choose to refrain from that because they already posess the means. Compromises can therefore be neglected. Even though power asymmetries and weak democratic mechanisms are not to be denied, this dominant perspective becomes less compelling upon closer examination. Like other organizations, foundations can not simply instruct their environments or enforce ideas and actions. And it is especially difficult to impose specific and for everyone binding and compelling goals, purposes, and actions in a pluralistic and diverse society. Foundations need partners and supporters to realize their projects, especially if they do not just want to carry out projects simply on paper, but actually want to create sustainable change and effects. They can not do it by themselves but need others who do it for them, even though these actors have views and needs that deviate from those of the foundations. They rely on civil society and its participation. Two modes of participation stand out: 1) institutionalized volunteerism as part of the organizations structure and 2) low-threshold participation opportunities for those who are not members of the organization but are nonetheless indispensable to it. This can also and especially include the intended grantees. An analysis of the activities of selected foundations in the fields of science, education, ecology on Twitter demonstrates the relevance of participation. A twitter analysis was conducted because this social media tool is becoming very popular among foundations when it comes to show who they are, what they do, and how they achieve their goals. Ultimately foundations can provide the resources and formulate what they believe to be right, but the concrete specifications ‚in the field‘ are in the hands of people who are difficult to control or whose services the foundation can not do without. If action is taken against the interests of these persons, then they can discontinue their services without any major difficulties. So although foundations have the potential to implement their ideas without caring for their environments wishes and views, the need for civil societies participation imposes limits on them. Compromises as well as boundary work are therefore necessary and deviations from the foundations intentions need to be tolerated to a certain degree.