Democracy assistance recipients want more money with fewer strings, a hands-off approach from donors, but political support when necessary, and a more experimental and less risk-averse attitude from funding organizations, according to new survey findings from FRIDE, the Madrid-based think tank.

But who are these people? Well, most of the respondents to an online survey of democracy activists were well-educated urban elites, working in organizations that are highly financially dependent on foreign funders and who possess a realistic view on what democracy assistance can and can’t do.

That’s what Joel Barkan told a World Movement workshop, outlining provisional findings of a survey supported by several leading democracy groups.

The single “most potent message” to have emerged from some 600 interviews with activists across 15 country-based case studies is that democracy assistance needs a more holistic approach, FRIDE’s Richard Youngs told the workshop. Funding is great, they say, but it needs to be buttressed by other foreign policy instruments like aid, trade and diplomacy.

There is no crisis in donor-grantee relations, he assured delegates. But alongside traditional concerns of short-term funding horizons, poor coordination, rigid funding requirements and donor bias towards favored CSOs, deeper issues emerged.

Donors are missing the best access points to promote democratic reform because they are reluctant to cede control of the agenda, activists claim.

But they are realistic about the capacity of external actors to make a difference, Barkan’s online survey of 1000+ activists suggests. Assistance can facilitate change by enabling local actors and organizations, but it is ultimately local factors and forces that will determine prospects for democratization.

Ukraine’s experience was one of donor sensitivity to local ownership, said Inna Pidluska of the Europe XXI Foundation. The amount of funds is less important than the quality and strategic focus of a donor-recipient partnership, she said.

For IDASA’s Paul Graham, the key is to create incentives for local actors to choose a democratic path and ensure a robust legacy of democratic institutions and entrenched values. The ultimate aim must be to establish politically-rooted partnerships rather than financial transactions, to “find friends, not financiers, companions, not contractors.”

Recommendations arising from the discussion included:

Disaggregating the online data by region, country and regime-types would be instructive;

Encourage strategic, long-term approaches so that consolidating but still-fragile democracies (like Mongolia) aren’t left in the lurch;

Factor in the issue of timing: at what points in a democratic struggle or transition is assistance most effective?

How to guard against the data’s suggestion that some groups are overly dependent on foreign funding because they do not have local support or constituencies?