Tag: Democracy

*By Adam Fefer
Time Period: 2007-09
Location: Pakistan
Main Actors: National Action Committee of Lawyers, Pakistan Bar Association, Supreme Court Bar Association of Pakistan, Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) party, Ifitkhar Muhammad Chaudhry
Tactics
- Assemblies of protest or support
- Refusal of pledges or oaths
- Walks and Treks

Pakistan suffered a major democratic decline in 1999 when General Pervez Musharraf seized power in a military coup. Musharraf’s government jailed and exiled opposition leaders, harassed and censored journalists and media companies, and declared several states of emergency that significantly restricted civil rights. 

One key area of this assault on democracy under Musharraf was the judiciary. For example, an executive order in 2000 required judges to swear allegiance to military rule. Most importantly, in March 2007 Musharraf demanded, with no legal authority, that Chief Justice Ifitkhar Muhammad Chaudhry resign, to which Chaudhry refused. Musharraf then suspended Chaudhry from his post. This suspension sparked the emergence of a Lawyers Movement to counter Musharraf’s attacks on the independence of the legal system. 

The Lawyers’ Movement used many creative tactics, including international appeals, SMS instructions to local leaders, and pro-democracy poetry. Much of the lawyers’ activism was coordinated through domestic and transnational lawyers associations and bar councils. 

In March 2007, Chaudhry was beaten by police while walking to court to challenge his suspension. In response, Pakistan’s Supreme Court Bar Association called on Pakistanis to protest while carrying black flags and banners. Simultaneously, lawyers groups organized weekly strikes at courts staffed by loyalist judges. And between May and July 2007, Chaudhry toured bar councils across Pakistan and lectured on the rule of law. The protests and tours did much to galvanize ordinary Pakistanis into publicly opposing Musharraf’s assault on judicial autonomy.

Chaudhry’s case proceedings began in July 2007, during which time he was represented by some of Pakistan’s most prominent lawyers. The court ruled to reinstate him, which Musharraf accepted. However, Musharraf then suspended the constitution in October 2007, which he justified by citing the “chaos” resulting from the Lawyers’ Movement. Chaudhry and 60 other judges were removed from their posts. In response, the lawyers announced the Save Judiciary Movement in November 2007. Although Musharraf’s emergency rule temporarily inhibited protest activities (e.g., by arresting leaders and supporters), the movement swelled and its goals broadened to include Musharraf’s outright removal.

Under domestic and international pressure, Musharraf permitted the return from exile and campaigning of Pakistan’s two largest opposition leaders, Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif. During Pakistan’s 2008 election campaign, Sharif swore that he would restore the sacked judges, thus lending key political support to the lawyers’ cause. This was noteworthy in light of Nawaz’s history of complicity with Pakistan’s military dictator Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq. In July 2008, the protests against Musharraf grew to at least 40,000 people. Musharraf resigned a month later.

The Lawyers’ Movement did not stop at Musharraf’s resignation. After Benazir Bhutto’s assassination, her husband Asif Ali Zardari won the presidency. However, Zardari continued many of Musharraf’s authoritarian policies, including with respect to the judiciary. In response, the Lawyers’ Movement organized protests that grew to nearly 100,000 people by March 2009. In June 2009, Zardari was compelled to restore all of the sacked judges. 

US democracy organizers may wonder whether lessons can be drawn from the Lawyers’ Movement. Pakistan was a somewhat open autocracy that became more autocratic after a military coup; its autocratization centered on judicial autonomy and states of emergency. By contrast, the US is a democracy that became more autocratic after free and fair elections, particularly in 2016; its autocratization centered on the integrity of elections and suppression of peaceful protest, among other changes.

In spite of these differences, Pakistan’s Lawyers’ Movement offers a model of unity in response to democratic decline. The US pro-democracy ecosystem is very diverse in its economic, racial, and religious composition. Such diversity arguably impeded pro-democracy leaders from responding in a united way to authoritarian threats during Trump’s presidency. By contrast, the Lawyers’ Movement united around a grievance (autocracy and its threat to judicial autonomy) and strategy (peaceful protests), although its leaders and members disagreed on economic, religious, and foreign policies. US democracy organizers may benefit from thinking in similarly simple and direct terms. 

Where to Learn More
- Ahmed, Z. S., & Stephan, M. J. (2010). Fighting for the rule of law: civil resistance and the lawyers' movement in Pakistan. Democratization, 17(3), 492-513.
- Chaudhry, I. M. (2008). Full text of the letter from Pakistan's former chief justice. New York Times. 
- Chu, H. (2008). Those are fighting words in Pakistan. Los Angeles Times. 
- Hasan, A. (2007). Destroying Legality: Pakistan’s Crackdown on Lawyers and Judges. Human Rights Watch. 
- Phelps, J. (2009). Pakistan’s Lawyers Movement (2007-2009). International Center on Nonviolent Conflict
- Traub, J. (2009). Can Pakistan Be Governed? New York Times Magazine. 

