Appendix B: Structured Question Responses

How to read this appendix

This section is the evidence base behind the analysis. If you want to test a conclusion, trace a theme, or see what people actually said, start here.

For each of the 20 listening exercise questions, you will find:

• Summary of what the interviewees said
• Bar chart showing how many interviewees raised each theme
• Direct quotes, without attribution to who said them
• Points of alignment, points of divergence, and open questions interviewees surfaced

Every response was tagged into discrete "mention units" pulled from the interview transcripts or, where transcripts were unavailable, from detailed interview notes. Mention units are the unit of analysis across the charts. Each chart reports how many interviewees mentioned each theme. The exercise comprised 58 interviews across 2 rounds: the first round (32 interviewees, Oct-Dec 2025) focused on organizations in the democracy sector's core, and the second round (26 interviewees, Feb-Mar 2026) expanded to adjacent and outside voices, including journalists, human rights practitioners, academics, Indigenous governance leaders, and conservative-aligned participants. 3 interviews were captured through notes only. Those responses are paraphrased, not verbatim, and are flagged where they appear. Joint interviews are treated as single organizational responses.

The guide below anchored the semi-structured interviews. Question wording was kept consistent, and probes were adapted to each participant's context.

Q1. When you close your eyes and think of the Canadian democracy sector/community, what image, word, or concept pops into your mind?

58 out of 58 interviewees answered question 1.

What interviewees said

42 of 58 interviewees unprompted described the sector as fragmented, siloed, disconnected, or scattered. This is the single most consistent finding in the entire exercise: 58 people from different vantage points, interviewed over 7 months, converge on the same structural diagnosis. Metaphors ranged from "beautiful tropical islands that are somewhat connected, but not very well networked" to "a scatterplot map with no connected lines," "a jigsaw puzzle that has been partially put together, but all the pieces are there," and "a page of logos: lots of work, but siloed, separated into different non-profits." Others described "a constellation without lines drawn between the stars," "a bunch of leaky boats" where "everyone is focused on patching their own leak, not on where the flotilla is going," and "a field of diverse wildflowers, beautiful but uncoordinated." One interviewee saw "a network graph with many chains, some which connect to others and some of which don't." Another described a map of Canada seen from space, with dots of light in the GTA, the Ottawa-Montreal corridor, and Vancouver, but "no web connecting them." The image was not of an empty landscape, but of a populated one with no connective tissue.

About 12 interviewees, while often acknowledging fragmentation, led with energy, passion, and potential. They described the sector as "passionate, dedicated, optimistic, heartfelt," marked by "courage and commitment in the face of challenge," populated by people who are "driven by purpose" and a "yearning and a need for there to be a better Canada." Others emphasized the quality of the work itself: "the research, the reports, the respect of the government, the intellect and the ethics are actually quite high." second round voices echoed this: "energetic, if small," "dedicated people doing important work with not enough resources," "strong convictions, smart people," and "high potential, under-resourced."

About 10 interviewees foregrounded threat, vulnerability, or crisis. Several images captured both scale and peril simultaneously: "a couple of people in a very tiny dinghy in the middle of a big storm in the middle of the ocean," "a thin mesh holding society together," and "plastic cling wrap" that "can hold things together and protect systems, but it's fragile, holes form, it rips, and it can stretch so thin it breaks." Others were blunter: "unprepared, disparate, I don't think the sector has faced this level of threats around authoritarianism and creeping fascism," "under siege," "in crisis mode, and not sure how to respond," and "walking a tightrope." One interviewee captured both vulnerability and galvanization: "frightened by a sense of existential risk. And yet it's galvanizing; I've seen the community coming together in ways I haven't seen in the past."

A notable pattern in the second round was blankness or absence: roughly 5 interviewees, particularly those from adjacent sectors, could not picture the sector at all. One described "a blank canvas, I'm not aware of what everyone's doing, but I know there's opportunity." Another said plainly: "I don't really see the sector, I see individual organizations I've worked with." A conservative-aligned participant confirmed the pattern from the other side: "I'm not sure I see a sector, I see government, I see some NGOs." Where first round interviewees saw a recognizable sector that was disconnected, second round interviewees sometimes could not see the sector at all.

About 5 interviewees reframed the sector as a movement or aspiration rather than a fixed structure. One invoked the Venezuelan Democracy Movement, "a wide range of very different organizations that all came together around a single goal", as aspirational, suggesting the Canadian sector has not yet reached movement status. Another described "a movement that hasn't quite formed yet" and another saw "people trying to build something together without a blueprint." A smaller group (about 4) offered structural or systemic images, describing democracy as infrastructure: "government is like your HVAC system, the thing that makes the house safe and habitable," or "an ecosystem, not an organization."

Illustrative quotes

Where perspectives varied

Q2. Any community exists in the context of other communities. What community do you immediately belong to? What other communities belong together with your community?

57 out of 58 interviewees answered question 2.

What interviewees said

The most frequently cited home community was civic engagement, voter participation, and get-out-the-vote work, with roughly 15 interviewees placing themselves here. These interviewees described their core work as "youth democratic engagement work that's directly connected to our political system," mobilizing voters, building electoral participation, and "getting the Muslim community more involved in the political area." The community was described as small: "the people at the intersection of youth and democracy are few and just a couple at the national level." Several noted that many activists came to democracy work through issue-based pathways: "a lot of people came to electoral reform not from the ballot box, but from their respective issues."

About 10 interviewees identified primarily with the research, policy, and think tank community. They described themselves as operating at the intersection of data, evidence, and public policy, with roles ranging from "responsive research" that serves "librarians, teachers, journalists, professors" to building "the largest data sets that have ever existed on Canadian public opinion." Some saw the research community as a distinct asset: "we have it, not a comparative advantage, it's just an advantage." Others positioned themselves at the intersection of multiple domains: "we work across three areas, democracy, tech policy, and education, with overlapping communities."

Funders and philanthropy emerged as a distinct community for about 8 interviewees. Several described the philanthropic space as isolated: "we belong to a community of foundations, progressive funders, and we are often the only funder in certain areas. Sometimes it's a lonely place." Funders described a particular role of supporting and convening grantee partners, and of advocating for democracy work within the broader philanthropic ecosystem: "the more things I can point to that are from the ecosystem of organizations themselves, the better advocate I can be."

Education and civic education was identified by about 8 interviewees as their primary or adjacent community, with schools, youth-serving organizations, and libraries frequently named as partners. One interviewee described their work as operating like "wholesalers, we're doing teacher training; we're not actually teaching the kids but we're training the teachers."

Q3. Name one kind of work that is often mistaken for democracy work but really isn't, and explain why.

43 out of 58 interviewees answered question 3.

What interviewees said

This was the most difficult question in the exercise. Many interviewees struggled to draw clear boundaries, and a substantial group, roughly 10, challenged the premise outright. They argued that general social services, community development, and everyday civic life can all constitute democracy work depending on framing and intent. One said flatly: "nothing's really coming to my mind right now, for me, civic engagement and democracy go so hand in hand." Another rejected the distinction as potentially funding-driven: "I'm personally not a very big fan of making this distinction, particularly if funding is what drives the motivation to make that distinction." Others took the broadest possible view: "I'm more likely to walk up to someone and be like, did you know that what you're doing is also democracy work?" and "I don't know! I want the biggest tent possible!" The general consensus among this group was that boundary-drawing is less useful than finding ways to connect issue-based work to democratic practice.

About 8 interviewees identified issue-based advocacy claiming the democracy label as the most common misidentification. They drew a sharp line between process and outcome: "democracy work necessarily needs to step back and be outcome-agnostic, but process-obsessed." What was most often named as not democracy work was "progressive politics," advancing a specific political agenda, and "advocacy that promotes a specific policy or outcome." One interviewee posed the test starkly: "would you call it democracy work if we're mobilizing the religious right to advance abortion restrictions? Like, probably not." Another distinguished regular advocacy from structural engagement: "a lot of the regular, everyday advocacy work that organizations do is not about the state of democracy; it's about advancing the interests of the constituents they serve."

About 5 interviewees debated whether journalism and media support count as democracy work. Some described journalism as "tied to functioning democracy but separate," while others argued that "access to independent and quality information is a pillar of a healthy democracy." One cautioned that a narrow focus on misinformation can "undermine trust in the sector because then people feel like misinformation is just whatever the government is currently concerned about."

About 4 interviewees flagged corporate or private interests using democratic framing as a misidentification. One described groups that "position themselves as ostensibly advancing democratic norms, institutions, values, and the public interest, but they use democratic ideals as an aegis for advancing what I think are simply private and corporate interests." Another warned: "it is not democracy to forefront Canada's innovation agenda without some strong counterbalance of equity."

A smaller group (about 3) pointed to conferences and events that produce "nothing concrete" as a form of performative democracy work. One described "a lot of gatherings around existential threats when very real day-to-day threats are happening on the ground." Another flagged student town halls where "the institution already came with a view of what that would be" as engagement theater rather than democratic practice.

