Tag: International

*By Claire Trilling
Time Period: June 2020 - December 2021
Location: India (Punjab & Delhi)
Main Actors: Farm Unions, organized under the Samyukta Kisan Morcha (“United Farmers’ Front”)
Tactics
- Protest camps, nonviolent occupation, sit-ins
- Marches
- Hartals
- Declarations of indictment and intention, slogans, caricatures, and symbols, public speeches, chanting, live streaming, banners, posters, and other displayed communications
- Haunting or bird dogging officials, fraternization

The Indian Farmers’ Protests were sparked by the introduction of three Farm Bills in the Indian Parliament in June 2020 and accelerated by their passage in September 2020. The bills were advanced by the Hindu nationalist government led by President Narendra Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). After winning the 2014 elections, the BJP government began to systematically undermine democratic institutions, degrade citizenship rights for religious minorities, and limit civil liberties. The passage of the Farm Bills was yet another anti-democratic move as the government refused to consult farm unions and circumvented usual legislative procedure to sidestep dissent. The bills significantly cut back government involvement in the agricultural section and gave private corporations greater influence over sales and pricing. They also did not include any of the provisions recommended to protect small farms, triggering concerns among farming communities and making them deeply unpopular in a country where over half of the labor force works in agriculture.

Organized resistance to the Farm Bills began in the northwestern state of Punjab. After the bill’s introduction, union activists translated the text into Punjabi and distributed it across the state, which generated widespread outrage and spurred local protests. The farm unions in Punjab gradually coordinated the protests in their region and reached out to farm leaders in the nearby states of Haryana and Uttar Pradesh. In September, 32 farm unions across Punjab came together to organize a nonviolent movement demanding the bills’ repeal. Their first major campaign was called the Rail Roko (“Stop the Trains”). Participants occupied railroad tracks and toll plazas on major roads to disrupt daily transit. In one case, farmers dug up a helipad that a state minister was set to land on. Actions also included sit-ins outside the houses of prominent political leaders. In response to the campaign, several state-level BJP officials resigned, and one local political party withdrew from the BJP’s parliamentary coalition. However, the campaign failed to win any concessions from the national government.

On November 7th, 2020, roughly 300 farmers’ organizations from across India met in the capital, Delhi, to discuss how to escalate their campaign. The meeting resulted in a shared set of demands and the establishment of the Samyukta Kisan Morcha (SKM), an umbrella organization of farm unions tasked with coordinating action nationally. The SKM initiated the second major campaign of the movement, called Dili Chalo, Dera Dalo (“Let’s go to Delhi and Sit There”). Soon after, farmers from several provinces began the march on Delhi. Organized by local unions and coordinated nationally under the SKM, the farmers brought tractors to remove police blockades when needed and ultimately merged into four large marches that converged on the city’s four main entry points on November 25th. Although they were met by police barriers, tear gas, and water cannons, an estimated 150,000-300,000 farmers set up protest camps on each of the four highways. On November 26th, the SKM organized a 24-hour nationwide solidarity strike with the farmers that drew millions of participants. 

The government began negotiations with the farm unions on December 3rd in response to the building pressure. The talks went through several rounds, with the farmers threatening to drive tractors into the capital at one point in order to force concessions from the government. On January 12, 2021, the Supreme Court suspended the implementation of the Farm Bills. However, the farm unions refused to accept anything less than the full withdrawal of the laws due to concerns that partial measures would a) fail to adequately address the bills’ harms, and b) fragment the movement. Because of this, talks with the government had largely reached a stalemate by late January.

Throughout this period, the protest camps around Delhi remained well-organized. The farm unions and their allies provided meals, medical supplies, clothes, and other basic services to the tens of thousands of participants. They also organized rallies, music performances, and games, among other events. Local unions coordinated with towns and villages to maintain a rotation system that allowed farmers to take turns returning to their homes without diminishing the overall numbers in Delhi. Camp participants also set up multiple YouTube channels, social media accounts, and a newspaper to spread their own narrative of events in the face of government slander. Outside Delhi, the SKM organized regular day-long strikes and local demonstrations to demonstrate that the protest camp still had widespread support.