You can access all the caselets from the Pillars of Support Project here.

*By Lucianne Nelson
Time Period: 2016-present
Location: United States
Main Actors: Lawyers
Tactics
- Civic Engagement
- Media Outreach
- Legal Aid
- Petitions
- Signed Letters of Support

In the aftermath of the 2020 election, attorneys threatened American democracy by weaponizing the American legal system to advance conspiracies and fringe legal arguments through litigation. Dozens of lawsuits were filed across the United States to challenge the election results and the “Big Lie” lawyers also amplified false claims about election fraud outside of the courtroom through public statements in the media, tweets, and elsewhere. Several members of Congress—who are also attorneys—complicitly supported or participated in efforts to undermine and overturn the election. Following the January 6^th insurrection, 138 members of the US House of Representatives and twelve Senators voted to overturn the election; twenty-eight of those Congresspeople were attorneys. But even as some lawyers used their legal expertise to destabilize and undermine elections, others within the legal profession have stood up against election denialism and fought to strengthen American democracy. 

Individual lawyers, law firms, professional associations (including the American Bar Association), ethics committees, state judiciaries, and other institutions have adopted a special role in advancing democratic values by making it tougher for lawyers to use the legal system to overturn elections. Some have formed coalitions to combat “fraudulent and malicious lawsuits” against fair election results. Launched in March 2022, the 65 Project initially focused its sights on 111 lawyers who engaged in efforts to challenge or reverse the 2020 election results across 26 different states. The group filed ethics complaints to expose and disbar attorneys who used the legal system to undermine American democracy. Some of the targeted lawyers included President Trump’s legal advisors (like Sidney Powell and Jenna Ellis), lawyers who served as “alternate electors,” and attorneys who were present or otherwise supported the January 6 attack on the US Capitol.

The 65 Project has expanded its scope of work and is now campaigning to change the Bar rules of professional conduct across all 50 states and Washington, D.C. Other groups like States United Democracy Center and Lawyers Defending American Democracy (LDAD) to “connect state and local officials, law enforcement leaders, and pro-democracy partners… with the [legal] tools and expertise they need to safeguard democracy.” In addition to filing ethics complaints, these organizations rally individual lawyers at the state level to exert disciplinary action. LDAD has also authored open letters and issued statements calling for lawyers, leaders of bar associations, and the legal academy to join in speaking out against threats to democracy.

Others in the legal community have taken on pro bono work to combat anti-democratic policies. The Free and Fair Litigation Group was started in 2023 to “bring carefully selected, high-impact cases that protect democracy and individual rights.” This firm focuses on ten cases at a time, taking a more bespoke approach. While Free and Fair is not currently tackling cases directly related to the 2020 election or the Big Lie, their mission is to challenge authoritarianism by taking on issues like gun control and school censorship. Free and Fair believes that—by engaging these policy areas—this fight to restore long-held, constitutional freedoms ultimately combats other, more direct assaults against fair elections and strengthens democratic values. 

The 2020 election and the months that followed posed an existential threat to American democracy. As the January 6^th Commission hearings confirmed, a team of “Big Lie” lawyers committed brazen violations of their oaths of office and the Constitution in their attempts to overturn the election. Their anti-democratic conduct motivated others in the legal profession to reimagine their responsibility to American democracy. Groups like the 65 Project, States United Democracy Center, and LDAD are protecting American democracy by revitalizing accountability processes that discourage lawyers (and public officials) from using, misusing, and abusing the legal system to overthrow free, fair, and legitimate election results. 

These cases show the power of working through and protecting existing institutional channels in order to uphold democracy. A vibrant pro-democracy movement can employ protests and other tactics outside of institutions, but such public actions will be more powerful if there is systematic, organized work to ensure that the institutions that constitute and maintain democracy continue to fulfill their crucial functions. Professional groups like lawyers who make up these institutions can be a critical organizer for this work inside existing channels.

Where to Learn More
- Trump Lawyer Targeting Push Opens New Front With Bar Rules 
- The Attorney’s Duty to Democracy: Legal Ethics, Attorney Discipline, and the 2020 Election
- Scoop: High-powered group targets Trump lawyers' livelihoods
- Free + Fair Litigation Group
- Our Work – Lawyers Defending American Democracy
- Surveying Americans on Accountability, Election Denial, and Democracy

You can access all the caselets from the Pillars of Support Project here.

