Do a Google search for “Guyanese philanthropy” with that annoying new feature, Google Instant, activated and it immediately suggests that you may actually be searching for “Japanese philanthropy”. The slightly amusing irony is that it’s not like Guyana doesn’t have a problem with charity.
The Dharm Shala, for example, represents a sort of state-subvented philanthropic organization; as does Joshua House, as well as a half-dozen other entities.  The Beacon Foundation is an excellent example of how simple entrepreneurship is used to sustain a charity venture.

Indeed, from what I know about how most middle-class Guyanese operate, they have this almost conflicted approach to their philanthropic work.  I know people who would donate almost religiously to a different cause every month, but it would be like pulling teeth to get them to talk about it.  Indeed, giving but not publicly acknowledging it even to close friends seems to be part of our national DNA.


What I want to explore in this article however is personal philanthropy, philanthropy at the level of the individual.  Guyanese are a conservative people, and we live in a society that still looks down somewhat on blatant extravagance and excess.
While we have no public philanthropists in the vein – even in relative terms – of say a Warren Buffet and his US$31 billion donation to the already generously endowed Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, we do in fact have several of our wealthier citizens who quietly donate considerably to philanthropic causes.
Indeed, from what I know about how most middle-class Guyanese operate, they have this almost conflicted approach to their philanthropic work. I know people who would donate almost religiously to a different cause every month, but it would be like pulling teeth to get them to talk about it. Indeed, giving but not publicly acknowledging it even to close friends seems to be part of our national DNA.
And, no, it’s not like a case of false modesty or anything like that – you can see that they seem virtually ashamed of talking about their philanthropy. I was amazed during the flood in Pakistan last year at the amount of money that was raised in a relatively short time, some $20 million over the course of a few hours via a telethon.  Yet many of those people who donated sums – whether tremendous or small – opted to keep their name out of the media.

We have the rise in disposable income, we have the celebrity culture, we have the natural tendency to give money for a good cause – I believe that it’s time we channel these elements into creating a more public type of philanthropy, one in which the act of giving to better the world isn’t carried out like something we’re ashamed of.

A large part of the problem comes from the fact that we have not really institutionalized individual philanthropy in any real sense.  The United States, for example, has made donations to charitable causes tax deductible in a sliding scale formula.  Those in the lowest income bracket get back, in effect, $10 out of every $100 they donate, verifiably, to a charitable organization, while the richest Americans get back $35 out of every $100; in essence, this arrangement actually encourages more donations by the wealthy.
There is a clear case for making a public act of philanthropy – there is something in human nature which dictates that good, humanitarian acts do not happen with the same spontaneity that a flash mob or a violent protest might erupt, and so humanitarian and unselfish acts are usually often initiated only by example.
Globally, philanthropy has been undergoing some refinements over the past ten years or so. Philanthropic organisations have networked, extended their reach internationally, and have increasingly employed the same management skills which earned the money used to create their endowments in the first place. Indeed, it has reached the stage where the concept/practice of “venture philanthropy” have been created – a way of using venture capitalist methods to attract, manage and divest philanthropic ‘capital’.
While, with a less than ideal security environment currently holding sway in Guyana, I can see that private citizens may want to refrain from public philanthropy at this point in time, I still believe there is significant scope for one type of public altruism to develop in Guyana – celebrity philanthropy.
In other societies there is that culture of celebrity philanthropy. Oprah Winfrey immediately comes to mind, matching her legendary status as the most powerful woman in entertainment and one of the wealthiest in the world with a ranking as the most philanthropic celebrity in the world.
Over the past decade maybe, I think what we’ve had here is something which was not present before in any real, sustainable sense – a celebrity culture.   Singers, sports people, fashion designers, people in the media – we have a group of people who fit the definition of celebrity in that they command attention year round, enough to be known simply by reputation in their respective fields.  And to some degree, some of them have been using their star power for humanitarian ends.
A few years ago, if my memory serves me correctly, Sonia Noel – who is the definition of celebrity designer by regional, if not international standards – incorporated a support fund or mechanism for single mothers (she’s one) into her annual Guyana Fashion Weekend.  When actress Shelly Bancroft – who recently passed away – originally took ill earlier this year, producer Maria Benschop staged a performance of one of her wildly popular “Nothing to Laugh About” shows, instrumental in raising some $2 million for the ailing teacher/stage performer.
Of course our biggest, and wealthiest, celebrities remain in the arena of sport, more specifically international cricket.  Imagine the effect if Shivnarine Chanderpaul or Ramnaresh Sarwan were to actively engage in some charity venture?  
While we do not have a developed culture of celebrity philanthropy, perhaps the way forward lies in showing them the way forward. I remember when Hits and Jams – a group that I’ve had cause to commend before in these columns due to their pioneering work in entertainment – brought Neo here last year, during an interview the superstar spoke about some of the causes he was committed to, particular championing the role of education in development. During the month of August, we had a star-studded events calendar – again facilitated by Hits and Jams. My suggestion is that, like Neo, it would have been a good idea (and I’m not saying that it didn’t happen at all) to make sure that as part of their programme of activities they give talks about their charitable causes, and even have some one on one with their local counterparts/opening acts on how to leverage their popularity for philanthropic causes.
Of course, I can’t mention celebrity philanthropy without touching upon the work of the inimitable Michael Jackson. 
With his birth anniversary just passed, the debate will rage again whether or not his music or his philanthropy was his greatest legacy.  My view is that he proved that there need not be a distinction between the two – he lived and loved his music but he also used that tremendous talent and presence to transform the world around him.  His 1985 – at the peak of his celebrity power – ‘Heal the World’ single raised an unprecedented amount of money for famine relief in Africa, in addition to shining a star-fuelled spotlight on the poverty and starvation there.
We have the rise in disposable income, we have the celebrity culture, we have the natural tendency to give money for a good cause – I believe that it’s time we channel these elements into creating a more public type of philanthropy, one in which the act of giving to better the world isn’t carried out like something we’re ashamed of.