The movement faced a crisis in late January when a march into the city devolved into clashes with police. The SKM had reached an agreement with police to hold the march on Republic Day (one of India’s main national holidays), but miscommunication about the route and disregard by several break-away farm unions resulted in one segment of the march storming a historic fort. There and in several other parts of the city, police responded with violence, leading to clashes, arrests, and one casualty. To demonstrate their commitment to nonviolence, the SKM convinced protesters to withdraw from the city and denounced the groups that had diverged from the planned march route. However, the government seized on the event to claim that the movement had been hijacked by extremists and attempted to crack down on the protest camps. The farmers were saved by their supporters back in the villages, who mobilized thousands of people to converge on the sites, forcing the government to withdraw the police. 

The farmers’ movement maintained the Delhi protest camps, as well as organizing regular rallies and strikes, throughout the spring, summer, and fall of 2021. The SKM sent protesters to the national parliament in Delhi daily and supported campaigns against BJP candidates in several regional elections. Keeping the focus on their core set of shared demands, the farm unions demonstrated organization, discipline, and commitment despite the ethnic and religious diversity in the movement. With the SKM facilitating broader movement unity, individual unions effectively kept their own members informed and organized. The decentralized leadership structure also ensured that government attempts to arrest leaders did not disrupt movement activities. 

On November 19, 2021, President Modi announced the government’s intention to repeal the Farm Bills. While the sudden turnabout was likely triggered by the BJP’s concerns about upcoming elections in agriculture-heavy states, the farmers’ movement made themselves into a political force that the government couldn’t sideline or ignore. The participants had proven that they were willing and able to sustain their campaign and maintain public support in the face of repression, extreme weather, and COVID-19. On December 11, The SKM declared an official end to the protests after the Farm Bills were formally repealed by Parliament. The protest camps in Delhi were dismantled, and the tens of thousands of participating farmers returned to their homes.

The farmers’ movement in India provides several lessons for pro-democracy organizers. First is the power of protest tactics that disrupt without violence. The farmer’s blockade of Delhi was high-profile and impossible to ignore, with a greater impact than simple protest marches because it directly interfered with the government’s capacity to continue business as usual. Yet the government was hesitant to crack down on it because the SKM was careful to maintain and broadcast its commitment to a nonviolent blockade, and condemned extremists who deviated from the campaign’s nonviolent character. 

Tactics that are nonviolent yet highly disruptive could be similarly effective in the US context to counter potential moves to undermine American democracy. Second is the importance of building an organizational infrastructure that bridges differences. Participants in the farmer’s movement came from many different backgrounds, spoke many different languages, and adhered to many different religions. The intentional leadership of the SKM and its commitment to a shared set of core objectives enabled this diverse group to join forces and present a unified front in negotiations with the government, as well as to meet the significant logistical demands of maintaining a year-long major blockade and protest camp.

Where to Learn More
- Gettleman, Jeffrey, Karan Keep Singh, and Hari Kumar. “Angry Farmers Choke India’s Capital in Giant Demonstrations.” New York Times, November 30, 2020.
- Gill, Sucha. 2022. “From Disunity to Unity: Organization, Mobilization Strategies & Achievements of the Recent Farmers’ Movement in Punjab.” In Agrarian Reform & Farmer Resistance in Punjab, edited by Shinder Sing Thandi. London: Routledge India. 
- Mujib, Mashal and Karan Deep Singh. “In the cold and rain, India’s farmers press their stand against Modi.” New York Times, January 9, 2021. 
- Moudgil, Manu. “India’s farmers’ protests are about more than reform - they are resisting the corporate takeover of agriculture.” Waging Nonviolence, February 16, 2021. 
- Shankar, Shivam and Anand Venkatanarayanan. “The Anatomy of a Successful Protest, or How the Farmers Won Their Fight.” The Wire, November 23, 2021.