*By Adam Fefer
Time Period: 2016-2021
Location: Poland, especially Warsaw; Brussels, Belgium
Main Actors: Polish Judges Association Iustitia, Association of Judges Themis, Wolne Sądy lawyers group, Polish Constitutional Tribunal, Polish Supreme Court
Tactics
- Civil disobedience of illegitimate laws
- Short form digital videos
- Assemblies of protest or support
- Teach-ins
- Judicial noncooperation

Poland became less free and democratic after the Law and Justice party (PiS) won its 2015 presidential and legislative elections. PiS’s anti-system, populist platform --for example, emphasizing threats posed by Muslim immigrants to the Polish nation-- appealed to older, rural, and religious voters, many of whom lost out from Poland’s economic reforms following the collapse of communism. During its post-2015 tenure, PiS --led by Jarosław Kaczyński-- tightened its grip on the executive branch, media, opposition leaders, and academics, among others. New anti-terror laws empowered the PiS government to monitor and detain foreigners without judicial approval, while hate crimes against Muslims soared.

A key domain of Poland’s backsliding was the judiciary. For example, PiS passed laws forcing judges into early retirement and created new judicial institutions (staffed by loyalists) that circumvented the Polish Supreme Court. PiS justified these efforts on populist grounds, arguing that judicial institutions are less accountable to and representative of “the people.”

In response to these actions, Polish judges have taken extensive steps to try and protect the independence of the courts and reverse Poland’s democratic erosion. The judges’ public activism is surprising in light of legal-cultural norms against their political involvement as well as judges’ lack of experience with collective action. 

Much of Polish judges’ activism has been coordinated via the two major judges associations: Iustitia and Themis. Both associations have helped judges draft legal opinions and meet with European Commission representatives in Brussels. Iustitia and Themis also co-founded a network of 12 human-rights-focused NGOs for which they provide legal expertise. Similarly, Wolne Sądy, a group of four activist lawyers, has worked to defend judges targeted by the government. It also used its popular Facebook page (with over 75,000 followers) to upload educational videos about the anti-democratic impacts of PiS’s judicial reforms.

The judges have focused many of their efforts at the European Union (EU) level. For example, in 2018, Polish Supreme Court justices began requesting that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) review the legality of PiS’s judicial reforms. CJEU sided with the justices on several occasions, ruling that the reforms were incompatible with EU law. In response, the PiS government regularly denounced CJEU as illegitimate and refused to implement its rulings. However, CJEU has fined Poland for non-compliance.

In addition to their EU activism, Polish judges have worked to mobilize domestic support for democracy. In July 2017, Iustitia and other civil society organizations called for mass protests in Warsaw against new laws seeking to curb the Polish Supreme Court’s autonomy. The so-called “Chain of Lights” protest drew thousands of attendees and ostensibly led Poland’s president to veto the Supreme Court bill. However, an amended version was passed several months later. 

A group of judges also called for mass protests in January 2020, this time in response to a December 2019 law that threatened to discipline judges who questioned PiS’s judicial reforms. Over 30,000 people attended the so-called “March of 1000 Robes” protest. The law was passed in spite of the protests as well as criticism from the EU.

In addition to their protests, Polish judges have engaged in civil disobedience. For example, judges who faced forced early retirement under PiS legislation continued to go to work. They also gave interviews to domestic media denouncing infringements on judicial autonomy. Finally, Polish judges have provided education about the value of judicial independence in spaces ranging from schools to nurseries, cafes, and even rock festivals.

The judges’ activism eventually bore fruit in 2023, when PiS was defeated in Poland’s 2023 parliamentary elections, an outcome that some attribute directly to Polish voters’ dissatisfaction with PiS’s assault on judicial autonomy. 

US democracy organizers can learn much from the model set by Polish judges. For one, Polish judges have asserted themselves as non-partisan defenders of democracy by focusing their campaign on upholding norms of professionalism. In the US, judicial norms also proscribe overt partisan activity. The Polish case shows that complex legal activism (for example, in the EU) can be paired with public mobilization, all coordinated through associational bodies.

Where to Learn More
- Benson, R. (2023). Poland’s Democratic Resurgence: From Backsliding to Beacon. Center for American Progress. 
- Bojarski, Ł. (2021). Civil society organizations for and with the courts and judges—struggle for the rule of law and judicial independence: The case of Poland 1976–2020. German Law Journal, 22(7), 1344-1384.
- Csaky, Z. (2021). Capturing Democratic Institutions: Lessons from Hungary and Poland. Freedom House. 
- Davies, C. (2018). Hostile Takeover: How Law and Justice Captured Poland’s Courts. Freedom House. 
- Davies, C. (2020). Judges join silent rally to defend Polish justice. Reuters. 
- Matthes, C. Y. (2022). Judges as activists: how Polish judges mobilise to defend the rule of law. East European Politics, 38(3), 468-487.
- Pech, L., Wachowiec, P., & Mazur, D. (2021). Poland’s rule of law breakdown: a five-year assessment of EU’s (in) action. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, 13(1), 1-43.
- Waxman, O. (2023). What It Means That Florida Will Allow Conservative PragerU Content in Schools. Time Magazine.