Several interviewees also named governance work, improving state administration without addressing how power is attained or how power holders are held to account, as adjacent but distinct: "you can have efficient public administration in dictatorships." One offered a structural test: "democracy work would actually require some change, either shift in power, or exchange, or engagement."

Illustrative quotes

Where perspectives varied

Whether to draw the boundary at all: a substantial minority resisted the question's premise, arguing that rigid boundary-setting risks excluding organizations whose work strengthens democracy in practice even if not in name.

Whether journalism and media belong inside or alongside democracy work. Some saw journalism as inseparable from democratic functioning; others described it as a parallel system with its own distinct challenges.

The role of funding in shaping boundaries: several interviewees noted that protectionist instincts around who counts as "democracy work" intensify when funding is scarce, and that a well-resourced sector would be more inclusive.

Open questions raised by interviewees

Should the democracy community use a "primary mission" test (is your core mission to strengthen democracy?) or a functional test (does your work build democratic capacity, regardless of your mission statement)?

How should the sector relate to organizations whose work is "an exercise in democracy" (using democratic tools for issue-based goals) versus organizations doing structural work on democracy itself?

Q4. Imagine it's 2050 and your community has succeeded. What does that future look like? How does it feel?

44 out of 58 interviewees answered question 4.

What interviewees said

The most common vision, offered by roughly 15 interviewees, centered on full or dramatically increased participation in elections and governance. Interviewees described a future where "more people feel more involved in governing themselves," "close to full participation in elections at all levels," and citizens are "ready, willing, and able to participate confidently in our democracy." One pushed participation to its logical extreme: "100% youth turnout, not 90, not 95, 100%. Every single person under 30 votes." Several described participation extending well beyond election day: "democracy is about as much about what happens between elections as what happens during elections," with citizens' assemblies in budget cycles, neighborhood forums informing municipal priorities, and year-round participatory governance. One interviewee's vision was that their own organization "is redundant, you don't need it, because everyone's going out to vote."

About 8 interviewees described a future defined by reduced polarization and the capacity for healthy disagreement. They envisioned "lots of healthy disagreement but without today's affective polarization," "people would feel heard and listened to, and well represented," and a culture where "discourse and political organizing is welcome, respected, and most importantly, has integrity." Others described "welcoming viewpoints that differ from one's own" and being "able to disagree and still trust one another."

An equal number (about 8) described participatory and deliberative democracy embedded in everyday institutions. These visions went beyond voting to describe "a participatory ethos," democratic technologies, citizens' assemblies as routine practice, and "more direct democracy." One interviewee invoked the VTaiwan/Audrey Tang model as aspirational, describing a future where "people aren't just tenants in our governance system, but are co-designers of it." Another described "smells like trees", parks created through community consultation, and a city with "bikes, effective transit" shaped by participatory governance.

About 7 interviewees centered equity, inclusion, and representation at decision-making tables. They described a future with "balanced genders at decision-making tables, fewer barriers for minorities, and communities feeling represented." One envisioned a Canada that has "figured out how to coexist as an aggressively heterogeneous society in every way, having conversations about how we harness that heterogeneity in ways that move society forward." Another described an end point where their organization, focused on women in politics, "is no longer necessary."

About 6 interviewees described an informed and civically literate citizenry, where "civic education is a clear priority in schools," people "engage in many meaningful civic learning experiences throughout their education," and "there's overwhelming public support for basic democratic values such that it doesn't matter who's in power." A smaller set (about 3) specifically named Indigenous self-determination, describing "completing Confederation, nation-to-nation-to-nation relationships" and "more support for Indigenous civil society on their own terms." Another 3 envisioned a reformed information ecosystem with "regained a shared sense of truth," "rebuilt public interest media," and "regulated online spaces reducing hate, violence, and misinformation."

Illustrative quotes

Where perspectives varied

Some interviewees offered concrete metrics (electoral participation up 20%, mandatory voting), while others described experiential or sensory futures (safe, comfortable, smells like trees, calm). The visions ranged from institutional reform to cultural transformation.

Indigenous interviewees consistently centered self-determination and challenged the assumption that success means greater participation in existing institutions. Success, for them, means space for Indigenous approaches to democracy "on their own terms."

Whether success means the sector no longer needs to exist (organizations become "redundant") or whether democracy work is permanently ongoing ("an unfinished project").

Q5. What would that feel like?

36 out of 58 interviewees answered question 5.

What interviewees said

Where Q4 asked interviewees to describe a future, Q5 asked them to inhabit it emotionally. The responses were strikingly personal and often more revealing than the structural visions of Q4.

The most common feeling, described by roughly 10 interviewees, was safety, security, and comfort. Interviewees described a future where people feel "safe, comfortable to be myself all the time, in public, not having to self-censor," "calm, safe, welcoming, inclusive," and able to exist without navigating threat. One described the feeling as "comfort in discomfort, comfort knowing there's discomfort and differences, embracing them respectfully." Another said simply: "calmness and pride, a society that allows for dialogue, discussion, people to feel that they're wanted."

About 8 interviewees described connection and belonging. They spoke of feeling "connected, motivated" and no longer feeling "disaffected, powerless." One described the feeling as "the longing, which is pluralism, a sense of belonging." Another envisioned it as "the opposite of scrolling on your phone." The feeling of connection was tied not to agreement but to shared participation: people would feel part of something larger than their individual concerns.

About 7 interviewees described agency, empowerment, and voice. These responses centered on the feeling of being able to effect change: "powerful, sense of being able to effect change," "a sense of agency," and a future where "this life is worth really participating in." One described it as "joy, elation, possibilities, being listened to, having opportunity to have voice on critical issues." Another expressed the inverse: "the things you wouldn't feel are disaffected and powerless."

About 5 interviewees described hope and optimism. They used words like "enlightened, like Renaissance versus Dark Ages, more things open up rather than feeling confined and restricted," "hopeful, if all the things are working, we can do anything," and "energizing, because everything is possible." One described the feeling as "relief, that's how it should be. I don't like it when people don't care."

About 4 interviewees described pluralism and diversity as a feeling, not just a structural arrangement. They envisioned a society where difference is experienced as richness rather than threat, where "whatever you choose to do in your life, do it well, and do it with pride," and where disagreement does not provoke fear. One described it as feeling "happier, lighter and more joyful, a sense of belonging that adds meaning to one's life." An Indigenous interviewee described the feeling as being "relieved, unburdened, prepared to have actual meaningful conversation on what political future might look like within and beyond the borders of Canada."

Illustrative quotes

Where perspectives varied

Some interviewees described personal, embodied feelings (calm, safe, joyful), while others described societal states (connected, pluralistic, empowered). The emotional register ranged from quiet relief to active elation.

One interviewee answered by inversion, describing what she would feel if the sector failed (disappointment, unwillingness to meet the moment, comfort in status quo), suggesting that success would feel like its opposite: intentionality, boldness, and alignment with the public good.

An Indigenous interviewee described the feeling as being "unburdened," connecting democratic success to the lifting of colonial weight rather than to participation in existing structures.

Q6

Q6 was dropped after interview 6 due to redundancy with other questions and is not included in this appendix.

Q7. What is your unique value proposition? What do you do that no one else does?

45 out of 58 interviewees answered question 7.

What interviewees said

The most common self-description across the 45 interviewees who answered this question was convening, with roughly 12 interviewees positioning their organization's core contribution as "bringing people together," "connecting networks," or "building capacity in civil society." This finding itself became analytically significant: as one interviewee observed, convening "is kind of what everybody says they're doing," suggesting that the democracy sector's most claimed differentiator may also be its most duplicated function. Several interviewees framed their convening role in terms of cross-sector bridging, describing themselves as connectors between communities that "don't talk to each other" or as people who sit "adjacent to the sector" and bring outsiders in. One described her value as being "uniquely positioned" as an "insider-outsider" who could "bring them together" precisely because she was not embedded in any single organization.

A second cluster of interviewees, roughly 8 in total, pointed to specific data or research capacity as their defining edge. These claims were among the most concrete in the dataset. One interviewee described holding "7 million pages of internal federal government documents" and building "Canada's only databases" on political donations, lobbying, and government contracting, adding that "literally no one else has this data." Another pointed to "the largest data sets that have ever existed on Canadian public opinion during election campaigns," reaching "more than 2 million Canadians in each federal election." A think tank leader described a three-pillar model integrating "policy research" with "a learning arm" and "a convening and community arm." A funder described their organization's value as "the only way you can truly tell me you are hearing from an unbiased set of the population." In each case, the interviewee could point to a tangible, measurable asset that would be difficult for another organization to replicate.

Youth engagement and education at scale was the third most common differentiator, cited by roughly 7 interviewees. One interviewee described delivering "experiential, curriculum-connected civic learning on a national scale," working directly with teachers and reaching students in schools across the country, noting that "most don't" operate at that scale. Another emphasized "youth-led, youth-run youth engagement" at the local level, positioning the organization as "one of the only organizations in Canada really focused on engaging young people in decision making" at the municipal level. A third described 8 years of "year-round programming in cities across the country" in the youth-and-democracy intersection, adding that the organization works hard "to remain relevant to a group that, like, you age out" of, maintaining institutional memory while its audience constantly turns over. The youth engagement organizations tended to describe their value with more operational specificity than the conveners.