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

*By Claire Trilling
Time Period: 1999 - 2005
Location: Ukraine
Main Actors: Small- and medium-sized Ukrainian businesses; Anatoliy Kinakh and the League of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs
Tactics
- Material support
- Institutional action 
- Generalized strikes 

In 1999, Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma won a second term in an election marred by irregularities, kicking off a period of declining democracy characterized by high levels of corruption and violent attacks on dissidents. Two major campaigns against Kuchma took place during this period. The first was the “Ukraine Without Kuchma” movement in 2000, which involved mass protests in the capital, Kyiv, against corruption and illegal activities by President Kuchma and the big business oligarchs who supported him. Although the government effectively repressed the campaign, civil society groups, such as the student-led organization Pora, responded to their failure by undertaking careful planning, training, and network-building over the following years.

Following “Ukraine Without Kuchma,” however, the government and its supporters further eroded Ukrainian democracy. In the 2004 presidential election, the ruling party put forward Viktor Yanukovych as their candidate and began a shadow campaign of manipulation and sabotage of the opposition to ensure his victory. When, despite widespread evidence of fraud, Ukraine’s Central Election Commission announced that Yanukovych had defeated opposition candidate Viktor Yuschenko, civil society groups and the opposition political party coalition, Our Ukraine, were prepared to respond. The coalition mobilized their networks to begin the “Orange Revolution,” named after Our Ukraine’s colors. At the heart of the campaign was the nonviolent occupation of Independence Square in Kyiv, which drew millions of participants, many of whom symbolically wore orange. Much of the city mobilized to support the protest camp, while citizens outside Kyiv organized local demonstrations, marches, and strikes. 

Ukraine’s business community played a critical role throughout the campaign, helping to lead to its eventual success. Small and medium-sized businesses provided much of the funding and the food and clothing that kept protesters in Independence Square fed and warm, sustaining the protest through the freezing temperatures of the Ukrainian winter. This support did not come about spontaneously. It was the result of a long, careful process of pre-campaign relationship-building. As part of their preparations, Pora had built specific sections for fundraising and financial management into their organizational structure to facilitate the flow of donations from domestic partners. Small- and medium-sized business owners, often called the “new Ukrainians” due to their political and economic orientation toward the West, were a major source of those donations. These business owners largely supported Yushchenko due to his campaign promises to end high taxes, corruption, and politically motivated investigations into businesses. Their material support allowed Pora activists to begin the Orange Revolution armed with the knowledge they had sufficient resources to sustain a mass occupation of Independence Square in the winter’s freezing temperatures. Outside of Kyiv, small- and medium-sized businesses participated in local strikes. 

Larger business organizations also provided critical support for the Orange Revolution. The League of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs (ULIE), which represented the country’s large businesses, initially helped bring Kuchma to power. Over his presidency, however, Kuchma’s inner circle of oligarchs shrunk, alienating many of the country’s business elites and spurring their fears of dictatorship. While few of the alienated business elites publicly opposed Kuchma during his first two terms, the 2004 presidential elections and Orange Revolution provided an opportunity to publicly defect. Anatoliy Kinakh, the head of ULIE, was a candidate in the first round of the elections and then threw his weight behind Yuschenko in the run-offs following negotiations with the opposition. ULIE openly supported the Orange Revolution, providing funding to support the mass demonstrations, with Kinakh even attending demonstrations. 

On December 3rd, in the face of persistent mass mobilization and a series of defections by former regime supporters, Ukraine’s Supreme Court acknowledged the government’s electoral fraud and ordered new elections for December 26. Parliament revised electoral law to limit the potential for fraud and put forward constitutional reforms that would limit the powers of the president thereafter. Yushchenko won the new elections, and the country’s elite-driven backsliding trend quickly reversed. 