You can access all the caselets from the Pillars of Support Project here.

*By Lugha Yogaraja
Time Period: 2016-2017
Location: South Korea, especially Seoul
Main Actors: Korean Federation of Trade Unions (KCTU), People’s Action for the Immediate Resignation of President Park
Tactics
- Vigils
- General Strikes

In the mid-2000s South Korea began experiencing a period of democratic decline under the presidencies of Lee Myung-Bak (2008-2013) and Park Geun-Hye (2013-2017). Both presidential administrations came to power in part through drawing on feelings of nostalgia for the period of high economic growth under Korean dictator Park Chung-Hee in the 1960s and 1970s. Once in power both administrations resorted to heavy-handed oppression of political dissent, including violent crackdowns on peaceful protest, outlawing civil society organizations that opposed them, and blacklisting artists and authors who were seen as insufficiently supportive of the government. Both governments, particularly the Park Geun-Hye administration, also engaged in widespread corruption, closely collaborating with Korea’s large chaebol company conglomerates.

The South Korean labor movement, which had played a key role in the country’s democratic movement in the 1980s, faced much of the brunt of the government’s oppression, and thus began organizing to oppose their authoritarian overreach. In particular, the national-level Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU) organized several general strikes against growing government repression. These strikes initially gained little support. However, in 2014 the government’s corruption was brought into sharp focus through a national tragedy: the sinking of the Sewol ferry, which led to the deaths of over 300 ferry passengers. Later investigations revealed both government incompetence in the rescue effort, and corrupt relationships between the government and ferry companies, which had led to deregulation and lax safety standards. Then in 2016, a series of investigations revealed that President Park had offered extensive political patronage to major companies in exchange for donations to her personal advisor Choi Soon-Sil. The combination of public rage over both the Sewol disaster and the Choi Soon-Sil revelations led to widespread support for a movement to force President Park to resign.

The KCTU and other labor unions played a central role in organizing the protest movement demanding Park’s resignation. Using their long-standing networks across the country and their connections to other civil society organizations, the KCTU helped organize a coalition of over 1,500 organizations called the “People’s Action for the Immediate Resignation of President Park.” In addition to continuing labor strikes, the coalition organized a series of candlelight protests that drew millions of participants from across the country, peaking with a day of protest in December 2016 involving roughly 2.2 million protesters. After this day of protest, the Korean legislature voted to impeach President Park, but protests continued until March 2017, when the Constitutional Court of Korea upheld the impeachment and officially removed President Park from office.

The situation in South Korea offers some striking parallels both to past and potential future democratic backsliding in the United States and offers several lessons for pro-democracy organizers. The first of these is the importance of major triggering events. While the KCTU and other unions had long organized against the Park administration, it was not until the broader public was made dramatically aware of the administration’s failures through the Sewol ferry disaster and the Choi Soon-Sil scandals that their campaigns gained the level of broad support necessary to mobilize an effective pro-democracy movement. Second is the importance of coalitional organizing. The candlelight protests in 2016 and 2017 were able to maintain their unified message and disciplined, peaceful organizing due to careful collaboration facilitated by established organizations like the KCTU.

Where to Learn More
- Chang, Dae-Oup (2021). “Korean Labour Movement: The Birth, Rise, and Transformation of the Democratic Trade Union Movement.” in Routledge Handbook of Contemporary South Korea.
- Kong, Suk-Ki (2017). “The Great Transformation of Korean Social Movements: Reclaiming a Peaceful Civil Revolution.” EAI Issue Briefing.
- Lin, Sacha (2019). “South Koreans Demonstrate for President Park Guen-Hye’s Resignation (Candlelight Revolution), 2016-2017.” Global Nonviolent Action Database.
- Shin, Gi-Wook and Rennie Moon (2017). “South Korea After Impeachment.” Journal of Democracy
- Yun, Ji-Whan and Hee Min (2020). “Beyond Continuity: The Defiance of Ordinary Citizens and the 2016 Candlelight Protests in South Korea.” Korea Journal

You can access all the caselets from the Pillars of Support Project here.

*By Louis Pascarella
Time Period: 2020
Location: United States
Main Actors: AFL-CIO, AFSCME, SEIU, AFT, UNITE HERE, union members
Tactics
- Institutional Action 

The 2020 election tested the strength of US democracy. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, poll workers were scarce, in person voting was challenging and unfeasible in some jurisdictions, and typical “get out the vote” campaigns were stymied by social distancing practices. Authoritarian figures used these new difficulties to question established and safe voting mechanisms, such as mail-in ballots. Unfounded fears over voter fraud led to the closure of voting centers, the limiting/removal of drop-off ballot boxes, and the encouraging of voter/poll worker intimidation.

