Category: Reports

*By Adam Fefer

In both the United States and abroad, political leaders have undermined democratic institutions and norms as part of a nearly two-decade global trend of rising authoritarianism. From the January 6 capitol attack to the weakening of Hungarian opposition parties and attacks on Brazilian journalists, anti-democratic forces have grown in strength. Yet these forces have not gone unchallenged. Organizations, institutions, and ordinary people have organized and mobilized to protect, repair, and advance democracy. In this report, we highlight how key social groups or “Pillars of Support” --businesses, faith communities, professional associations, unions, and veterans and security forces-- have played an integral role in this counter-balancing movement to support democracy. 

We document an array of tactics that these pillars have used to challenge autocrats, such as unions coordinating economic shutdowns to veterans refusing to accept high honors. It is our hope that an understanding of this tactical diversity will expand the imaginations of pro-democracy actors in the US. We focus on the lessons that can be drawn across time and space, including campaigns such as the US civil rights movement, Ukraine’s Orange Revolution, Pakistan’s Lawyer’s Movement, and many others. 

Drawing from over 30 case studies of pro-democracy actions, we highlight the importance of building movements that are large, diverse, and tactically innovative. By mobilizing the participation of many groups across the pillars of support and by drawing on their unique strengths --such as businesses’ economic power or veterans’ patriotic appeal-- pro-democracy movements have been successful in challenging autocrats. This record of success makes clear just how powerful ordinary people from across the political and ideological spectrum can be in their roles as churchgoers, business owners, or union members.

Read the whole report here.

*This piece was originally published on March 1, 2023 on OpenGlobalRights by Chief Network Weaver Julia Roig and James Savage.

Versión en Español

The rise in authoritarianism and democratic decline around the world is well-documented, and yet the analysis of why this is happening and prioritizing what to do about it is not as clear cut. The ways that social movements incorporate diversity and create space for reflection together—including narrative practices—are therefore more important than ever, so that movement actors model the democratic values they are advocating and can find common cause with potential allies who may have different approaches or priorities.

Anti-democratic forces rely on fueling deeply divided societies with a diet of dangerous othering of whatever racial, ethnic, gendered, or religious “out-group” should be blamed for society’s ills. Operating within these divisive contexts, pro-democracy, rights-based actors often struggle with fragmentation among and between movements and potential allies.

The Narrative Engagement Across Difference Project (NEAD) was designed by a consortium of organizers, academics, and philanthropists to take a deep look at narrative practices from a multidisciplinary lens and to reflect on how we can better unlock more effective collective action within diverse, broad-based movements.

The NEAD team starts from a broad understanding of “narrative” as a process of making meaning, acknowledging that humans understand themselves and the world around them through stories (characters, plot lines, and values). There is a burgeoning interest in narrative studies and practice within the field of social change and movement-building. Many narrative practitioners and funders are using creative means to build narrative infrastructure and power, especially for those whose voices have been traditionally marginalized or “othered,” and yet we continue to experience fragmentation and toxic othering within many of our movement ecologies where civic space is closing.

To ground NEAD’s future exploration in existing research, the team recently released the findings of a broad literature review. The report categorizes three areas of narrative practice that support collaboration between groups coming together with the aim of reducing systems of authoritarianism and strengthening democratic values:

1. Legitimacy—how narratives regulate and determine the nature of interactions between people (i.e., how we position ourselves and others as legitimate, worthy, good, or bad);

2. Power—the dynamics of relations and decision-making in the narrative landscape (i.e., how and where control is exerted or privilege experienced to deem what is acceptable, normal, or transgressive); and

3. Complexity—the capacity of any narrative to evolve and change (i.e., when and how the elaboration of nuanced, multifaceted descriptions of people, events, and values produce multiple, complex, and evolving stories and meaning-making).

The research offers several provocations—or cautionary tales—with implications for common narrative practices within social movements that are worth highlighting and wrestling with.