The example of Ukraine’s business community provides several important lessons on the role of business in struggles against democratic backsliding. Larger business groups (like ULIE in Ukraine) can play an important role through the use of their high public profile and voice. Smaller businesses may have a quieter but no less critical role to play. High profile movements on the streets are sustained through the reliable infusion of resources to keep them there. While many American businesses have provided such quiet support for local pro-democracy movements such support is often ad hoc and does not always flow to the most impactful frontline organizations. Businesses and activist groups should work to build relationships ahead of time (like Pora and the “new Ukrainians”) such that, when a major mobilization comes, the streams of funding are already in place to support it.

Where to Learn More
- Aslund, Anders. 2009. “The Orange Revolution, 2004.” Chapter in How Ukraine Became a Market Economy and Democracy. Washington, DC: Peterson Institute for International Economics. 175-199.
- Kuzio, Taras. 2005b. “From Kuchma to Yushchenko: Ukraine’s 2004 Presidential Elections and the Orange Revolution.” Problems of Post-Communism, 52(2): 29-44.
- Kuzio, Taras. 2005a. “Pora! Takes Two Different Paths.” Eurasia Daily Monitor, 2(23).
- Polese, Abel. 2009. “Ukraine 2004: Informal Networks, Transformation of Social Capital and Coloured Revolutions.” Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics, 25(2): 255-277.
- van Zon, Hans. 2008. “Why the Orange Revolution succeeded.” Perspectives on European Politics and Society, 6(3): 373-402.

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

*By Louis Pascarella
Time Period: 2017-Present
Location: Germany
Main Actors: WVIB, VDMA, Welcome Saxony, Business Leaders
Tactics
- Civic Engagement
- Media Outreach
- Signed Letters of Support
- Social Media Campaign

Given their country’s history of Nazism, business leaders in Germany are particularly sensitive to the importance of speaking out against anti-democratic forces. For the past decade, the most prominent of these forces has been the Alternative for Deutschland’s (AFD) party, which has demonized immigrants, Muslims, and other minority groups as part of its nationalist ideology. Thus, German business leaders have engaged in several campaigns to strengthen democracy and combat AFD and its allies.

Unity, Justice, Liberty 

The Business Association of Industrial Enterprises Baden (WVIB) is a business association of medium sized industrial businesses in the German state of Baden-Wurttemberg. Noticing the rise of autocracy in the United States, neighboring European countries, and domestically in Germany, leadership in WVIB made it a priority to support democracy. In 2016, then WVIB President Klaus Endress addressed member companies in their annual meeting, demanding action to support the association’s core values of enlightenment, humanism, tolerance, and democracy. 

As a result of this call, WVIB embarked on the “Unity, Justice, and Liberty” campaign, an attempt to dissuade association employees and members of the public from voting for the AFD in the 2017 legislative election.

The Unity, Justice, and Liberty campaign consisted of a grassroots effort from member companies. Each week, a different member advertised in a local newspaper, demonstrating to the public the business community’s commitment to democracy. They also created campaign posters, fliers, and social media posts. On the campaign website, over 1,100 people signed a pledge to “build bridges not walls.” Further support was driven by civil society actors, such as professors, politicians, and professional sports figures.

#Europe Works: 

The Mechanical Engineering Industry Association (VDMA) is a machine-tool association composed of 3600 German and European companies. VDMA companies employ over one million Germans. Responding to far-right xenophobia in 2017, VDMA launched the “Europeworks” campaign. Coinciding with the sixtieth anniversary of the Rome Treaty (the founding treaty of the European Union), the Europeworks campaign was dedicated to highlighting the importance of European integration and the role of immigration in building a strong German economy. Europeworks launched a social media campaign with a dedicated marketing budget and website. The second phase of Europeworks, “Moving Europe Forward,” replicated some of the same strategies employed by the WVIB’s “Unity, Justice, and Liberty” campaign. VDMA encouraged business leaders and member companies to distribute a pro-democracy message to the public and their employees. The goal was to discourage voting of the extreme right parties during upcoming elections. The campaign was a success on social media, helping to hinder far-right parties criticized as the “new nationalists.”

