A very interesting development was reported from Austria. An heiress is giving away a big chunk of an inheritence. Her basis for doing so is that she has not earned it.
I have inherited a fortune, and therefore power, without having done anything for it. And the state doesn't even want taxes on it.
I think that the points are well made. She's (a) not done anything to earn it, (b) she's actually inherited power as a necessary correlate of the money. And (c) the state is content to let that situation stand. I think that by implication of what she's gone on to do, she is also affirming that some kind of democratic control over such money (and power) is important.
Too often the philanthropic model distributes at the whim of the owner. She's actually proposing to give up all title and claim to the money in favour of a more democratic decision-making structure. The former is patriarchal, hierarchical, 'daddy knows best' -and when you look at many of the actual projects either in outline or in detail, you find a somewhat 'hobbyist' approach. It's all about what the donor is interested in and often tied up with strings that push the buttons of the donor and are limited by the donor's lack of real understanding of the conditions of people affected. The only real remedy to that is to give substantive decision making about the use of such funds to the people most affected.
And if governments won't do it, then citizens' assemblies are, I think, a good way forward.
No comments:
Post a Comment