First, should we seek a “shared narrative”?In coalitional work, we often assume that if we share a narrative of the social change we seek, then we will have shared attitudes and we can share work and collective action (e.g., “Immigrants are welcome here”). But endeavoring to negotiate a shared narrative, while common practice for strategic communications goals to reach a broader audience with consistent framing and messaging choices, could impede our ability to bring different perspectives into pro-democracy movements.

Seeking a shared narrative as a starting point for convening allies that then drives collective action also runs the risk of developing overly simplified narratives among those who already think alike and who can become “stuck in their story” without the benefit of being pushed to see beyond their own blind spots. Instead, complexifying narratives can be a movement-building tool, allowing both people and stories of lived experience to have layers, nuance, with multiple identities and contexts that can be woven together.

Second, delegitimizing “others” often backfires and gives fuel to harmful narratives. When people feel heard, they open themselves to reflection, consider alternatives to their own perspectives, and better engage in ways that build trust and deepen relationships. Narratives that delegitimize and promote othering intentionally or not shut down this aperture: for example, “Beware of letting the Trump-a-saurus Rex animals out of the zoo, or they will wreak havoc on our democracy.” Determining when our narrative strategies are undermining our overall movement goals of a pluralistic society in the long term is a crucial reflective practice.

When movements feed into an “us-versus-them” zeitgeist, we give fuel to the authoritarian playbook that thrives on the tactics of divide and rule. This lesson applies to legitimizing across all types of difference (ideological, generational, racial, religious; both within our groups and between groups) not as a call for everyone to just “get along” but to commit to a reflective practice of engaging diverse actors and their lived experience to broaden movement participation, while unmasking the systems of discrimination and oppression that sow division and harm.

Third, there are consequences of activating negative emotions as motivators. In the short term, negative emotions like anger and outrage are proven motivators for movement participation, especially within repressive environments and in the context of online engagement. The trade-offs demonstrated by the NEAD report indicate that using anger to mobilize can often result in a simplified narrative landscape of bad actors and/or righteous anger that sets up a contestation of dominant narratives lacking in complexity. Simple narratives that emphasize the need for security are a common tactic used by authoritarian regimes. While there are situations when moral clarity in a simplified message is needed—for instance, “Police brutality and murder of civilians is wrong and must stop”—the call for movement participation that recognizes justified anger and grieving, while also complexifying the nature of systemic injustices can help to diversify movement participation. In the long term, the report findings posit that simple narratives that rely on activating negative emotions can forestall needed conversations and broader support for critical reflections among potential allies.

This is just a taste of the rich findings within the literature review. The initial multi-disciplinary scoping effort was intended to offer practitioners and funders fodder for reflection on the narrative practices within movements to build stronger collective power to tackle authoritarianism and nurture democratic and civic space. The NEAD team is committed to joining efforts with learning partners within the pro-democracy, pro-rights ecosystem to continue reflecting on and experimenting with these narrative practices in different contexts.

Julia Roig is the Chief Network Weaver at The Horizons Project, which bridges peacebuilding, democracy, and social justice communities in the US and globally. Twitter @jroig_horizons

James Savage is the Program Director for the Enabling Environment for Human Rights Defenders Program at the Fund for Global Human Rights. His work focuses on civic space issues, including narrative-building. Twitter: @jamesmsavage

The Narrative Engagement Across Difference (NEAD) Project is a unique consortium of actors – organizers, philanthropists, and academics – who have come together to gather insights into collaboration across difference in the deeply divided contexts of rising authoritarianism, declining democracies and restricted civic space. NEAD was designed specifically to take a deep look at narrative practices from a multi-disciplinary lens to reflect on how we can better understand and deploy narratives that will help unlock more effective collective action within diverse, broad-based movements.

Throughout 2021, the NEAD consortium held a number of consultations with narrative strategists, network leaders and activists from around the world to explore their challenges of working with narratives in divisive contexts of declining democracies; and, we also conducted a very broad multi-disciplinary literature review to unearth and explore findings from different vantage points to further illuminate narrative practices. You can read the findings of that literature review here.