Welcome Saxony 

Recognizing the German state of Saxony as a hotbed for nationalist, anti-democratic politics, the Saxony business community launched Welcome Saxony as a campaign to oppose the autocratic right. The association provides members with educational employee training on several relevant topics, such as multiculturalism in the workplace, Neo-Nazism and the new right in Saxony, and fake news, conspiracy theories, and democracy. Welcome Saxony is also active in electoral politics, with a section of the website, Election 2024, dedicated to upcoming elections. Here, Welcome Saxony has embedded video statements of support from a variety of actors, such as the Chairman of the Saxony Silicon business association, a manager of public relations in Dresden, and the frontman of a famous Saxony band. These actors demonstrate solidarity across industry and a dedication to upholding democratic principles. The statements of support encourage votes for parties that support democracy, eschewing encouragement of any particular party. Some individuals reflect on Germany's history, underscoring the imperative of safeguarding democracy and standing up to authoritarians.

Business opposition to AFD 

The AFD party won its first mayoral election in December of 2023, a harbinger of its increased popularity. The burgeoning support of AFD sparked nationwide demonstrations and prompted action from businesses as well. Unwilling to stay silent, several leading business figures led pro-democracy initiatives. Top industry figures, such as the chief executive of the association of German Banks, the leadership of the Federation of German industries, and the leadership of the association of German employers have all spoken out against rising authoritarianism. These leaders repeatedly call for support of democracy, and condemn xenophobia and hate associated with the far-right. One prominent businessman and former politician, Harald Christ, has stressed the need to organize against the AFD. Christ has stated “something must be done” and that “I don’t intend to sit passively at my desk and leave the field to the populists.” Christ has started an initiative to bring together CEOs and board members to address political extremist factions.

The German business community’s actions provide a few key takeaways for US audiences. Most importantly is the role business can take in combating far-right extremism. Instead of passively allowing autocrats to take power, business figures took an active oppositional approach. Through business associations, business leaders conducted coordinated campaigns of engagement with the public. Associations provide numbers, organization, and reduce the risk of singling out any one business, which allowed WVIB, VDMA, and Welcome Saxony to mount successful public outreach campaigns. In all cases, the business associations’ willingness to work with community figures like musicians, athletes, and artists furnished their movement with legitimacy outside the business community. 

Where to Learn More
- See especially Dr. Daniel Kinderman's work.
- Einigkeit. Recht. Freiheit
- Europe works
- Welcome Saxony
- German Business Mobilization Against Right-Wing Populism

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

*By Becca Leviss
Time Period: 1920-2023
Location: USA, Canada, Germany, Guinea-Bissau, Fiji
Main Actors: Current and former Department of Justice employees; American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE); National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU); Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) employees and unions; Fédération autonome de l'enseignement (FAE); Front commun ("the common front," a coalition of Canadian unions representing workers across the public sector, including health care and education); German trade unions; National Union of Workers in Guinea-Bissau (UNTG); The General Confederation of Independent Unions; Public Service Association; Public Employees Union; Fiji Nursing Association
Tactics
- Civil Servant Strike
- Boycotts of government departments, agencies, and other bodies
- Marches
- Group or Mass Petition
- General and limited strikes
- Slowdown strike
- Popular nonobedience
- Stalling and obstruction

Research highlights that successful social movements do not just mobilize large numbers, but specifically bring in people from the organizations and institutions that maintained the power of the status quo, often referred to as the pillars of support. Effective organizing requires understanding the strengths and weaknesses of these pillars, how to mobilize people in the pillars to withdraw their support from those in power, and what levers people in the pillars can pull to put pressure on existing authority.

One key pillar of support to consider in any movement targeting the government is the civil service: career government employees hired rather than appointed or elected, and often serving in their roles across various political administrations. Who is in the civil service varies across countries – some countries count medical professionals and teachers among their civil service, for example – and the roles and responsibilities of civil servants similarly vary. Yet what is shared across countries is that every government requires workers to carry out the government’s functions. And modern governments with an expansive set of complex responsibilities require a particularly complex, educated, specialized workforce. 