Recognizing the threat to election systems, unions stepped up to ameliorate poll worker shortages. As large, organized institutions, unions were well-positioned to recruit poll workers. The AFL-CIO, and some of its federation members, such as UNITE HERE, the United Steelworkers, the American Federation of Teachers, and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) all enacted plans to train poll workers. For example, AFSCME partnered with Power the Polls to educate and place 1,200 poll workers, all drawn from their membership rolls. Discussing their poll worker contribution, AFSCME President Lee Saunders remarked, “Who better to perform this important public service than people who have made a career out of public service.” Other unions, such AFL-CIO, similarly partnered with Power the Polls.

In addition to poll worker training, unions engaged in widespread campaigns to encourage voting despite 2020’s challenging environment. For example, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) dedicated substantial funds towards a get out the vote campaign. This campaign, titled, “Your Vote is Essential” especially targeted voters of color. Online disinformation campaigns spread lies prior to the 2020 election to inhibit the vote of communities of color. SEIU sent canvassers door to door, who informed citizens of their rights and encouraged voting. By canvassing in these communities, unions disrupted voter suppression efforts, especially important at a time in which COVID-19 strained usual get out the vote campaign efforts.

The efforts of unions to protect the electoral process through dedicated campaigns reveal important takeaways for pro-democracy advocates. In particular, these efforts highlight unions’ strength as well-established organizations with the numbers and organization necessary to mobilize large, coordinated groups. When COVID-19 strained voting infrastructure, unions were uniquely positioned to step in. Unions were also able to substitute for what are often civil society efforts, such as get out the vote campaigns. Unions also demonstrated ways in which democracy building can be non-partisan. Poll workers are a necessary part of any functioning democracy, and their training and support is one-way that organizations can combat authoritarian pushes without facing accusations of partisanship. In all, the campaigns above showcase how unions can play a role in uplifting established institutions, especially during a national crisis and dedicated attack by anti-democratic forces.

Where to Learn More
- AFSCME launches first-ever program to recruit 1,200 poll workers 
- SEIU Reaches Millions of Infrequent Voters in Final Days of the 2020 Elections 
- What Unions Are Doing To Protect American Democracy 
- Labor Unions Plan To Turn Out An Army Of Poll Workers For The Election 
- Union Impact on Voter Participation—And How to Expand It

You can access all the caselets from the Pillars of Support Project here.

*By Louis Pascarella
Time Period: November 2020
Location: United States
Main Actors: AFL-CIO, SEIU, AFT, UNITE HERE, union members
Tactics
- Signed public statement
- Declarations by organizations or institutions
- Demonstrations 
- Assemblies of support

On Election Day 2020 The AFL-CIO, the largest federation of unions in the United States, teamed up with the US Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Evangelicals, and the National African American Clergy Network to call for the respect of election results and the peaceful transfer of power. Addressing then-President Trump’s unfounded criticisms of the electoral system, and Trump’s initial repudiation of Biden’s victory, the AFL-CIO and its partners released a statement noting the importance of giving election officials space and time to count the votes, asked that the American public (including political candidates) practice patience, and condemned electoral violence or intimidation.

This public declaration followed a year of behind-the-scenes effort. Mike Podhorzer, senior advisor to the president of the AFL-CIO, was one of the major forces behind this work. Podhorzer began working with many other democracy advocates (including Protect Democracy and the Voter Protection Program) in the fall of 2019. Democracy advocates feared an attack on the US electoral system and recognized the need to prepare for that potential outcome. Accordingly, they began meeting with a variety of actors from business, civil society, and political spheres. These meetings created an infrastructure to protect American democracy, with initiatives to recruit poll workers, encourage social media companies to remove harmful conspiracies and misinformation, and help overcome voting challenges created by the COVID-19 pandemic. As election day loomed and President Trump continued to spread falsehoods about the election, Podhorzer and others drew upon their contacts to arrange a meeting between AFL-CIO and the Chamber of Commerce, resulting in the aforementioned statement coming from a united front of labor and business.

A key strength of this statement was its collaborative character. Working with business, faith, and leaders in the Black community ensured the statement was less vulnerable to accusations of bias. This coalition also brought together leaders from across key pillars of society in solidarity.

In addition to organizing the joint statement, unions played a broader role in defending the 2020 election. In the days surrounding Election Day, a labor coalition of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), UNITE HERE (a labor union representing around 300,000 US and Canadian workers in a variety of sectors) and others organized “Count Every Vote” demonstrations. These demonstrations made clear the readiness of union leaders to organize en masse against election subversion and coincided with demonstrations from other civil society actors.