The next phase of the NEAD Project in 2023-2024 is to engage in an action-learning process with movements and network partners to explore the research in practice; to conduct a series of narrative experiments; and, to convene spaces for on-going learning and reflection. We believe we must all embody the deep narratives we want to see in the world. This means that the NEAD team is committed to working with curiosity, emergence and to creating spaces where diverse lived experiences are valued (across all lines of difference.) We not only are accepting of complexity and nuance; we seek to “thicken” the stories of those considered “other” and support broadening the aperture of allyship for – and participation in – democracy and human rights movements around the world.

Our goal is to identify and test out key narrative practices that are grounded in relational organizing and reparative communications strategies in highly polarized contexts, (those that promote democratic values and human rights) and to create more fertile ground in which the seeds of new narratives articulating our shared future can germinate and grow. The NEAD Project is establishing learning partnerships to experiment with these narrative practices, at a grounded level with coalitions and movement leaders who are committed to this kind of self-exploration and broader ecosystem approach.

This is long-term work that must be complementary with those addressing the urgency of current threats and the need to deploy narrative change strategies in the short-term. It is not an either/or proposition. Within an ecosystem, the long-term and short-term can be mutually reinforcing, and the deep narrative exploration can be complementary with more specific advocacy campaigns (and vice versa).

SOME FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLES:

Self-reflection: A part of our inquiry is to consider how each of our own worldviews and narrative strategies to date have been helping or hindering our pro-democracy, pro-rights goals. For example, the tension, between the “progressive” and “conservative” group identities, homogenizes a spectrum of actors, which include those who have been disinclined to support or are sometimes hostile to social justice causes yet may be engaged on some levels. In the growing recognition that we need to come together across movements (feminist, youth, environmental, disabilities, race, etc.), how can we reach beyond our natural allies to find common cause – perhaps with “strange bedfellows” – that communicates our commitment to and vision for true pluralism and diversity of thought? In the face of such disruption around the world, the future we want to create is going to take all of us to address the existential threats facing humanity and offer alternatives to the ‘security playbook’ increasingly relied on to deal with them. An ecosystem approach to deep narrative engagement that includes inter-movement organizing, together with bridge-building approaches to other constituencies will bring about the societal changes needed to face our most vexing challenges.

Cross-ideological collaboration: If the breadth of a movement is a critical factor in how likely it is to be successful – as some research suggests – efforts to counter authoritarianism trends will require a diverse coalition to think about how to reach key constituencies like religious leaders, businesses, and a variety of other civic actors. This requires organizers to grapple with the thorny question of how such broad coalitions form and forge their common agenda. And coalition-building must be balanced with the need to foreground the voice and agency of historically marginalized communities enduring structural and physical violence. Narrative strategies to engage with these audiences therefore become critical to achieving the ideals of democratic, inclusive, and peaceful societies. Developing strategies to partner, not always to convince, is a tactic that incorporates concepts of building power with others, not power over, as well as engaging in strategic coalition-building to right power imbalances. Systems of power and injustices must change, and yet when we approach systemic change through an abundance agenda rather than on a zero-sum power struggle, our deep narrative engagement strategies can also shift to be more inclusive.

Reparative approach to social change: During this moment in history, when the entire world has faced the collective trauma of a global pandemic, the barriers to forming these broader coalitions in practice are more fraught than ever. The pandemic has been used by many in political power to further divide populations, fomenting and feeding on our fears and anxieties to clamp down on political opposition through expanded security laws and technologies, and to further demonize the exercise of people power, those organizing to address injustices and forge a different future. A trauma-informed approach to deep narrative engagement therefore is also needed, including tools and strategies that are restorative of societal relationships and reflect the future state we want to create together (with all our fellow citizens).

PROJECT PARTNERS: The NEAD Project is being implemented in partnership with the Fund for Global Human Rights as part of the philanthropic initiative Civic Futures.