A smaller set of interviewees, roughly 5, described digital tools and technology for participation as their unique contribution. One organization described itself as "an accelerator" with the capacity to "amplify it to millions of Canadians" through digital programming at scale. Another described a data cooperative model where "people who contribute data benefit from it rather than data capitalists." Another 5 interviewees positioned themselves as cross-sector bridge builders, connecting democracy work with journalism, human rights, Indigenous governance, or international networks. One interviewee described "proximity to power, proximity to government" and "network-building capacity" as the distinguishing contribution, adding that the organization was "incredibly apolitical and nonpartisan" and did not "have a particular team that we represent."

Notably, not all interviewees claimed unique value. One funder gave perhaps the most disarming answer in the dataset: "Nothing. Everything we do, other people are doing, and probably in most cases better." Others described their organizational model rather than a differentiator, acknowledging overlap while arguing their particular combination of activities was distinctive. The spread of responses surfaced a tension the sector has not resolved: between organizations that can point to genuinely irreplaceable capabilities (proprietary datasets, national-scale school access, large digital reach) and those whose value propositions, however sincere, overlap substantially with others in the field.

Illustrative quotes

Where perspectives varied

Some interviewees drew sharp distinctions between their UVP as communicated to the public and their UVP within the sector, noting that the two framings serve different purposes.

Academic and think tank interviewees tended to describe value in terms of knowledge production and research methodology, while practitioners emphasized operational reach and community relationships.

Q8. What is one culture or norm of your community that gets in the way of effectively strengthening democracy in Canada?

48 out of 58 interviewees answered question 8.

What interviewees said

This question produced some of the most candid and self-critical responses in the entire listening exercise. The dominant theme, raised by roughly 12 interviewees, was a culture of competition and scarcity mindset that shapes relationships between organizations. Interviewees described "competition, rather than collaboration," dynamics where "everyone is chasing funding, and sometimes they see other organizations in the space as competitors instead of collaborators," and structural incentives that are "counterproductive." Several traced competition directly to funding scarcity, describing a pattern where "as the water pit dries out, the herd crowds around" and organizations adopt protective postures even when they value collaboration in principle. One interviewee named it bluntly as a culture where organizations see each other "as competitors" rather than allies, adding that funding structures "set up competitive structures" that reinforce the dynamic. Another described a pattern of "siloed competition, building own brand at expense of collective intelligence."

The second most cited self-sabotage norm, raised by roughly 8 interviewees, was the conflation of democracy work with progressive politics. Interviewees described this as a culture where democracy organizations are "labeled political" or identified with one side of the political spectrum, undermining their credibility and reach. One interviewee named it directly as the "conflation of progressive politics and democracy work," acknowledging that he did not "remove myself from that." Another described how organizations can fall into "purity" dynamics where "you must be my version of perfection, or we don't do anything with you," resulting in fracturing. This theme connects directly to the progressive-label finding that appears across multiple questions in the dataset.

Duplication of work was raised by roughly 6 interviewees as a norm that wastes scarce resources. One interviewee listed "duplication of work" alongside "a scarcity mindset" and "a certain amount of elitism and gatekeeping" as a cluster of related self-sabotage norms. Another described "unintentional duplication of efforts" as a barrier that persists because organizations lack visibility into what others are doing. The duplication finding connects to the visibility problem identified in Q1: without shared knowledge of who does what, multiple organizations build similar programs while remaining too under-resourced to coordinate.

Several interviewees pointed to norms of elitism and gatekeeping, where "people who actively want to be involved in democracy" are held back by "very small protected circles of executive directors" who are "all duplicating each other's work" and "all want to be credited with original thinking." Others identified an over-indexing on youth at the expense of adults: "I think sometimes we over-index on young people, and we forget that adults are also important." One interviewee described a culture of trying "to do everything for everybody," calling it "not feasible or productive." Another named "pundits" as a self-sabotage pattern: "you hear from the same people at the same time." A lack of measurement standards was also raised, with one interviewee asking pointedly, "what's the evidence?" and noting that "we don't have long-term studies" to demonstrate the sector's impact.

Several interviewees identified an avoidance of engagement with right-of-centre communities as a norm that limits the sector's reach and credibility. One described a culture where organizations "write off communities that are a bit more disengaged or have stronger opinions, usually on the right." Another named risk aversion more broadly, noting that in the nonprofit sector "charities are not great risk takers," with advocacy carrying "more scrutiny" and a "funding risk." A government perspective added the observation that "the idea that all politics is dirty" and that "government is somehow the enemy" gets in the way of strengthening democracy. The breadth and candor of these responses suggest a sector that is highly self-aware about its cultural dysfunctions but has lacked a forum to name them collectively.

Illustrative quotes

Where perspectives varied

Insiders (first round) were more likely to name internal cultural dynamics such as competition, duplication, and gatekeeping. The second round interviewees, with more distance from the sector, were more likely to name perception problems and avoidance of engagement with polarized communities.

One interviewee pushed back on the question itself, arguing that "trying to associate this with a weakness with democracy organizations seems like asking the wrong question," before ultimately naming factionalism and a failure to promote younger leaders.

Several interviewees named the same dynamic from different angles: the "scarcity mindset" identified by practitioners is the structural mirror of the "innovation bias" identified by funders in Q9.

Open questions raised by interviewees

Is the competition norm driven by funding structures, or would it persist even with more resources?

How does the sector engage right-of-centre communities without triggering the "progressive conflation" it has identified as self-sabotaging?

What would evidence-informed measurement standards for democracy work look like, and who would develop them?

Q9. What are the top 2 barriers of your community to strengthening democracy in Canada?

47 out of 58 interviewees answered question 9.

What interviewees said

Funding dominated this question with a force unmatched by any other response in the listening exercise. Roughly 25 of the 47 interviewees who answered named funding as one of their top 2 barriers, making it the single most frequently cited barrier in the dataset by a wide margin. But the responses went beyond a generic call for more money. Interviewees described a structural funding problem with multiple dimensions: "short-term funding that's spread too thinly," a pattern where "people really like to fund the new projects instead of those that are maybe more successful," the absence of "stable and reliable and no-strings-attached funding," and a competitive landscape where democracy organizations are "competing against sectors that are getting involved in the space because they want a direct policy outcome and have orders of magnitude more resources." One interviewee simply said "money, money, money," while another described the need as "funding and resourcing" that was "deeply underfunded." A funder-side interviewee described "philanthropy" as "one of the most risk-averse sectors I've been in with an unhealthy preoccupation with, how does it look?"

The second most cited barrier, raised by roughly 15 interviewees, was a lack of coordination and shared strategic vision. One interviewee named it succinctly: "lack of coordination, lack of a shared strategic vision." Others described "a huge barrier" as "not understanding what we're all doing, whether we're duplicating services, stepping on each other's toes, or missing gaps. We don't know each other." Another framed it as the absence of "a mechanism to connect and collaborate" and of "a connected theory of change, a collective goal." The coordination barrier and the funding barrier were frequently described as interrelated: scarcity drives competition, which suppresses coordination, which produces duplication, which wastes scarce resources.

A third cluster of interviewees, roughly 6, identified a civic literacy gap as a barrier: "ask the average person what democracy is and they can't tell you. That's been a failure of our sector." Another described a challenge of "having people doing the work understand why, and what they're trying to accomplish." A related theme, raised by roughly 5 interviewees, pointed to funder priorities as misaligned with sector needs, with one interviewee describing funders who work "only with very long-standing embedded institutions, rather than more emergent and responsive ones." Another noted that "provincial territorial education systems and not one national system" created a structural barrier to scaling civic education.

Complacency and lack of urgency were named by roughly 4 interviewees, with one describing it as "generations of Canadians who don't really have an experience of living in a democracy under significant threat." Another framed it more sharply: "the urgency around democratic participation and civic engagement isn't there... until something personally impacts people." A perception barrier was also raised by 4 interviewees, with one noting that "the public will perceive some work as lefty, but that's a failure of narrative." The information ecosystem and big tech power were named by 3 interviewees as barriers that sit largely outside the sector's control, with one describing internal divisions where "the old left and the new left really clash in this space in ways that have created deep divisions, hostilities even."

Illustrative quotes

Where perspectives varied

Interviewees from smaller or newer organizations tended to emphasize funding as an existential barrier, while larger or more established organizations were more likely to name coordination and shared vision as the primary gap.

Q10. If you could wave a magic wand and have the community do one thing differently, what would it be?

46 out of 58 interviewees answered question 10.