Simultaneously, union members showed up to polling places in hotly contested Michigan and Arizona to protect threatened election officials. When far-right extremists tried to intimidate the Michigan State Board of Canvassers from certifying the 2020 election, labor pressured Republican members to hold to the process and accept the results. 

These efforts demonstrate how labor can play an important role in organizing and waging a pro-democracy campaign. A declaration of support with key pillars of society brought in important actors and created a united front against election interference rhetoric. The importance of coalition building cannot be overstated; for example, aligning with the Chamber of Commerce helped to pressure pro-business Republicans. Refusing to be sidelined, unions marched with democracy activists and protected election officials from anti-democracy extremists. These actions showcased the importance of “putting boots on the ground” and going beyond rhetoric in times of crisis. When autocratic forces arrived in person to intimidate election officials, union members were there to protect the process and ensure the physical well-being of some of the most important actors in the American electoral system.

Where to Learn More
- Hard Truths and Good Signs for Labor’s Role in Defending Democracy
- Here's What Labor Unions Say They're Doing to Protect the Vote
- The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election
- AFL-CIO, Chamber of Commerce, National Faith Leaders Call for Votes to Be Counted

You can access all the caselets from the Pillars of Support Project here.

*By Claire Trilling
Time Period: November 2001 - April 2002
Location: Venezuela, Caracas
Main Actors: Venezuelan Federation of Chambers of Commerce and Production/Federación de Cámaras y Asociaciones de Comercio y Producción de Venezuela (Fedecámaras)
Tactics
- Economic shutdowns 
- General strikes 
- Cacerolazo 
- Marches 

Hugo Chávez was elected president of Venezuela in December 1998 after running a populist campaign that appealed to Venezuelans’ frustration with economic inequality and political stagnation. In 1999, voters approved a new constitution via popular referendum and then re-elected Chávez as president the following year. From 1999-2000, Venezuela experienced a sharp drop in its level of democracy, as Chávez systematically undermined the country’s system of checks and balances. He dismantled judiciary independence and legislative power, while politicizing the military and police and increasingly clashing with organized labor, business groups, the Catholic Church, and the media. Chávez came into office with a history of anti-democratic behavior, having led and been imprisoned for a failed coup attempt in 1992. Between his steps to consolidate power and his growing ties to Cuba, many citizens began to fear that he was modeling his government after a Fidel Castro-style Communist dictatorship. 

An opposition movement, composed of business, labor, and church groups together with a mix of left- and right-wing political parties, began to emerge in the summer of 2001. Later that year, on November 13, Chávez enacted 49 new laws without approval from Venezuela’s legislature, the National Assembly. Many viewed the laws’ overhaul of the oil industry and land expropriation processes, among other changes, as a move by Chávez to consolidate power. Entrepreneurs and business groups immediately denounced such drastic changes being undertaken without consultation with or input from affected interest groups. They called on the government to suspend ten laws that faced the strongest opposition, but Chávez refused to either suspend the laws or meet with the opposition. 

In response to Chávez’s intransigence, the business community activated the fledgling opposition movement. On December 10, the Venezuelan Federation of Chambers of Commerce and Production (Fedecámaras), the country’s main business union, called for a day-long national strike in collaboration with the Confederation of Venezuelan Workers (CTV), the country’s largest labor coalition. They demanded that Chávez renegotiate the fast-tracked laws via a dialogue with the business community and other affected interest groups.

The 6am-6pm “paro”, or stoppage, drew widespread support from across the private sector. Millions of people participated across a range of industries, from shopping centers and small businesses to factories and newspapers to banks and the stock exchange. Private schools closed, professional baseball refused to play, and even some hospitals offered emergency services only. In a show of support, housewives organized a cacerolazo, a form of protest in which people make noise by banging pots and pans. The strike paralyzed the country, shutting down 90% of its economy for the day.

The action had a mixed outcome. Chávez refused to reform the laws or hold a dialogue with the business community, although he fired a key ally accused of corruption in a reconciliatory move. The main success of the Dec. 10th strike came from the momentum and strength it built for the opposition movement by exposing the widespread opposition to Chávez’s policies. The Fedecámaras and CTV organized another successful strike in early January 2002 that once again shut down the country’s economy. Between the two, they organized regular marches that drew hundreds of thousands of participants. By the end of the second strike, Chávez’s approval ratings had dropped to 30%. 