Since our official launch in January of 2022, the Horizons’ team has spent the bulk of our time building relationships with the many inspiring organizers, network leaders, researchers, and funders who together are weaving an impressive tapestry of social change efforts in the United States. It has been our honor to learn, strategize, and walk together on this path with so many of you! As our first year closes, we’ve compiled several insights and lessons learned that will inform our organizing work in 2023:

“It’s Both-And!” We have found ourselves saying this phrase repeatedly this year as we engage with different communities and theories of change in the social change ecosystem. For example, we need to raise the heat to bring more urgency to democratic decline in the US; and we need to decrease dehumanization and toxic othering of our fellow citizens. Fighting for racial justice is fundamental to moving forward together as a country; and that involves organizing within white communities to listen with empathy to real grievances and fears for our communities to heal. The Horizons team recognizes the need to embrace this complexity and work on being comfortable with all the dualities and nuances of ecosystem-level organizing. If you want to read more this is a great article on complexity.

Sensemaking together is some of the most important work we do as organizers. When we launched our website, we laid out the many ways that different sectors are diagnosing the most pressing problem(s) in the United States and the tensions those differences can raise. Throughout the year, we’ve made a point of leaning into those tensions by convening small-group salons and (many!) individual conversations to reflect together on our different analyses, perspectives, and priority actions. For example, discussing “what authoritarianism looks like” with a group of bridgebuilders highlighted the importance of intra-group dialogues (notably amongst conservatives) to changing behaviors. This article beautifully describes the importance of sensemaking; and we have learned what an important step it is to build relationships, establish trust, and widen our circle of potential allies. Horizons loved exploring sensemaking practices with a group of impressive women leaders, captured in this article.

Toxic polarization is indeed a problem, but it is more a symptom of systemic challenges we must confront. There are many important conversations unfolding about the nature of polarization in the United States and globally, and hundreds of efforts to address the challenges of polarization within a vibrant bridgebuilding community throughout the United States. Horizons believes in making a distinction between good polarization versus toxic polarization. This is because we view polarization as a symptom of living under the conditions of democratic decline, where political, economic, and social actors are actively working to keep us divided to stay in power and/or to maintain the status quo. Coming together across ideological divides is crucial. And yet, as we seek to humanize one another we must also mobilize more effectively against the forces keeping us divided and stand up as partisans for democracy. That will require a strategy of engagement and pressure to block harmful, anti-democratic practices and build new ways of living together in a pluralistic society.

How we engage with narratives is as important as ever, beyond messaging efforts that only seek to persuade or raise awareness. Building on an explosion of interest and investment in narrative expertise in the social change field, Horizons spent the past year exploring narrative competencies that support more effective organizing “across difference”. One of the most important insights we have gleaned is the need to “embody the narratives we seek to promote” so that we are not pushing out messages as much as living our values and the future we want. Narrative change starts within, and if we are using dehumanizing language in our own messages, we are contributing to a larger narrative where there are some people who don’t belong. We loved this article on the uses of storytelling that highlights how narrative competencies can foster not only power-building, but also connection and healing.

Training, mentoring, and coaching to support intra-movement dialogue, organizing, and conflict resolution deserve much greater investment. Some of the most urgent work needed is not only to bridge across ideological differences, but to address conflict and undermine extremism within groups. Within left and progressive circles, there is growing awareness that toxic movement spaces, weak conflict resolution practices, and unhealthy orientations toward power and authority are diminishing their effectiveness, as this brilliant Maurice Mitchell piece points out. Meanwhile, given the concentration of political extremism on the right, and the many cases of “courageous conservatives” facing harassment or social ostracism, this highlights the need for much greater investment in intra-conservative dialogue and conflict resolution. We need to bring together and build connections with conflict resolution trainers and coaches to embed those skills and provide coaching throughout movement networks to support this transformation (and not focus so much on cross-ideological empathy and understanding). Investing in sustained support for training and coaching is one of the most important investments funders can make to pro-democracy movements. And encouraging learning across different disciplines (organizing, nonviolence, civil resistance, conflict resolution, narrative competency, etc.) is an important way funders can strengthen movement capacities.

