The Covenant Deception: How Civil Society's Elite Plans to Manage Inequality, Not End It
An analysis of NCVO/ACEVO's "A New Partnership – Building a Covenant for Civil Society and Government"
Looking at NCVO/ACEVO's new Covenant proposal through Civil Society for Labour's lens reveals both promising elements and significant blind spots that confirm our earlier critique of the sector's democratic deficit.
What They Got Right
The document does acknowledge some structural problems we've highlighted:
Recognition that there's been a "significant breakdown in trust between civil society and government"
Admission of power imbalances and exclusion of smaller organisations
Acknowledgment that larger organisations dominate funding and voice
The emphasis on protecting campaigning rights and removing "gagging clauses" aligns with progressive values about democratic participation.
What's Missing: A Class Analysis
However, the document fundamentally fails to address the democratic deficit we identified. While it mentions that "4% of organisations control 84% of resources," it treats this as a technical problem rather than a structural inequality that undermines civil society's progressive potential.
The proposed solutions—more training, better communication, clearer processes—are essentially technocratic fixes that don't challenge the concentration of power in large, professionalised charities with metropolitan headquarters.
The Infrastructure Problem
Most tellingly, NCVO and ACEVO position themselves as natural intermediaries in this new Covenant, despite being part of the very infrastructure that has overseen the sector's increasing inequality. This is like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas—why would they advocate for reforms that might diminish their own centrality?
Missing Progressive Elements
From a Labour perspective, the document lacks:
Economic analysis: No discussion of how austerity and marketisation have shaped these problems
Democratic reform: No proposals for mandatory redistribution of resources to grassroots organisations
Community voice: Despite consultation rhetoric, the process was dominated by existing civil society elites
Class perspective: No recognition that the current system serves middle-class professional interests over working-class community needs
The Compact Redux
The Covenant essentially proposes Compact 2.0—the same partnership model that failed to prevent the sector's slide toward inequality and professionalisation over the past 25 years. It assumes the problem is process rather than power.
A Labour Alternative
A truly progressive approach would demand:
Radical redistribution: Mandatory quotas ensuring grassroots organisations receive fair funding shares
Democratic accountability: Community representatives on major charity boards
Geographic justice: Funding formulas that prioritise deprived areas over London headquarters
Worker voice: Recognition that charity workers, not just trustees, have legitimate interests in sector governance
The Covenant may improve relationships between government and the current civil society elite, but it won't restore the democratic, community-rooted movement that historically drove progressive change. Labour should support civil society reform that empowers communities, not just improves the management of existing inequalities.