What interviewees said

The single most common wish, raised by roughly 15 interviewees, was for more coordination and communication within the sector. The language was strikingly practical: "talk to each other more," "have a forum, like an annual forum," "come together and better understand what each organization is doing, have critical conversations, honest conversations... in a space that feels productive and constructive, rather than competitive and potentially hostile." One interviewee noted that "you could have a Zoom coordination meeting next week. There's no reason people couldn't be talking to each other." Another described a wish for organizations to "collaborate" and "be more ambitious and expansive about bringing people in." The consistency of this response, which mirrors the coordination gap identified in Q9, suggests that the desire for connection is widely held but no one has yet taken responsibility for convening it.

The second most common wish, raised by roughly 6 interviewees, was for the sector to get outside its own bubble and mainstream democracy into broader public conversations. One interviewee described wanting the sector to "get outside of the sector and insert itself into other kinds of conferences and mainstream democracy." Another wished for it to "make it make sense to people, not academic, not urban, not elitist. Meet people where they're at." A related response called for "actively de-silo at all times, where they can." These responses reflect a concern that the democracy sector talks primarily to itself, missing opportunities to connect with the broader public and adjacent movements.

Roughly 5 interviewees wished for greater transparency and specialization, with one calling for organizations to "embrace greater transparency and specialization... recognizing where strong evidence-based models already exist, and aligning efforts to complement rather than replicate them." Another wished the sector could "find the way to be greater than the sum of our parts." These responses connect to the duplication concern raised in Q8 and the coordination gap in Q9: if organizations were clearer about what they do well, the sector could reduce overlap and increase collective impact.

A geographic concentration concern was raised by roughly 4 interviewees: "be careful not to over-index on Toronto and Ottawa. This country is vast and diverse." Others wished for greater resourcing of underrepresented communities and for "greater ambition and urgency" in the sector's response to democratic threats. One interviewee stood out as a notable exception, declining to critique: "I think they're actually doing pretty well, all things considered." Another wished for organizations to "think more seriously about public accountability, making strides to be more serious about identifying our shortcomings." One second round interviewee wished for organizations to "really trust that we can work together. Having trust in the ecosystem," pointing to a relational deficit that underlies the coordination gap.

The Q10 responses, taken together, reveal a sector that overwhelmingly wants to coordinate but has not built the infrastructure, trust, or resources to do so. The wish is not for uniformity or centralized control but for regular communication, mutual awareness, and a forum where honest conversations can happen without competitive dynamics distorting them.

Illustrative quotes

Where perspectives varied

The coordination wish was expressed with varying degrees of ambition: some wanted a simple listserv or annual call, while others imagined a structured network with paid coordination staff and working groups.

Q11. What is this sector's greatest strength and greatest weakness?

47 out of 58 interviewees answered question 11.

Greatest strength

The dominant strength, named by roughly 18 interviewees, was the passion, dedication, and commitment of the people working in the sector. This was described in varied but consistent language: "passion, passion for our country, and wanting it to be better," "people in this sector are very passionate... its greatest strength is the people who are involved in it," "heart, intent, collegiality, goodwill, vision," and "everybody is super into it." One interviewee described the sector's people as possessing "grit," noting that supporters "who've seen losses keep advocating." Another framed it as a sector where the people are its defining asset: "we are so scrappy, and we've been so scrappy for so long... we do a lot with a little." The depth and frequency of this response is notable: nearly 4 in 10 interviewees named the same human quality as the sector's greatest strength.

The desire and willingness to collaborate was the second most cited strength, raised by roughly 8 interviewees. One described it as "the ability and the desire to collaborate and promote one another's work." This finding sits in productive tension with the competition and scarcity mindset identified as the sector's top self-sabotage norm in Q8: the sector wants to collaborate even as its structures push it toward competition.

Quality of work and expertise was named by roughly 6 interviewees, with one describing "the quality of the work... the research, the reports, the respect of the government... the intellect and the ethics are actually quite high." Another pointed to "the depth of our knowledge... the social science cold, sense of history, landscape, international field." Diversity of perspectives was cited by roughly 5 interviewees, while 4 pointed to the fact that "there's still a lot of support for democratic ideals in Canada," meaning the sector is "not fighting an uphill battle" with the public.

One interviewee gave a notably dissenting answer: "Right now there's no strength. I think right now we have work to do." This response, while an outlier, reflected a frustration with the gap between the sector's aspirations and its current capacity to act collectively.

Greatest weakness

The dominant weakness, named by roughly 12 interviewees, was fragmentation and lack of coordination, the same structural diagnosis that appeared as the sector's universal self-image in Q1 and as the second most cited barrier in Q9. Interviewees described "the scatteredness of the sector, and in some cases, I think the lack of a specific focus. There is a lot of overlap." Another named it as a weakness where the sector is "very ineffective in how we... civil society works in the democracy space in Canada." The fragmentation weakness and the coordination wish in Q10 are two expressions of the same structural gap.

Competition and scarcity mindset was the second most cited weakness, raised by roughly 8 interviewees, echoing the top self-sabotage norm from Q8. One described it as "competition... seeing others as competitors," while another named "organizational ego, sense they have the answer" as the underlying driver. A third described a pattern of "siloed competition, building own brand at expense of collective intelligence." These responses suggest the competition dynamic is not incidental but structural, reinforced by funding scarcity and the absence of coordination infrastructure.

Conceptual confusion and the absence of a shared definition of democracy work was named by roughly 5 interviewees: "we don't share a common view of what democracy is... there is conceptual confusion... some people conflate democracy with progressive ideals, which necessarily negates inclusion of people who don't share those views." Fear of engaging polarized communities was raised by roughly 4 interviewees: "we're afraid to engage with people who are very polarized, or alienated, or angry, or disconnected." Gatekeeping and thinking small was named by another 4: "thinking small... gatekeeping, people who actively want to be involved tapping in very small protected circles." A distinct contribution came from the observation that the sector suffers from "fragmented accountability. All of our accountabilities lead away from each other," describing a structural reality where each organization's reporting obligations pull outward toward its own funders and board rather than toward a shared center.

The strength-weakness pairing

The Q11 pairing reveals a structural insight that runs through the entire listening exercise. The sector's greatest strength, the passion and dedication of its people, and its greatest weakness, fragmentation and lack of coordination, are two sides of the same gap. The sector has deeply committed individuals working in isolation from one another, producing high-quality work within their own domains but unable to aggregate that effort into collective impact. The passion is real but structurally unsupported. The fragmentation is not a failure of will but a failure of infrastructure: no one has built the connective tissue that would allow 58 passionate leaders to act as something more than 58 separate efforts. This is the core case for a coalition.

Illustrative quotes (strength)

Illustrative quotes (weakness)

Where perspectives varied

Several interviewees named the same quality as both the greatest strength and the greatest weakness. One described "passion" as the strength and the weakness: "sometimes we have to make hard choices, and... in my experience, we struggle on that."

Q12. How can your organization be helpful to others in this community?

36 out of 58 interviewees answered question 12.

What interviewees said

Interviewees described a range of concrete assets they could offer the broader democracy community, with sharing data, research, and organizational assets emerging as the single most common response. 10 interviewees described making proprietary resources available to others in the sector. For some this meant opening research databases to peer organizations: "I want them to use our databases. We have 7 million pages of internal federal government documents. I want them to use those to advance their missions." Others described sharing practical knowledge accumulated over years of direct program delivery: "A lot of research, a lot of practical experience working with schools, sharing best practices, identifying gaps or duplication, and collaborating with groups." Several interviewees framed their research assets not as competitive advantages but as sector-wide infrastructure that would be more valuable if widely used, including survey data, polling insights, and programming materials developed through years of community engagement.

Convening and connecting others was the second most common response, with 8 interviewees positioning their organizations as bridges between groups that might not otherwise find each other. One interviewee described convening as a core competency: "Convening is our superpower. Bringing people together and bringing people who may never have otherwise had the resources, time, or known that they should be in the same conversation." Funders, in particular, described a distinctive connecting role that extended beyond grantmaking: "Leaning in quietly, making connections to other funders, sector knowledge, sharing capacity supports, sharing due diligence, sharing some infrastructure as well. People really know we're there. We kind of walk the walk." Another funder put it simply: "Number one is funding. Number two is convening."

6 interviewees identified funding and capacity support as their primary contribution, a response concentrated among foundations and larger institutions. These interviewees distinguished between the straightforward provision of grants and the harder, quieter work of building the sector's underlying capacity to operate. 5 interviewees emphasized practical experience and best practices as their offering, pointing to programmatic knowledge that could be transferred to peer organizations. One interviewee described offering an unfiltered feedback loop from public engagement: "Our organization hears directly from the people on the ground without a biased lens. We stand on street corners. We are the most value in being the feedback loop."

Several interviewees highlighted distinctive lenses and capacities that diversified the sector's collective toolkit. One interviewee offered the perspective of pre-colonial governance: "The way we did things before colonization has some lessons that could be used by people in today's democracy." Another described opening doors to communities underrepresented in democracy work: "We can open up doors to different ethnic communities. We have a lot of 18- to 34-year-olds in the Muslim community." 3 interviewees specifically described digital amplification at scale as a contribution, noting their organizations' capacity to reach large audiences through digital platforms and social media. One interviewee framed her role as a cross-sector connector: "I actually think I'm uniquely positioned to help with some of this work. Someone who is adjacent to the sector can actually be one of the ones that bring them together. It has to be a really informed outsider. Insider-outsider."