In late March, Chávez attempted to offset the movement’s growing power by taking steps to increase his control over the state-owned oil company responsible for much of the country’s export revenue. The Fedecámaras and CTV responded by organizing another general strike for April 9th, this time targeting the oil industry. The action involved a near-total shutdown of the state-owned oil company and was extended first for another day. After Chávez refused to respond, the Fedecámaras and CTV voted to extend the strike indefinitely until a coordinating committee focused on reinstituting democratic procedures was formed. On April 11, they organized a mass march against Chávez in Caracas. However, the march resulted in violent clashes between pro- and anti-government demonstrators outside the presidential palace. When Chávez ordered the military to repress the protesters, top officials refused and instead arrested Chávez, alongside other members of his administration.

The head of the Fedecámaras, Pedron Carmona, stepped in as interim president. However, he unilaterally abrogated the 1999 constitution and dissolved the National Assembly and Supreme Court, moves that were seen as highly undemocratic, even by some who opposed Chávez. Carmona was ultimately forced to resign on April 13 in the face of a mass counter-mobilization by Chávez’s supporters, with the result being Chávez’s re-installment and heightened levels of polarization in the country.

In disregarding democratic norms and processes, the coup attempt and following unilateral institutional changes backfired, costing the movement significant legitimacy, and accelerating the backsliding process. As such, this case not only offers insight on the powerful tactics available to the business sector; it also provides a warning about the dangers of using undemocratic tactics to address democratic backsliding. 

Where to Learn More
- Forero, Juan. “Daylong Venezuelan Strike Protests Economic Program.” New York Times, Dec. 11, 2001. 
- Global Nonviolent Action Database. “Venezuelans defend against coup attempt, 2002.” Swarthmore College, 2012.
- Nelson, Brian. 2009. The Silence and the Scorpion: The Coup against Chavez and the Making of Modern Venezuela. New York: Nation Books.

You can access all the caselets from the Pillars of Support Project here.

*By Louis Pascarella
Time Period: 2021-Present
Location: United States, Online Campaign
Main Actors: Check My Ads Institute
Tactics Used
- Online Boycotts
- Social Media Campaigns
- Newsletters

In 2021, Nandini Jammi and Claire Atkin, two professionals with backgrounds in marketing and advertising, recognized a critical unaddressed problem in the online advertising world: due to the opaque and complicated nature of algorithm-driven advertising technology (adtech), many advertisers were unwittingly funding groups tied to misinformation and hate. Major brands were discovering their ads on websites such as Breitbart, despite explicitly not wanting to advertise in such spaces. Furthermore, a number of ads were on websites linked to autocratic campaigns worldwide, including those associated with the Russian state.

To address this problem, Jammi and Atkin founded the Check My Ads Institute (originally the “Check My Ads Agency”) as a consultancy to help businesses ensure their ads were placed with reputable sites. Yet the Check My Ads Agency quickly discovered a systematic problem in the advertising technology industry. Despite advertisers' best efforts, there is no straightforward way to ensure that advertisements do not appear on controversial platforms. Intermediaries (in many cases, the marketing agency/ad house hired to run the advertising campaign) can anonymize the names and seller account ids of where ad dollars end up, meaning a company could be funding known hate groups, without any way for them to audit that transaction. Businesses pay ad houses with the expectation that their brand will be protected from such outcomes, and yet, these ad houses cannot guarantee this expectation. Businesses cannot wholly know where their own marketing funds are ending up. There is a severe lack of transparency in the field.

Considering this finding, Check My Ads refocused their efforts toward transforming the adtech industry through a multipronged approach. Through their newsletter Branded, Check My Ads researches and reports on a wide variety of issue areas. Their work is prolific; Branded covers everything from the strategies bad actors employ to manipulate ad house blacklists, the role of Google in facilitating the funding of far-right or Russian-backed outlets, to details about the disinformation economy. Branded educates the public and pressures intermediaries who inadvertently finance some of the most harmful actors on the internet.

Simultaneously, Check My Ads worked on social media, demanding action and bringing awareness to prominent issues in the adtech space. Through their newsletter and influential social media presence, Check My Ads was able to defund and/or deplatform some of the biggest names in conspiracy theories and authoritarianism in the United States including Tucker Carlson, Dan Bongino and Steve Bannon for their lies about the integrity of the 2020 presidential election, support for the January 6th insurrectionists, and hateful rhetoric targeted at minority groups. Check My Ads also used social media to publicly call out advertising hosts, such as X (formerly Twitter). Under the leadership of new owner Elon Musk, X loosened standards on advertisements, resulting in opaque processes and failures in promises to keep advertisers away from hateful content.

Check My Ads Institute is a powerful example of the link between activism and the business community. While helping businesses protect their brands, they work to stop funding hate online. Businesses deserve to know who they are funding and should have the ability to audit and freeze their ad placements. Without this transparency, businesses face significant risk, and cannot make the ethical choices many business leaders would like to make.

