Open Society Foundations president, Binaifer Nowrojee, who was in South Africa this month. (X/@NowrojeeOSF)
The Open Society Foundations (OSF), one of the world’s most influential philanthropic networks, is scaling back its physical presence in Africa as part of a global restructuring effort that has seen more than 40% of its staff laid off since the Covid-19 pandemic.
The organisation operates at a scale that inevitably courts criticism — some of it genuine, but much of it in the domain of conspiracy theories.
Like the rest of us, the OSF woke up in a different world in January, one in which the United States had drastically reduced its aid funding globally.
The Mail & Guardian sat down with OSF president, Binaifer Nowrojee, to understand where the organisation sees itself in that reformed landscape.
Nowrojee reaffirmed the organisation’s commitments, emphasising the network’s role in supporting civil society, advocating for marginalised communities and influencing policy discussions worldwide.
However, a closer look at the OSF’s activities, particularly in Africa, raises critical questions about its influence, decision-making processes and long-term sustainability.
Shrinking footprint in Africa
The restructuring of the OSF has led to the closure of multiple offices across Africa as part of a broader strategy to improve its operations.
In October 2023, the OSF announced the closure of offices in Cape Town, Addis Ababa (Ethiopia), Kampala (Uganda), Kinshasa (Democratic Republic of the Congo), Abuja (Nigeria) and Freetown (Sierra Leone).
It has maintained offices in Johannesburg, Nairobi (Kenya), and Dakar (Senegal).
The restructuring of its base offices reflects a shift in the OSF’s operational model, which aims to focus its resources more effectively on specific target areas.
Nowrojee framed this shift as a strategic realignment rather than a retreat, saying that the OSF remains committed to democracy and social justice in Africa.
“The volatility on the African continent politically is so much — we’re seeing countries slipping into conflict — and so [the OSF] want to see how we can work to assist and support places that have conflict, not just peace, but transformative peace that can get them out of that,” she said.
Based on the foundations’ calculations, the group spent $125.2 million in Africa in 2023, translating to 7.2% of its global expenditure.
But the network’s downsizing in the continent contradicts its professed commitment to supporting open societies in regions such as Sudan, the DRC and Ethiopia, where democracy is under threat.
The OSF’s strategy to shift its administrative location raises concerns about whether its ambition to push foreign philanthropy will reach local networks on the continent.
USAid fallout
The recent decision by the US government to cut certain foreign aid programmes has left many groups without crucial support, particularly those relying on HIV/Aids medication and humanitarian aid.
For example, last year, the President’s Emergency Plan for Aids Relief (Pepfar) had committed $439 537 828 to South Africa for the current US financial year running from 1 October to 30 September.
Nowrojee criticised the abruptness of the decision by President Donald Trump to withdraw USAid services but also said it was a time for reflection, questioning Africa’s over-reliance on foreign aid.
“I think it’s a wake-up call for African governments to really think about what an Africa would look like that is not dependent on aid and reimagining how we can start moving wealth and money and opportunity around the continent,” she said.
The OSF does not plan to fill the financial void left by USAid, due to funding constraints, but will look to support affected nations through advocacy and debate, she added.
“Open Society’s funding is not large enough to fill the gap left by USAid. We don’t have that kind of scale of funding.”
She reaffirmed the organisation’s mandate as a private funder and “not a service provider” for health services.
Nowrojee’s perspective, while thought-provoking, rings hollow coming from an organisation that itself depends on the wealth of a single donor family and has not laid out a clear way for African nations to achieve self-sufficiency.
The shadow of Soros
The foundation has long faced criticism for its alleged role as a proxy for the political views of its founder, left-wing billionaire George Soros. This idea has found currency both among liberal sceptics and European strongmen.
In Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has accused Soros of trying to undermine the government by funding opposition groups and media. Orbán’s government ran an anti-Soros campaign claiming he was “flooding Europe with migrants”, a claim dismissed by the foundations.
The OSF was banned in Russian 2015 and labelled a “threat to national security”, for funding non-governmental organisations that challenged President Vladimir Putin’s policies.
And in Myanmar, Soros-backed groups supported the Rohingya minority, which angered nationalist groups.
Nowrojee was quick to separate the OSF from Soros’ personal political contributions, saying the founder had used money from his own pocket to fund Democratic Party candidates in the US.
“George Soros uses his own funds, separate from Open Society Foundations. For instance, he has provided funds to the democratic party in the US, and those are out of his own money and not Open Society Foundations funds. And so that often gets conflated.”
However, given that OSF has historically aligned with liberal democratic movements, the question remains as to whether an organisation funded by a single ideological billionaire can claim to be neutral.
While the OSF denies seeking to overthrow governments, its involvement in politically sensitive issues makes it a convenient target for such accusations.
“The foundation is often accused of trying to overthrow governments and, let me just say for the record, that OSF is not about overthrowing governments and we do not seek to do that,” Nowrojee said.
“What we do seek to do, where we see exclusion or where we see populations being treated differently, is to seek to address that through advocacy, through grant giving.”
Philanthropy and media
The OSF is a well-known funder of left-leaning media organisations. While supporting independent journalism is crucial for democracy, the influence of a powerful philanthropic entity such as the foundation raises concerns about editorial independence.
It supports investigative journalism networks based in Eastern Europe, Central Asia and various countries in Africa.
Nowrojee acknowledged this tension, suggesting the OSF should fund media without interfering in content.
“I think that we are influenced by many things either through an implicit bias, or even obviously, but as the foundations we want to support groups without interference from George Soros or others,” she said.
Discussion about this post