Notably, several interviewees struggled to answer this question in organizational terms and instead described their personal positioning or their willingness to participate in collective efforts. This pattern is consistent with the broader finding that the sector lacks the structures through which organizational assets could be shared, even when the willingness to share them is clearly present. The gap is not generosity but infrastructure.

Illustrative quotes

Where perspectives varied

Funders described their contribution primarily in terms of capital and convening, while frontline organizations emphasized program knowledge, data, and community access. The two groups rarely described overlapping assets, suggesting genuine complementarity if coordination structures existed to match supply with demand.

Several interviewees noted that their willingness to share assets was constrained by competitive dynamics around funding. One interviewee described experiencing "idea theft and lack of trust" when trying to create collaborative opportunities, a tension that undercuts the generous instincts expressed throughout this question.

Q13. If your community received $100 million and could wave a magic wand, what is the one big, audacious goal you would have them achieve?

50 out of 58 interviewees answered question 13.

What interviewees said

This question invited interviewees to think beyond current constraints and name the single biggest goal they would set for the sector with unlimited resources and authority. It produced the richest and most varied set of responses in the entire listening exercise, ranging from incremental expansions of existing programs to transformative reimaginings of democratic life in Canada. The proposals cluster into 6 categories, though many interviewees combined elements across categories.

The largest cluster, with 15 interviewees, centered on building civic learning and participation infrastructure at a scale that does not currently exist in Canada. Several interviewees described lifelong civic education as the foundational investment: "Build a civic infrastructure where existing organizations could train more teachers, expand programs in schools, and know who supports those kids in post-secondary. You can't just learn civics once." Others pushed beyond schools toward universal access: "Cover the territory of Canada with opportunities for engagement and participation, different sizes, different formats. If democracy works for people, people will work for democracy." One interviewee named a specific and uncompromising target: "100% youth turnout in elections. Not 90. Not 95. 100%." Within this cluster, several second round interviewees expanded the frame to include deliberative and participatory democracy infrastructure: civic assemblies attached to legislative bodies, participatory budgeting at every level of government, and "every community in Canada has a functioning deliberative democracy process." One interviewee proposed completing Confederation itself through "nation-to-nation-to-nation relationships" that recognize Indigenous governance as part of the democratic fabric. Another proposed a civic youth corps: "Imagine if all these organizations say, we want to create a civic youth corps. Building the civic muscles of all the youth in this country."

12 interviewees proposed sector coordination, network building, and shared strategy as their big audacious goal. These responses ranged from concrete and near-term to architecturally ambitious. At the concrete end: "Come together in person to come up with a shared strategic vision. Written shared commitments. We want to do X by Y here." Others described a more permanent coordination infrastructure: "80% of what happens should ladder up on impact, so we can see the impact is greater than the sum of the different parts." One interviewee proposed a "spider web of interconnected nodes, each as independent agents" creating "a permanent state of readiness that has the capacity, technology, the digital infrastructure, and the people to be able to move and activate on issues quickly." A significant architectural contribution came from an interviewee who challenged the assumption that coordination means centralization, proposing instead a "hub-and-spoke model rather than singular network," a "shared services" structure modeled on co-location spaces, and a "democracy observatory" for tracking signals of democratic change. Another interviewee offered a notably different perspective, arguing that the magic wand should remove the scarcity mindset rather than solve a specific problem: "Each organization having a deep understanding of how their individual and complementary and somewhat overlapping offerings leads to that future state. I don't think we need to have unlimited funds to do it. We just need to have a deep commitment and a collaborative mindset."

8 interviewees identified narrative shift and communications at scale as the priority. One funder was emphatic: "I would have them working on the narrative shift. Because you've got to be big. You've got to be able to fight through the noise online. You've got to be big, you've got to be well-resourced, you've got to be strategic." Others described the need for a shared narrative about democracy that could reach beyond the sector's existing audiences. This cluster connects directly to Q16's finding that shared narrative is among the lowest-hanging fruit, but Q13 responses suggest the ambition required far exceeds what "low-hanging fruit" implies.

6 interviewees focused on the information ecosystem and technology governance. These proposals were disproportionately from second round interviewees with expertise in media, technology, and research. One interviewee named 3 distinct priorities: building research capacity on technological change, technology governance connected with global governance institutions, and constructing "a new media ecosystem, new institutions and capacities to produce reliable information." Another proposed Canada adopt the EU or Australian approach to regulating online spaces, calling the current information ecosystem "garbage" and "sewage." Another interviewee proposed building "press freedom infrastructure," noting surprise at its absence in Canada.

6 interviewees proposed strengthening democratic guardrails and institutions, including proportional representation, democratic renewal pledges for political parties, a People's Commission on democratic threats, and the capacity for "immediate public response when governments curtail basic rights or guardrails." One former political leader proposed a suite of initiatives including a State of Canadian Democracy Summit, social media regulation for children, and "free listening," protecting people's ability to hear perspectives beyond their own information bubbles. Another interviewee described success in movement terms: "We would be successful if the moment a provincial government invokes the notwithstanding clause, there are 100,000 people in the streets."

5 interviewees proposed structural reform to the funding system itself, including a Canadian Democracy Endowment of "$75 to $200 million, arm's-length, publicly funded," multi-year collaborative funding with shared impact measurement, and legal defense funds for civil liberties, climate, and DEI backlash.

One interviewee resisted the question's premise entirely: "I wouldn't want them to do one thing together. Democracy itself, this sector is complex, it is messy, and it is contentious. I think that conflict is okay." This dissent is analytically significant: it challenges the assumption embedded in the question that unity of purpose is desirable, and it reflects the broader tension in the dataset between coordination as alignment and coordination as coercion.

A notable pattern across responses: many interviewees described proposals that are essentially their existing work with more resources, rather than genuinely transformative ideas unlocked by the magic wand framing. Several interviewees acknowledged this directly. The most distinctive proposals came from interviewees who broke from their organizational frame to describe system-level changes: a new media ecosystem, a civic youth corps, a hub-and-spoke network design, or 100,000 people in the streets when democratic guardrails are breached.

Illustrative quotes

Where perspectives varied

The most significant divide was between interviewees who proposed doing more of what the sector already does (civic education, GOTV, coordination meetings) and those who proposed structural or system-level changes (information ecosystem governance, movement-building capacity, institutional reform). The second round interviewees were more likely to fall in the latter category.

One interviewee challenged the coordination-first approach directly: "I don't think more collaboration is the answer to a ton of organizations that don't have capacity. I think that replicates the lack of capacity." This view holds that the sector's problem is not coordination failure but scale failure, and that building capacity in a few strategic areas matters more than connecting everyone who already lacks capacity.

The Democracy Endowment proposal generated significant debate. While 5 interviewees endorsed some version of it, several raised concerns about concentration, governance, and political capture. One interviewee warned that "government endowment money will be poisoned."

Open questions raised by interviewees

What is the right ratio between investing in existing organizations versus building new infrastructure? Several interviewees noted that $100 million spread across 50 organizations is incremental, while $100 million concentrated in 3 to 5 strategic investments could be transformative, but also risks excluding most of the sector.

"How do you get the $100 million or $200 million?" One interviewee noted that the question's premise sidesteps the hardest problem: who capitalizes the sector, and through what mechanism?

Q14. What are the top 2 barriers preventing that big, audacious goal from being achieved?

43 out of 58 interviewees answered question 14.

What interviewees said

When asked why their Q13 vision had not been realized, interviewees named barriers that cluster into 5 categories, with money and coordination failures dominating but structural and cultural barriers adding significant explanatory depth.

Money and funding constraints were cited by 20 interviewees, making this the single most common barrier. But the specificity of funding complaints went well beyond "not enough money." Interviewees described a funding system that is structurally mismatched with what democracy work requires. Several pointed to the dominance of project-based and short-term funding: "There's not been massive investments in democracy compared to other issues." Others described a pattern where foundations default to micro-grants rather than strategic investment: foundations issue "10 to 30 small grants instead of capitalizing strategic capacity" through "exploratory granting programs." One interviewee noted that "the interest of funders for infrastructure has evaporated over the last 20 to 30 years," and another described a boom-and-bust cycle tied to elections: organizations receive event-based funding during election periods and face existential uncertainty between them. The funding barrier intersects with other barriers in ways that compound the problem: inadequate compensation drives talented people out of the sector, organizations compete rather than collaborate because the funding pie is too small, and the entire system operates at a scale several orders of magnitude below what is needed. As one interviewee put it bluntly: "The big things require big things to address them, not a bunch of small things."