Where to Learn More
- Check My Ads 
- Check My Ads (@CheckMyAdsHQ) 
- Nandini Jammi (@nandoodles) 
- Claire Atkin (@catthekin)

You can access all the caselets from the Pillars of Support Project here.

*By Louis Pascarella
Time Period: 2021-present
Location: United States, Wisconsin
Main Actors: Wisconsin Business Leaders for Democracy
Tactics
- Civic Engagement
- Media Outreach 
- Petitions
- Questionnaires 
- Signed Letters of Support
- Amicus Brief

In 2020, a bipartisan group of Wisconsin business leaders, concerned over unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud during the 2020 election, formed an association to protect voting rights and democratic institutions: the Wisconsin Business Leaders for Democracy. This association emerged out of a collection of business leaders who noted the relentless attacks on Wisconsin’s electoral system and wanted to take action. These leaders connected to others in their circles, invited them to online meetings, and discussed the best plan forward. Their conversations led them to establish an association. The association initially focused on encouraging civic engagement in the business sector, through avenues such as voter education initiatives, registration drives, and advocacy for companies to provide paid time off for employees to vote and/or work as an election official. They also created a civic toolkit to aid other business leaders seeking to improve civic engagement.

The Wisconsin Business Leaders for Democracy also took an active role in bolstering democracy and resisting attacks on voting infrastructure. The association sent letters of support to Wisconsin election officials, including the embattled Wisconsin Elections Commission Administrator Meagan Wolfe, members of the Wisconsin Elections Commission, and over 1800 municipal clerks. In doing so, Wisconsin Business leaders legitimized the electoral system and dismissed partisan attacks based on false claims of voter fraud.

During the 2022 Wisconsin general election, Wisconsin Business Leaders for Democracy publicly requested gubernatorial candidates Tim Michels and Tony Evers sign a pledge to abide by ten basic democratic principles. These principles included a promise to respect the outcome of the 2022 elections, encourage a peaceful election atmosphere, refrain from propagating known falsehoods about the electoral process, veto any attempts to decertify the 2020 presidential election results, and to certify the results of the 2024 presidential election once verified by the Wisconsin Election Commission.

When candidate Tim Michels did not respond to the pledge, Wisconsin Business Leaders for Democracy took action. Feeling it necessary to inform the public and having given both candidates ample opportunity to respond, they aired an advertisement noting Michels’ non-response to the pledge. The ad condemned Michel’s non-response and supported Evers as the “pro-democracy” candidate.

Following the 2022 general election, Wisconsin held a special election in April 2023 to fill a vacant seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Similar to the 2022 general election, the Supreme Court race was highly polarized and embroiled in falsehoods around electoral integrity. Wisconsin Business Leaders for Democracy once again sent a questionnaire to the two major candidates, Janet Protasiewicz and Daniel Kelly. The questionnaire asked for their perspective on matters of democracy, especially pertaining to cases likely to involve the court. Judge Janet Protasiewicz’s responses were published in full on Wisconsin Business Leaders for Democracy’s website, but former Justice Daniel Kelly did not respond after repeated inquiries. Daniel Kelly only addressed the questionnaire after a critical op-ed from the business coalition, but ultimately refused to answer any part of the questionnaire. Individuals from Wisconsin Business Leaders for Democracy once again ran advertisements, noting Kelly’s role in working to undermine the 2020 election results.

Most recently, Wisconsin Business Leaders for Democracy submitted an amicus brief to a Dane county court defending Wisconsin Elections Commission administrator Meagan Wolfe and asking the judge to rule against partisan attempts to remove her from office.

By taking on this public role, Wisconsin Business Leaders for Democracy signaled the business communities’ demands for a free and fair election that respected the choices of the people of Wisconsin. With their help, the Wisconsin elections of 2022 and the Supreme Court 2023 election proceeded with little issue. The Wisconsin Business Leaders for Democracy exemplify the case for business involvement in democracy. Assembling a non-partisan coalition, the Wisconsin Business Leaders for Democracy were able to ensure fair, non-violent democratic elections in 2022 and 2023.

Where to Learn More
- Wisconsin Business Leaders For Democracy 
- Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Dan Kelly's failure to complete survey on democracy deeply troubling 
- Wisconsin Business Leaders & Democracy

You can access all the caselets from the Pillars of Support Project here.

Chief Network Weaver, Julia Roig and Jarvis Williams, Director for Race & Democracy reflect on some of the natural tensions facing the work of organizers at the national and state levels within a "block, bridge, build" framework - the importance of applied history, attention to what voices and partnerships are privileged, and how specific asks for policies and institutional reforms are raised and prioritized. All this while also bringing in our "intermestic" lens of shared struggles with colleagues in other countries.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjKVFT6kvWI