The problem with Brooks Newmarks' clarification last week is that the line between 'politics' and 'party politics' is so thin as to be virtually invisible, argues Leon Ward.
Like everyone else in the sector, I was surprised last week when I read Brooks Newmark, the new charities minister, saying that charities should “stick to their knitting” and stay out of “the realm of politics”.
Of course, it’s impossible for charities to stay out of politics. Charities get government funding, they are commissioned to run services, and they are asked for advice by politicians. They are de facto involved in the realm of politics, especially when things go wrong. Politicians are also involved in charities, both in seeking their support and criticizing them when things go wrong.
But charities also campaign, and this is where the confusion really lies. Newmark said when charities “stray into the realm of politics” that is not what they are about and “that is not why people give them money". And of course, again here, he is fundamentally wrong. The point of charity is to extinguish itself. Sometimes that means it is about applying pressure onto those who have the power to fundamentally change things for the long term. In most instances, these people are politicians. Climate change, homelessness, animal protection, international development, child protection, LGBT equality, support for cancer patients and just about most other causes fit into this; they are all political issues.
Newmark later suggested that what he’s trying to say is that charities should stay out of ‘party politics’.
My cynical side wonders if this was backing down after the sector went supernova condemning him. But what if that really was what he was trying to say?
Well then, of course, he’s right. But the problem is the line between charities and politicians is very thin, and the line between politics and party politics is very difficult to draw. Campaigning charities attend party conferences to lobby and get support for their causes. They meet with politicians. They produce manifestos to influence policy. The only thing charities definitely shouldn’t do is endorse individual candidates or parties.
The worrying thing is that recently, some politicians have started defining ‘being political’ too broadly, and think that charities should stop doing all the things mentioned above. This is why there has been so much confusion over the Lobbying Act and precisely why the Electoral Commission advice on the Act hasn’t been particularly helpful.
Many politicians seem to believe charities shouldn’t try to influence government at all. Seemingly, they believe that charities are at their disposal for when they want a cheesy picture with them opening a centre, or, when you have signed up to a petition (there is also a grippingly ironic case of the Liberal Democrats pledging against tuition fees here!), rather than seeing them as legitimate campaigning bodies.
This isn’t on. Politicians must listen to charities’ legitimate concerns about how government can help them deliver longer term change for whatever cause they work on. Often, charities work with the most marginalised in the country and these people, whilst used to being ignored, have a friend in charities. We live in a modern democracy; let’s not embarrass ourselves on the world stage by silencing charities.
There is something here too for the charity sector itself. It’s not just politicians who misunderstand charity. The comments from the public on Twitter and various blog posts written about this story in the mainstream media show a clear misunderstanding - or total lack of understanding - of what the charity sector is and what it does.
The sector’s seen as taking over the high street with its shops, whilst simultaneously annoying people with its clipboards. It’s also seen as chipping in to the Christmas tombola and annually supporting the community fete.
We have to get better at drawing the bigger picture and showing people the wider and more critical roles of charities.