In the struggle to protect and expand democracy, civil servants have two key characteristics that make them particularly powerful. First, and most obviously, they are the actual implementers of government policy. Any authoritarian policies or practices will require the cooperation of a critical mass of the civil service. Second, civil servants in the United States take a sworn oath to protect and defend the constitution, committing the heart of their work to protecting our democratic political system over and above the agendas of any particular political leader. The civil service is both critically important to the day-to-day functioning of our political system and uniquely committed to its integrity.

The Civil Service in a United States Context 

The current US civil service system was established in the late 1800s to replace and rectify a structure in which personal and political loyalty determined professional placement in the federal government. Since then, the US civil service has functioned as a bulwark of effective, democratic government. At the core of this is the principle that “a strong merit-based civil service is critical to a functioning democracy. It ensures that our government…continues to serve the American public without interruption, even though our leaders change.” The civil service counterbalances the political whims of the moment, ensuring that the basic functions of government continue no matter who happens to have won the most recent election.

Yet this meritocratic, nonpartisan structure has recently come under fire. In 2020, frustrated at resistance to their policy agenda by civil servants, the Trump administration created a new designation in the federal civil service: “Schedule F,” which would convert tens of thousands of executive branch employees from career civil servants whose responsibilities were to perform the technical aspects of their jobs to political appointees subject to firing at the whim of the president. 

The Biden administration almost immediately repealed the creation of Schedule F and has put in place regulations that would help civil servants keep their job protections even were Schedule F to be reinstated. Yet until codified into law such protections remain vulnerable to repeal by future administrations, an action that former President Trump has repeatedly expressed his intention of taking if elected. Attempts to pass laws providing stronger protections such as the Saving the Civil Service Act have yet to gain significant political momentum.

In this moment of political attacks on the civil service, it is crucial to evaluate ways that civil servants in the US and around the globe have wielded their influence to protect democracy and avoided falling prey to the political whims of would-be authoritarians.

Forms of Resistance and Barriers to Effectiveness

In addition to their distinct position of influence, civil servants face unique barriers to mobilization and some of the more influential forms of nonviolent resistance. For most similar professional workers, the labor strike is a potent political tool. Yet since the passage of the Taft-Hartley act in 1947, US civil servants have been legally prohibited from striking. Similar laws exist in other liberal democracies. Recently, the European Court of Human Rights upheld a German law that prohibits civil servants from striking, when it was challenged by several German teachers. In 2024, the International Labour Organization will seek an advisory opinion from the United Nations’ high court on the right to strike, which will have widespread effects on the utility of civil servant actions as a means of opposition. 

Civil service unions, then, are understandably cautious to call for strikes and instead rely on a variety of other tactics, such as judicial and legislative interventions to ensure their protection and resolution against unfair treatment that would likely otherwise lead to a strike. For example, in 2013, US workers successfully sued the federal government for breaking minimum-wage and overtime laws by withholding wages for essential workers, with the court ultimately ruling in plaintiffs’ favor. A similar case was also filed on behalf of two federal workers’ unions in 2019.

During attacks on democracy during the Trump Administration, US civil servants took a wide range of other kinds of actions short of legally-prohibited labor strikes, as outlined in this piece: joining public statements, whistleblowing, deliberate inefficiency and “slow-balling” job functions, and ultimately, resigning in protest. Civil servants spoke out against attempts to cripple the Mueller investigation, politicize the Department of Justice, and delays in election certification. 

One sector of the civil service that has found significant success as a lever of power to uphold democracy has been federal transportation workers, in particular the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA). During the federal government shutdown from late 2018 into early 2019, TSA workers called in sick as a form of protest and multiple TSA unions filed lawsuits, leading to unprecedented staffing shortages and air travel delays. These combined efforts showed political leaders the costs of keeping the government closed and ultimately generated significant pressure to put an end to the longest government shutdown in US history. 