15 interviewees described coordination failures, trust gaps, and the absence of a shared strategic vision as the second major barrier cluster. These interviewees named not just the lack of coordination but the underlying reasons for it: "A lack of shared trust and shared understanding across the sector. People who like each other, and people who won't be in the same room." One interviewee identified "politeness" as a barrier, not in the sense of civility but as avoidance of hard conversations that might surface genuine disagreements: "There is no fundamental bad blood in the sector," but the refusal to surface tensions means they go unresolved. Others pointed to competing organizational interests and positioning dynamics that make coordination feel threatening rather than enabling. One interviewee argued the coordination problem is not solvable from within: "The easiest thing to do would be for funders to sort of impose it." Another pushed back on the coordination-first approach entirely, arguing that coordinating organizations that all lack capacity simply "replicates the lack of capacity" rather than solving it. The absence of an intermediary was noted by several: "There's no intermediary that brings them together. People have taken democracy for granted."

10 interviewees described perception and political environment barriers, including the progressive-label conflation, charitable status constraints on advocacy, and the structural paradox of trying to change the political system through the same system. One interviewee captured this paradox precisely: "Our issue is the political system and the paradox is you can only change it through the same system." Another noted that "conflict of interest" extends beyond politicians to "the consultant class, media class, special interests," all of whom have stakes in the status quo. Charitable status restrictions compound the problem by limiting what organizations can say and do, even when their mandates demand it.

8 interviewees named big tech and information ecosystem barriers, a cluster that was disproportionately represented among second round interviewees. One interviewee drew a pointed analogy: "The financial power and the political power of big tech. They're the robber barons of the 21st century." The same interviewee compared platform addiction to the tobacco industry: "The population has an addiction problem to the platforms that big tech controls," noting that tobacco consumption peaked in the 1950s and took 40 years to decline. Others pointed to federal regulatory inertia, the crumbling of traditional media, and the organizing power of foreign networks operating through unregulated platforms. One interviewee observed that "journalism is almost inconsequential in Canada now. It's really depressing to say."

7 interviewees described cultural and motivational barriers: complacency rooted in the assumption that "Canadian democracy is fairly safe," a lack of innovation and ambition in the sector, the multiplication of small organizations each carrying their own administrative overhead, and a public that has not been given sufficient reason to care. One interviewee connected complacency to the comfort of the majority: "Safety and comfort for the majority reduces impetus for change." Another pointed to the historical weight that underlies the challenge: "Canada is a very young country, a very young democracy. We have the experience of the transatlantic slave trade here, and the genocide of Indigenous people here, so there's significant minuses in our starting point." One interviewee described a self-reinforcing cycle: "Decision makers don't reflect people's experiences," and the funding system "requires rigid quantifiable project-based outcomes" that do not incentivize the relational and cultural work that democracy actually requires.

The Q13 and Q14 pairing reveals a structural insight: the barriers interviewees name are not temporary obstacles that more effort or resources could overcome. They are systemic features of the Canadian philanthropic, political, and media landscape. Funding is not merely insufficient; it is structurally misaligned with what democracy work requires. Coordination does not fail because of ill will; it fails because there is no intermediary, no shared strategy, and no funding that rewards collaboration over competition. The political environment does not merely neglect democracy; it actively resists democratization because those with power benefit from the current system. Taken together, these barriers help explain the cognitive dissonance noted in the cross-cutting synthesis: several interviewees described transformative 2050 visions in Q4 but reverted to incremental proposals in Q13. The magic wand did not fully unlock transformative thinking because the barriers feel immovable.

Illustrative quotes

Where perspectives varied

The sharpest disagreement was over whether coordination or capacity is the binding constraint. Most interviewees assumed that better coordination would unlock collective impact. One interviewee dissented forcefully, arguing that the sector's problem is that it operates at insufficient scale and that coordination among under-resourced organizations compounds rather than solves the problem.

Q15. What are the top 2 achievements of your community you are most proud of?

39 out of 58 interviewees answered question 15.

What interviewees said

This question proved to be among the most difficult in the interview guide. Several interviewees paused for a long time before answering, and a notable number declined to name achievements at all. One interviewee captured the sentiment directly: "I think we haven't done enough together as a sector to answer that question." Another said simply: "I don't think I can answer that question." The difficulty of naming collective achievements is itself a finding: it reflects both the sector's fragmentation and its lack of shared metrics for success.

Among those who did answer, increases in youth voter turnout and participation were the most commonly cited achievement, mentioned by 10 interviewees. Several pointed to specific programs: "The student vote program, to get people just as they're coming to the age where they can actually legally vote." Others described broader momentum: "We definitely have seen an increase in the number of young voters. The community does come together with very limited resources to mobilize people to get out and vote." Youth engagement was the one area where interviewees could point to measurable progress and attribute it to the sector's collective work rather than to a single organization.

8 interviewees described the willingness to collaborate and the sheer fact of having survived as achievements. The survival framing was striking in its frequency and emotional weight: "Surviving? Does that sound weird? The fact that we're all still here." Another interviewee echoed this: "The fact that we are at it is a miracle." Others pointed to the sector's growing momentum in recent months: "Within 12 months, gone from nothing to research, conversations, delegations." And one interviewee named the pandemic response as a model of what rapid collective action could look like: "The pandemic response is a stellar example of how the sector came together quickly. $6 billion in federal investment. Putting egos and logos aside." The frequency with which interviewees cited mere survival as an achievement underscores the precariousness of democracy work in Canada.

7 interviewees cited civic education programs and resources as achievements, often pointing to the same small set of organizations and their student vote programs as evidence that sustained programming can produce measurable results. One interviewee noted that the sector does a good job of maintaining nonpartisan practice, naming conferences and debates that consistently include all major parties.

6 interviewees pointed to policy, legal, and institutional wins as achievements. These ranged from press freedom protections to marriage equality to electoral reform progress: "Some of the strongest press freedom and freedom of association laws in the world, through strategic litigation." One interviewee pointed to the BC Committee for Electoral Reform, where "97% of responses that came in from the public were supportive of proportional representation," as evidence that the public conversation on democratic reform is being won even if policy has not yet followed. Another described the progress on rights-based discourse: "Rights-based discourses expanding recognition: unions, human rights frameworks."

5 interviewees named representation and inclusion gains, describing more complex and nuanced conversations around identity and participation: "We're starting to move a little bit past tokenism." One interviewee pointed to concrete gains: "Two women mayors back-to-back in Montreal. We are breaking our own record." Another described the progress as uneven but real: "More and more authentic conversations around reconciliation and supporting Indigenous communities."

3 interviewees identified this very listening exercise as an achievement, suggesting that the act of convening the sector for structured reflection was itself a step forward: "The soil has been tilled."

The pattern across Q15 responses suggests a community that can point to important programmatic achievements, particularly around youth engagement and civic education, but struggles to name collective accomplishments. The achievements most commonly cited are either the work of individual organizations or the sector's bare survival. The absence of shared achievements is both a symptom of fragmentation and a motivation for coalition formation.

Illustrative quotes

Where perspectives varied

Some interviewees could name concrete programmatic or legislative achievements and expressed genuine pride. Others could not name any achievements and said so directly, sometimes with visible frustration. The divide roughly tracked organizational tenure: those who had been in the sector longer were more likely to name achievements, while newer entrants and peripheral interviewees struggled.

One interviewee from outside the traditional democracy sector declined entirely: "I just don't know enough about the sector, and I think that speaks to its relevance in my life, and the lives of a lot of other Indigenous people." This response is a reminder that achievements visible from within the sector may be invisible or irrelevant to communities the sector seeks to serve.

Q16. What is the lowest hanging fruit for your community?

43 out of 58 interviewees answered question 16.

What interviewees said

The question asked interviewees to identify actions the sector could take immediately, with existing resources, requiring only the decision to act. 10 interviewees said the lowest-hanging fruit was simply starting to coordinate, to talk to each other. One interviewee put it starkly: "You could have a Zoom coordination meeting next week. There's no reason people couldn't be talking to each other." Others described coordination not as a grand initiative but as a minimal act of mutual awareness: "Not even collaborating on projects, it's just keeping each other informed." The Athens Democracy Forum trip, which brought several sector leaders together internationally, was cited by multiple interviewees as an example of low-cost, high-return coordination that created serendipitous connections and renewed energy. One interviewee noted that much of the needed coordination is simply about developing "greater knowledge of each other's work," while another described the cross-pollination value: "Often, you talk to one group who's really struggling with something, and a parallel group has already solved it 5 years ago, but nobody ever asked them."

8 interviewees identified building a shared narrative and communications strategy as low-hanging fruit. "A shared sector-wide narrative to reinforce the importance of strengthening democracy" was described as achievable with existing messaging capacity, if organizations could agree on core themes. Others pushed further: "Define the democracy sector and the ecosystem. Who are we? What are we doing? It's the lowest hanging fruit." The narrative question connects to the sector's persistent struggle with the progressive-label conflation: interviewees recognized that agreeing on what democracy work is, and communicating that clearly to the public, would require confronting internal disagreements about the sector's boundaries and identity.

