Why consider issues of power when discussing partnerships? As the Introduction suggests, elements of the ideology of partnership are equality of partners, some sense of classless society and of participatory democracy. Even a cursory review of the voluntary organisations and civil society will highlight the need to understand the operation of power. For example, the funding of voluntary organisations in the United Kingdom is most often based on a very ‘unequal’ relationship, with voluntary organisations being ‘partners’ with central government or local government.

Except for a few very large organisations and a few very small organisations, the state continues to be the main funder of voluntary organisations (Kendall and Knapp, 1996). The unequal nature of this is not only that a huge bureaucracy is in a relationship with what is almost always a small(er) organisation, but that this bureaucracy has its own aims and regularly demonstrates an unwillingness to countenance any criticism or complaints of failure. At times of conflict, both national and local government cite their democratic mandate as legitimising their actions, while most voluntary organisations are only able to mobilise the people power of their users and supporters to challenge the actions of the state.

The existence of these aims and the power to implement them has been and is a constant in the relationship between voluntary organisations and the state. From time to time it may appear that there has been a shift in this balance of power; for example the publication of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry report led to universal desire on the part of bureaucracies (‘institutions’ in the language of that report) to progress equality and challenge racism within their own structures. This may result in a change in the power structures between black and minority ethnic voluntary organisations and their funders. But we have been here before: the Scarman report into the aftermath of the riots of the 1980s may not have led to the soul-searching of the Lawrence inquiry, but was nevertheless hailed as a watershed in race relations in the UK. Yet as numerous reports highlight, the extent of change since 1985 has been limited (Butt and Mirza, 1997).