OpenDemocracy needs your help

The site is just £50,000 short of its fundraising target.

OpenDemocracy, the digital commons which has hosted groundbreaking campaigns like OurBeeb and OurNHS, and insightful investigations like Cities in Conflict and oDRussia, an examination of the post-Soviet world, is just £50,000 short of its funding target.

The site, like many others in the same sphere, operates as a not-for-profit counter to corporate media, attempting to publish independent, public interest content. But such content is incredibly hard to make sustainably, and the site fell into debt while focusing on expansion over the past two years. As a result, it now needs to raise £250,000 by 31 March, or it will shut:

The aim is to achieve three things: clear our debts, cover current costs, and give the new Editor-in-Chief and his team time to build new funding relationships for 2014 onwards. Our target £250,000 will secure a new firm footing for openDemocracy.

Magnus Nome, openDemocracy's editor in chief, told me:

We offer a space that isn't available any other way, allowing experts and fresh voices from the ground the chance to present high-quality writing and analysis without being bound by the requirements of the corporate media.

It's impossible to get paid for content on the internet, so we depend on those who appreciate what we do and share our belief that it's an important thing. We have now raised £215,000 out of the £250,000 we need, and we believe that shows that others agree with us.

That still leaves another £35,000 to go. Donations can be made on its site, and the educational charity which supports it, openTrust, can accept gift aid on those donations as well.

"The crises of the epoch of market globalisation demand a world view that guards the gains of openness, human rights and democracy against a rising threat of neo-fascism and fundamentalisms," argue the team; openDemocracy is a much-needed organisation, and it can't be allowed to fall underwater now.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Europe's elections show why liberals should avoid fatalism

France, Germany and the Netherlands suggest there is nothing inevitable about the right's advance.

Humans are unavoidably pattern-seeking creatures. We give meaning to disparate events where little or none may exist. So it is with Brexit and Donald Trump. The proximity of these results led to declarations of liberalism's demise. After decades of progress, the tide was said to have unavoidably turned.

Every election is now treated as another round in the great duel between libralism and populism. In the Netherlands, the perennial nativist Geert Wilders was gifted outsize attention in the belief that he could surf the Brexit-Trump wave to victory. Yet far from triumphing, the Freedom Party finished a distant second, increasing its seats total to 20 (four fewer than in 2010). Wilders' defeat was always more likely than not (and he would have been unable to form a government) but global events gifted him an aura of invincibility.

In France, for several years, Marine Le Pen has been likely to make the final round of the next presidential election. But it was only after Brexit and Trump's election that she was widely seen as a potential victor. As in 2002, the front républicain is likely to defeat the Front National. The winner, however, will not be a conservative but a liberal. According to the post-Trump narrative, Emmanuel Macron's rise should have been impossible. But his surge (albeit one that has left him tied with Le Pen in the first round) suggests liberalism is in better health than suggested.

In Germany, where the far-right Alternative für Deutschland was said to be remorselessly advancing, politics is returning to traditional two-party combat. The election of Martin Schulz has transformed the SPD's fortunes to the point where it could form the next government. As some Labour MPs resign themselves to perpeutal opposition, they could be forgiven for noting what a difference a new leader can make.

2016 will be forever remembered as the year of Brexit and Trump. Yet both events could conceivably have happened in liberalism's supposed heyday. The UK has long been the EU's most reluctant member and, having not joined the euro or the Schengen Zone, already had one foot outside the door. In the US, the conditions for the election of a Trump-like figure have been in place for decades. For all this, Leave only narrowly won and Hillary Clinton won three million more votes than her opponent. Liberalism is neither as weak as it is now thought, nor as strong as it was once thought.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.