6 interviewees proposed sector mapping and directory-building as a straightforward, achievable step. The desire to know "who is doing what" surfaced repeatedly throughout the interview guide, and interviewees described it here as something that could be accomplished with modest effort. One interviewee specifically proposed a mapping exercise showing "what everyone is planning, identifying quick synergies, 1 plus 1 doesn't just equal 2, it will equal 3 or 4."

5 interviewees said the sector needed to define itself before it could do anything else, treating definitional clarity as the precondition for all other collective action. 4 interviewees proposed shared data and research sharing as immediately achievable, noting that organizations already possess assets that could be pooled. 3 interviewees identified legal defense funds as low-hanging fruit that "requires very little from foundations" and could protect organizations and individuals facing litigation from DEI backlash, civil liberties challenges, and climate-related legal threats.

Several interviewees challenged the question's premise, arguing that nothing in the sector's current situation qualifies as low-hanging fruit. One funder responded: "I actually don't know that there's a lot of low-hanging fruit here, because of the two barriers that I mentioned, the capacity barrier and the knowledge barrier." Another agreed: "The lowest-hanging fruit will require a very big ladder." A third said simply: "I can't think of anything. Go back to disconnection." One interviewee noted that even the obvious option, get-out-the-vote campaigns, "is not low-hanging fruit." And several interviewees drew attention to the fact that identifying low-hanging fruit with no resources to act is itself the problem: "Without additional resources, stuck in status quo."

One second round interviewee identified press freedom infrastructure as surprisingly achievable low-hanging fruit: "I'm surprised at the lack of infrastructure. This feels like we should have that in Canada." The suggestion reflects the broader second round pattern of surfacing needs visible only from the sector's periphery. Other distinctive suggestions included engaging mosques as civic engagement venues, targeting new Canadians for civic education, using social media for year-round democracy communications rather than only during election periods, and mobilizing public support around national sovereignty and security.

Illustrative quotes

Where perspectives varied

The central tension in Q16 was between interviewees who saw coordination as genuinely easy (just call a meeting) and those who saw even minimal coordination as requiring resources and intermediary capacity that do not exist. Both perspectives carry truth: the act of convening is low-cost, but sustaining coordination requires dedicated staff, funding, and institutional infrastructure.

Several interviewees distinguished between low-hanging fruit for the sector (coordination, mapping) and low-hanging fruit for democracy (youth civic education, press freedom infrastructure, legal defense funds). The former requires only internal will; the latter requires external resources and political support.

Q17. What is an existential threat to your community?

45 out of 58 interviewees answered question 17.

What interviewees said

The most frequently named existential threat was not fascism, funding collapse, or information decline. It was the risk that democracy work gets permanently labeled as progressive or left-wing politics. Approximately 12 interviewees raised this unprompted, making it the single most cited threat in the dataset. Core sector voices warned that "the minute this gets labeled progressive... that is an existential threat to this work, and I'm actually really worried about it." Others framed the danger in terms of association: "that piece around left-wing politics... that's the existential threat, that people associate us, like they do in the U.S., with a party or with a side of the spectrum." One interviewee observed that "as soon as a group says they're nonpartisan or multipartisan, they mean NDP Liberal or Green." Another noted that "people conflate democracy with progressive ideals, which necessarily negates inclusion of people who don't share those views." This convergence is analytically significant: the threat was raised unprompted, never challenged by any interviewee, and confirmed by voices from outside the sector. One interviewee with direct political experience observed that "when I was a politician, these organizations never reached out to me." A centre-right voice unprompted noted that "the sector leans progressive, it's just obvious from the outside." When both insiders and outsiders converge on the same diagnosis without coordination, the confidence level is very high.

Fascism and authoritarian backsliding were named by approximately 10 interviewees, but the sector has not converged on how to think about this threat. 3 distinct framings emerged. Some interviewees treated it as an external, existential danger: "an existential threat is getting stuck, like what we're seeing in the States." One interviewee simply named "Donald Trump." Others rejected the "existential" framing because they see the threat as already present: "Fascism... it's not existential, because we're already seeing the playbook unfolding in Canada." A third group treated fascism as a symptom of deeper structural failures rather than a root cause, arguing that "the attractiveness of authoritarianism to people who feel the system doesn't work for them" reflects inequality, exclusion, and institutional betrayal rather than an autonomous movement. One interviewee noted that "public support for fascism is rising... I'm quite certain people do not understand what they're losing when they lose it." Another reported that "some 40% of young Canadians think authoritarianism would be better than democracy. That's not even just existential... that's a threat right now, active." The 3-way framing split is itself analytically important: the sector has no shared theory of what it is responding to when it talks about the anti-democratic threat.

Funding collapse and organizational sustainability were named by approximately 8 interviewees. These responses went beyond generic calls for more money. Interviewees described a structural crisis: "the current funding environment could cause a loss of institutional knowledge and resources." One outside observer noted that "a lot of them don't seem to have sustainable business models. A lot of them are reliant on a handful of large funders, quite frankly, the federal government." Others warned that "this money and attention will not be here forever" and that "a lot of nonprofits are going under because they were supported by a major funder for 20 years, and that funder went away." The loss of international funding sources and government cuts to anti-hate and anti-racism programs compounded the picture.

The decline of the information ecosystem was named by approximately 7 interviewees, with particular emphasis from media and journalism voices in second round. "An existential threat is the decline of the information ecosystem. We don't have Fox News in the same way, but segmented internet channels, podcasts, TikTok, can create a politics-of-division media landscape." One interviewee warned that "a GOTV effort won't work in a broken information environment... when people lose trust and are swimming in misinformation and extremist ideas not rooted in shared reality." Others named the collapse of journalism infrastructure and the failure to differentiate "free speech from hate speech" as compounding factors. Complacency and public disengagement were named by approximately 5 interviewees, primarily in first round: "the existential threat is complacency, driven by vested interests in keeping us quiet." Smaller clusters emerged around foreign interference (3 interviewees, exclusively first round), polarization and social cohesion collapse (3 interviewees), and rights erosion through use of the notwithstanding clause (2 interviewees, exclusively second round). One interviewee warned that "we still operate in an environment in which we take for granted that there are certain norms that may not be protected by law... the notwithstanding clause... it's not the last resort anymore."

Q18. What is the top three help you need the most?

39 out of 58 interviewees answered question 18.

What interviewees said

Money dominated the responses. Approximately 22 of 39 respondents named funding as their top need, and many named it for all 3 of their requested items. "Funding, funding, funding" was a literal answer from one interviewee. But the funding ask was rarely generic. Interviewees distinguished between project-based grants and core operational funding, with the latter emerging as the more urgent need: "without mission money, there's no time to consult peers or share analysis; it becomes survival and project management." Others framed the problem as structural: "we're applying to 20 different funders and just praying we get one. A pooled fund would mean one application." One funder described "the extreme decentralization of the funding system" as something that "operates to the advantage of each individual funder and to the detriment of the sector as a whole." Several interviewees connected inadequate funding directly to the unsustainability of careers in the sector: "we're such a critical part of the fabric of society, but we're literally on shoestring budgets." One interviewee asked for "shared funding... at scale... other foundations to work with us," and another called for "unrestricted funding" to match the ambition of the work.

Coordination and collaboration were the 2nd most cited need, raised by approximately 18 interviewees. This was not a vague aspiration. Interviewees specified what coordination would look like: "shared frameworks," "shared to-do lists," "sector-wide plans," and structures that "reduce duplication by knowing who is doing what." One interviewee wanted "collaboration and being the network piece of it... the network of people I could lean on." Another called for "a shared kind of coordination... someone who holds the glue and makes all the meetings happen." The desire for coordination was closely linked to the fragmentation finding from Q1: interviewees who described a fragmented sector now named the remedy they needed. One interviewee described the need for "an organized framework for collaboration" alongside sustainable funding and investment in "emerging leaders." A women's organization leader asked for "cross-sector alignment and collaboration with partners."

Capacity, infrastructure, and staffing were the 3rd most cited need, raised by approximately 8 interviewees. "Engagement and participation. Capacity and infrastructure. And appetite to be a bit bolder" was one interviewee's trio. Others named "resources, capacity, and solidarity," "visibility and amplification of what we do," and "time, I need more time... the ability to allocate more time to getting in a room with people." An elections management body named "expertise of the NGOs" and "nonpartisanship of the NGOs" as what it needed most from the sector. A shared narrative and clearer public-facing communications were raised by approximately 6 interviewees: "a narrative that people can buy into, a vision that people can support... what is the collective story that we're telling?" Another wanted "the more things I can point to from the ecosystem itself, the better advocate I can be." Knowing who else is in the space and having access to a sector map or directory was raised by approximately 5 interviewees: "knowing better who else is in the space... so we can collaborate and pool resources." A human rights education organization asked for "a virtual platform, a sector map showing who's doing what," and called on "government to understand its responsibility to support civil society, if government could understand their responsibility, we could do so much more."

