This month marks one year since I began my journey at the Southern Africa Trust. When I joined, I was both excited and anxious. I wondered how my “radical” ideas, my curiosity about new ways of working with social movements, and my appetite for risk in programming would be received.

In my earlier leadership roles, I always worked in balance with others. As Head of Programmes, my Executive Director was more cautious, she never shut down my ideas but always asked for a risk matrix, forcing me to see what I was missing. Later, as an Executive Director myself, I was paired with a conservative Head of Programmes. I pushed for bold moves; they refined the approach and minimised risks. In both instances, innovation and caution worked together, and the organisations flourished.

At the Trust, this first year has been a deep learning curve. I have witnessed the vibrancy of civic actors across Southern Africa from a new vantage point, and I have wrestled with fundamental questions: What role do intermediaries really play in the civic ecosystem? And what kind of intermediaries are required for the future we are building?

Intermediaries Beyond Fund Managers

Too often, intermediaries are treated as mere conduits of donor funding. Their performance is judged by the size of funds raised or disbursed, the number of grants processed, or the efficiency of their reporting. This “conveyor belt” perspective reduces them to administrators of financial flows often crowding out local implementers, reinforcing power imbalances, and privileging donor agendas over community ones.

But intermediaries can, and must, be more. Positioned thoughtfully, they can challenge conventional, paternalistic funding models. They can be champions for reimagined ways of resourcing, agenda setting, and partnership building forging new pathways between donors, governments, and communities.

Intermediaries occupy a unique intersection of access and trust:

• Governments: they can broker entry points at national, regional, continental, and global levels.
• Donors: they sit at decision-making tables, trusted to translate lived realities into policy and funding priorities.
• Communities: they connect directly, or through local partners, with those bearing the brunt of exclusion and injustice.

This is a privileged position, but also a heavy responsibility. It requires deep listening, the ability to sense emerging struggles, and the courage to take risks on behalf of movements. Millions rely on intermediaries when they speak to governments and donors.

Intermediaries as the Currency of Trust

If this role were likened to the financial sector, intermediaries would not be the vaults where money is stored, nor simply the pipelines through which money flows. Instead, they would be the exchange bureaus where different currencies meet, are converted, and gain legitimacy to circulate in an economy.

In the civic ecosystem, intermediaries perform this exchange with a different kind of currency: trust. Governments, donors, and communities each bring their own forms of trust, such as political, financial, or lived. Intermediaries are the brokers who convert and circulate that trust so it holds value across the system.

This is a higher calling than merely moving funds. It demands discipline, prudence, and accountability. Mismanagement of this role can destabilise the entire ecosystem. But when done well, intermediaries make it possible for the diverse “currencies” of our societies to flow together in service of justice and inclusion.

Questions for a Reimagined Role

My first year at the Trust has left me with critical questions ( off course non exhaustive), that I believe intermediaries must grapple with if they are to live up to this role:

1. Can intermediaries model solidarity economies?

Too often, intermediaries are tempted to compete for donor favour, visibility, or recognition. What if they instead pooled resources, leveraged different strengths, and jointly supported initiatives? This would prevent over-investment in “buzzwords of the moment” and instead nurture long-term work on systemic injustice.

2. What if visibility was understood as shared power?

Intermediaries often seek visibility by centring themselves in platforms. But true visibility is about elevating community agendas, ensuring rural women’s cooperatives, youth climate movements, or civic formations take the stage. If intermediaries eclipse the very actors they exist to support, they have failed.

3. How can we unlock resources beyond money?

The current funding architecture measures value largely in financial terms. Yet intermediaries can mobilise other vital resources:

• Knowledge and solidarity through cross-movement learning.
• Legitimacy and protection for grassroots voices in hostile political climates.
• Long-term accompaniment that sustains movements beyond donor project cycles.

These forms of resourcing cannot be easily monetised, but they are invaluable for building resilience and civic power.

4. What if intermediaries collaborated instead of competed?

Competition among intermediaries fragments the civic ecosystem and breeds mistrust. Collaboration would enable joint advocacy, coordinated donor engagement, and complementary community support. Success would no longer be measured by individual portfolios but by collective depth of impact.

Reimagination is in Repositioning

Intermediaries stand at a global moment reimagining their role:

• Serving the ecosystem rather than dominating it.
• Building solidarity economies that leverage privileged positions.
• Unlocking new forms of resourcing that go beyond money.
• Turning visibility into shared power for communities.

One year into this journey, these questions will guide me. They are not easy, but they are necessary. If intermediaries are to remain true to their role as connectors and bridge-builders, they must embrace the responsibility of being catalytic agents of transformation.