In the fall of 2023, when faced with the threat of another shutdown, TSA workers again rallied at major airports and elevated to national attention the threats to air travel posed by a shutdown, especially coming up against the holiday season. And while it is difficult to show a clear causal relationship when so many factors are at play, it appears likely that the impending risks to federal employees and everyday Americans alike were a factor in the last-minute spending bill that ultimately averted a government shutdown. 

International Examples

The Taft-Hartley Act has limited the range of action available to civil servants in the United States. Thus, to gain insights into the potential power of more direct civil servant action we have to turn to the rest of the world. In November 2023, several hundred thousand civil servants in Quebec––teachers, health professionals, and other social service workers––went on strike to demand better pay and working conditions. After several rounds of negotiations between the Quebec government and a coalition of major unions, multiple limited strikes and the threat of a general unlimited strike (which would have public sector workers striking indefinitely), both sides were able to reach tentative agreements, avoiding prolonged strikes and limits to healthcare, education, and other social services. This example illustrates the effectiveness of such coordinated strikes when they are conducted across wide swaths of the civil service.

And famously, the Kapp Putsch, a coup d’état in 1920 Germany that attempted to overthrow the Weimar Republic, failed primarily because of civil servants’ refusal to carry out the orders of Wolfgang Kapp and Walther von Lüttwitz, the illegitimate leaders of the coup government. Senior government officers refused to report for duty, government press offices were unable to publish Kapp’s manifesto because they had “misplaced” essential technology like typists and typewriters, and all the Berlin printers walked out in protest when two pro-government newspapers were occupied by the occupying military. These efforts of the government bureaucracy to refuse to cooperate with the coup government inspired other forms of civil resistance, including a more widespread general strike, bringing the country’s economy to a standstill. Within days, Kapp announced his resignation. 

In February 2003, 95% of civil servants in Guinea-Bissau participated in a series of general strikes to protest the withholding of overdue wages by the government, the anti-democratic President Kumba Iala, and the release of several opposition leaders that had been illegally arrested for their criticism of the Bissau-Guinean government. The strike happened in coordination with a protest march of human rights activists and labor leaders through downtown Bissau, as well as a week of widespread sporadic protests throughout the country and a rally held by the Union for Change, the Guinea-Bissau Resistance Party, and the African Party for the Independence of Guinea-Bissau and Cape Verde. In the end, the government and the striking parties reached a satisfactory resolution, but the government’s slow pace to meet their ends of the demands prompted another strike a few weeks later. This time, once again, more than 90% of public servants participated in the general strike to demand the government fulfill their promises.

Ultimately, the final round of strikes were moderately successful: while the campaign did not force the resignation of President Iala nor completely halt unlawful detentions of dissidents, the government did release several detainees and agreed to pay overdue wages and provide necessary additional food and medical assistance to civil servants. More importantly, however, the breadth and coordination of the striking coalition––ranging from human rights groups and media organizations to the Bissau-Guinean Bar Association to government bureaucrats and the officials they served––sent a message of the strength and power behind their efforts to both the government and the larger international community.

In 2007, several public sector unions went on strike in Fiji in protest against budget rebalancing measures––such as pay cuts and changes to the retirement age––made by the military government that had staged a coup and come to power in 2006. Participating unions included over 1,400 nurses, 1,000 teachers, and hundreds of public works employees in coordinated efforts for the interim government to restore wages and call attention to the illegitimacy of the coup’s mandate to govern. And while ultimately, the Fijian military government modestly acquiesced to some of the unions’ demands, in subsequent years after the strike, in 2009, it passed several measures that dramatically restricted the rights of federal workers to organize, bargain collectively, and conduct a strike. Additionally, in 2011, Amnesty International reported the arrests and harassment of several prominent union leaders and staffers by Fijian authorities, in direct violation of the ILO (International Labour Organization) Declaration of Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work. 