Illustrative quotes

Where perspectives varied

Interviewees largely converged on what the sector needs. The main variation was in emphasis: core sector organizations tended to lead with funding, while adjacent and outside voices more often led with coordination and narrative. Funders themselves acknowledged that the funding system's decentralization was a structural problem, not just a resource gap. Several interviewees noted the irony that the sector calls for coordination while lacking the infrastructure to coordinate.

Q19. What community-wide work would help you?

45 out of 58 interviewees answered question 19.

What interviewees said

The most frequently cited need was sector-wide networking, convening, and coordination, raised by approximately 15 interviewees. Many described this in concrete terms rather than abstract aspiration. "It would be great to be more in community... if there was a democracy association, or heck, even just, like, an informal working group, I would love to be more in community with those people." Another called for "more regular convenings," adding a careful distinction: "I often use the word cohesion rather than consensus or uniformity. I don't actually think a sector our size can ever truly gain consensus, but we can be cohesive." Others envisioned "an ongoing national table, an ongoing conversation outside of election season" and said that "let's do a yearly call. Get in the same room. That's where the magic happens: beyond the agenda, spontaneous collaborations emerge." One interviewee who described the sector as an absolute zoo in Q1 nonetheless believed the remedy was straightforward: "you could have a Zoom coordination meeting next week. There's no reason people couldn't be talking to each other."

A shared narrative and communications strategy was the 2nd most cited community-wide need, raised by approximately 8 interviewees. "The narrative, the story, coming together to tell that story, and creating the scaffolding for people to invest in this work" was how one interviewee framed the ask. Others wanted "a shared sector-wide narrative to reinforce the importance of strengthening democracy" and "a really clear picture of what the issue is, not politicized... storytelling from a strengths-based perspective rather than a system that's falling." One interviewee noted that "no one can even define what we mean by democracy," suggesting the narrative problem is partly definitional. Another called for "a centralized communications clearinghouse... a shared strategic communications hub that could push the field forward and keep people unified."

Shared measurement and impact frameworks were raised by approximately 6 interviewees: "community-wide measurement... a way to tell across the board, are we moving the needle?" Others wanted "a defining framework for how we work together... how we measure our joint success... don't make us compete for funding." Sector mapping and a who-does-what directory were raised by approximately 5 interviewees, closely echoing Q18 responses. Multi-sector coalition building was raised by approximately 4 interviewees, with second round voices particularly likely to push for reaching beyond the core democracy sector: "institutions are in crisis right now... how can they leverage the work that is being done in our space?" A women's organization leader proposed "a People's Commission or a public forum through which we can collectively investigate these issues." One interviewee called for "building capacity for engagement, democratic engagement in First Nation communities." Another wanted institutions, including post-secondary and government, to partner with the sector to address shared challenges.

Funder coordination was raised by approximately 4 interviewees: "funders need to keep working together... through network weaving and building a collective." Others wanted "a transparent portal showing every democracy initiative funded by foundations," arguing this "would help identify gaps and reduce duplication that fuels competition." One interviewee described the potential as mutual: "if funders could pool resources and investments and see beyond their own election, that would help." Another called for "EMBs pooling resources and investments, beyond their own election." Across the responses, the underlying message was consistent: the sector knows it needs to come together but lacks the infrastructure, resources, and coordination to do so. The desire is not for a single centralized authority but for shared scaffolding that enables alignment while preserving organizational autonomy.

Illustrative quotes

Where perspectives varied

Interviewees agreed on the need for community-wide coordination but differed on whether the vehicle should be a formal coalition, a federation, a network, or something more informal. Some emphasized the value of a structured coordinating body with dedicated staff, while others preferred lighter-touch approaches such as annual convenings and shared digital infrastructure. The second round interviewees were more likely to push for multi-sector coalition models that extend beyond the traditional democracy sector to include unions, health systems, educational institutions, and private sector actors.

Q20. On a scale of 1 to 10, how likely are you to recommend your daughter or son or a loved one to join your community?

47 out of 58 interviewees provided a numeric score.

What interviewees said

This is a "would you recommend it?" question, using a standard metric that groups responses into Promoters (9-10), Passives (7-8), and Detractors (0-6), and is calculated as %Promoters minus %Detractors (range -100 to +100). Using the 47 respondents who provided a numeric score, the sector's overall NPS is +21.3 (44.7% promoters minus 23.4% detractors).

The results are polarized. There is a large cluster of enthusiastic advocates, including 15 people who scored 10 out of 10, alongside a meaningful group of very low scores, including 3 people who scored 3 and 1 who scored 2. The middle range (7-8) contains 15 passives who consistently described the work as deeply meaningful but flagged practical barriers to a higher score. The distribution is not a bell curve: it clusters at the extremes, with scores of 10 (15 respondents), 8 (11 respondents), and 3-5 (9 respondents) forming the dominant groupings. In practice, this suggests that when the work is a fit, it feels deeply compelling, but when it is not, the drawbacks are felt sharply.

Promoters (9-10, 21 respondents, 44.7%) described democracy work as essential, purpose-driven, and intellectually stimulating. "10 on 10 on 10, if someone wants to do this work, dive in." Another said "I feel like 10, or 12. Because no matter what you care about, democracy comes first." A third gave a 10 because "it's the place to be... if you want to go home at the end of the day and say, did I do something today that made the world a better place? This is where you get it." Others described the people in the sector as exceptional: "you're spending your time doing something that really matters... the people doing this work are just the best people... it's endlessly fascinating." For promoters, the meaning of the work overrides its practical difficulties.

Passives (7-8, 15 respondents, 31.9%) almost universally identified funding and financial precarity as the reason they did not score higher. "The only reason I'm not at a 10 is because it's not the most financially stable work." Another said that to move to a 10, it would require "not to have to constantly run after funding. To be able to spend more time doing the work, rather than running after getting the work." A third named "long-term funding, sustainability... organizational investments. A lot of foundations and government fund projects and not the organization." Another passive scored an 8 with the caveat that they would warn a newcomer about "financial precarity of the sector" even while affirming the importance of the work. One interviewee from the centre-right gave an 8 because "not everyone would draw satisfaction from it... you kind of have to have a bit of an altruistic bent." Passives believe in the work but worry about whether the sector can sustain the people doing it.

Detractors (0-6, 11 respondents, 23.4%) split into 2 qualitatively distinct groups. The first round detractors (scores of 3 and 4) tended to reflect frustration with the sector's internal dynamics. One described the career as a "terrible career choice... the mismatch between our passions and our resources creates environments that are damaging to human beings." Another scored a 3 from a deep conviction that the sector does not serve Indigenous governance realities. A third gave a 4 while noting that "a lot of people, like myself, entered into this work at the first available opportunity and have remained in it for 20 years," suggesting that the sector benefits from dedication it does not adequately reciprocate. The second round detractors (scores of 5-6.5) were more likely to reflect the view of outsiders assessing the sector's economic viability: "feast or famine is not a good life," "there aren't actually any jobs right now," and concerns about whether the sector is "academically oriented, not action-oriented." The lowest score in the entire dataset, a 2, reflected deep skepticism about whether the democracy sector as currently constituted serves Indigenous peoples.

The most analytically significant finding is the phase comparison. The first round NPS was +37.0 (51.9% promoters, 14.8% detractors). The second round NPS was 0.0 (35.0% promoters, 35.0% detractors). This is a dramatic gap, and it reflects the deliberate sampling strategy: second round intentionally recruited voices from outside the core democracy sector, including human rights, journalism, conservative, Indigenous, academic, and municipal perspectives. These interviewees are less embedded in the sector, more likely to view it from the outside, and more skeptical of its career viability. The core sector's members are passionate and committed, but the sector struggles to attract and retain people from adjacent fields. The things that depress NPS scores, funding precarity, career instability, insularity, the progressive-label perception, are structural, not motivational. People believe in the work but question whether the sector can sustain the people doing it.

Notably, every single respondent who did not give a perfect 10 named money as the reason for deducting points. This includes concerns about underfunding, low compensation, short-term and project-only funding, and the financial precarity and burnout that follow. The implication for the sector is clear: the main ceiling on "recommendability" is economic, not motivational. Improving financial viability, core and longer-term funding, more stable roles, competitive pay and benefits, and clearer career pathways, is likely the most direct lever to move passives and some detractors into promoters, strengthen recruitment and retention, and make the field more accessible to people without independent financial safety nets.

Illustrative quotes

Where perspectives varied

The deepest variation was between insiders and outsiders. Core sector members (first round) were far more likely to be promoters, scoring 9 or 10 with the conviction that the work is essential regardless of conditions. Adjacent and outside voices (second round) were far more likely to be detractors, not because they doubted the work's importance but because they assessed the sector's career viability, accessibility, and structural health more critically. Indigenous interviewees across both phases gave the lowest scores, reflecting not career frustration but a deeper question about whether the sector as currently constituted is relevant to Indigenous governance. The NPS gap between first round (+37.0) and second round (0.0) is itself the finding: the sector inspires its own but has not yet built the conditions to attract and sustain those beyond its core.