Greater connectivity and strategic complementarity between different parts of the anti-authoritarian ecosystem allow us to go on offense. Horizons began the year by reflecting on the historical and contemporary reality of authoritarianism in the US, while making the case that the strongest bulwark against democratic backsliding is broad-based fronts or movements. We ended the year by helping to convene a core group of local, state, and national organizers, activists, scholars and bridgebuilders to discuss how to strengthen our collective efforts to counter authoritarianism in the US. That discussion was informed by this paper highlighting seven key capacities (intelligence, community power-building and resilience, non-cooperation, conflict resolution, etc.) that, if strengthened and better connected, could allow us to proactively target the promoters and enablers of hate, political violence, and authoritarianism at the local, state, and federal levels. We need to build up our collaboration and solidarity muscles within the ecosystem to come together as a “united front” to better connect these capacities and to anticipate and outmaneuver authoritarians while tapping into our collective imagination about what a reimagined democracy of the future could look like. Learning strategies and tactics from organizers and movement leaders from other backsliding democracies around the world is key to that effort.

Strengthening democracy must be pursued in tandem with eradicating racism and white nationalism. Since our founding, the most formidable obstacle to realizing the democratic ideals animating the American experiment has been the creation of a racial hierarchy that has placed white people at the top, while discouraging poor and working-class Americans from finding common cause across racial lines. Authoritarianism and structural racism are inextricably linked. The ideology of white supremacy has historically been propagated by many institutional pillars of support, including corporations and Christian churches. One of the most pressing needs for the pro-democracy movement therefore is to strengthen religious outreach focused on combatting notions of white Christian dominance, while also bolstering more linkages between “bipartisan” institutional reform efforts and the community-level and national movements to advance racial justice such as the Truth, Racial Healing and Transformation movement. Building a race-class-democracy narrative and organizing strategy is key to achieving democratic transformation.

We need more political education about what authoritarianism is and looks like within communities, especially to galvanize intragroup organizing. There are plenty of reasons why people go along with harmful behaviors committed by their ingroups, especially when they feel under threat. We hear a lot of “both-sides-ism” when it comes to the problem of authoritarianism in the United States, which indicates the need for more awareness-raising and public education about what authoritarianism is, what is enabling it, and how to stop it. Greater investment and infrastructure is needed to support “courageous conversations” especially among conservatives working against the authoritarian faction within their ranks, as described in this article. Developing solidarity networks (legal, spiritual, financial, public relations support) could make a significant difference in growing the size and influence of people who refuse to aid and abet authoritarianism in their churches, radio programs, small businesses, and professional groups. Meanwhile, strengthening analysis and relationships between racial justice and democracy groups and initiatives would bolster the effectiveness of both.

There is much to celebrate, but we are not “out of the woods” after the 2022 midterm elections. The fact that election denying candidates running for offices that would oversee the 2024 presidential election were defeated in battleground states, and that the midterms were relatively free of election-related violence, was significant and a tribute to months and years of organizing at the local, state, and federal levels, as this report highlights. At the same time, it would be a grave mistake to think that the threats of authoritarianism and political violence have been eliminated. The dominance of the authoritarian faction within the GOP (and Donald Trump’s return to the national spotlight), the persistence of authoritarian enablers in key societal pillars (religious institutions, media, corporations, veterans’ groups), easy access to assault weapons, and the mainstreaming of political violence on the right (and to a lesser extent on the left), including the chilling effects of police violence, continue to pose significant threats to peace and security. Organizing within and across these key pillars of support will be needed in the coming years to counter authoritarianism and political violence and build a pluralistic democracy.

Caring for one another and finding joy together as we organize is also “doing the work.” When we launched Horizons initially, we interviewed Kazu Haga about his book Healing Resistance and we continue to be inspired by his message of centering joy and caring for one another as we organize. Incorporating the arts and beauty into our work, and building our imagination muscles to operate from a place of possibility and hope will carry us through 2023 and beyond. That was the resounding theme of the Mitchell article as well. We take inspiration from our ancestors who led powerful movements for rights, freedoms, and justice in this country – and stand in solidarity with those around the world who are engaged in similar struggles – as we tap into the deep reservoirs of hope and healing in our collective work. As bell hooks reminded us, “To be truly visionary we have to root our imagination in our concrete reality while simultaneously imagining possibilities beyond that reality.”

Happy Holidays from the Horizons Team!