The above examples span history, geography, and motivations. Public sector unions striking for fair wages and benefits, for example, can seem distinct from civil servants intentionally creating bureaucratic snarls through direct action (or often inaction). And yet all these examples––however disparate they might appear––give us clarity around the breadth of power that civil servants wield when they are organized around a common objective, be it improving their working conditions or protecting democracy. In a constitutional crisis, where more dramatic action might be called for, these kinds of direct tactics would be a powerful, essential part of any pro-democracy movement.

Conclusion

Civil servants, while often forgotten players in the functions (or dysfunctions)of government, nonetheless hold tremendous power. Civil service resistance has been most successful in achieving its objectives when civil servants take seriously the obligations of their oaths of office to uphold governmental institutions––not the whims of an administration or executive––and work from the essential fact that, ultimately, the power of the political leaders they serve is directly derived from their active consent and cooperation.

By virtue of the work they do on a daily basis––regulating roads and transportation systems, processing identification information and licenses, performing essential clerical and administrative work, implementation of a plethora of policies from the mundane to the complex––they can utilize their skills and access to be decisive linchpins in the success or failure of democracy.

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

Works Consulted (in approximate order of appearance): 

• The Pillars Project - Horizons 
• OOPM: Our Mission Role and History/ 
• How a proposed regulation protects the civil service from politicized attacks: A look at the Biden administration's response to Schedule F 
• The risks of Schedule F for administrative capacity and government accountability 
• The fight to stop Schedule F, a cornerstone of Trump's 'retribution' agenda, is underway 
• Trump’s ‘Schedule F’ Gambit Is Dangerous 
• Opinion | Trump Has a Master Plan for Destroying the ‘Deep State’ 
• Congress must protect the nation from a politicized civil service 
• OPM Proposed Rules 
• S.399 - 118th Congress (2023-2024): Saving the Civil Service Act 
• Staying true to yourself in the age of Trump: A how-to guide for federal employees 
• Hundreds of Former Federal Prosecutors Would Indict Donald Trump 
• More than 2,000 former prosecutors and other DOJ officials call on the Attorney General to resign 
• Republican national security experts call on Trump to concede, begin transition 
• I’m Haunted by What I Did as a Lawyer in the Trump Justice Department 
• Why Unpaid Federal Workers Don't Strike in a Shutdown 
• German ban on striking by civil servants upheld by Europe’s top rights court 
• Judge Orders Double Pay for Thousands of Federal Workers Affected By 2013 Shutdown 
• Back pay awarded because of 2013 government shutdown 
• Federal Employees Sue Trump Administration Over Government Shutdown 
• Federal employees are suing the Trump administration for forcing them to work for free 
• Federal employees working without pay can sue 
• TSA absences raise stakes in shutdown fight 
• The government shutdown ended after only 10 air traffic controllers stayed home 
• What was the longest government shutdown in U.S. history? 
• TSA workers speak out against government shut down at Atlanta airport 
• How a government shutdown could upend holiday travel 
• Thanksgiving shutdown sets up nightmare scenario for travels 
• US House passes spending bill to avert government shutdown 
• Hundreds Of Thousands Of Civil Servants Go On Strike In Quebec 
• Public sector workers begin 7-day strike in Quebec, closing schools and restricting services 
• Quebec teachers' union ends strike, sending over 350,000 students back to class 
• German citizens defend democracy against Kapp Putsch, 1920 
• Once Sleepy and Picturesque, Ukrainian Villages Mobilize for War 
• Ukraine’s secret weapon may prove to be civilian resistance 
• Civil servants on five-day strike 
• Bissau-Guinean civil workers campaign for the payment of their wages and an end to politically motivated detentions, 2003 
• Fiji public servants vote to strike 
• Strike by several Fiji public sector unions near end 
• Fiji: Paradise lost: A tale of ongoing human rights violations: April - July 2009 
• Warning on Fiji government plan to severely restrict workers' rights

As summer ends and we kick off the academic year here in the US, Horizons continues to grapple with the inherent tensions of different approaches taken within the broad ecosystem of social change. One clear fault line lies along a time horizons of gradual versus radical change. This is especially evident in the conversations unfolding about the linkages between capitalism and democracy. For example, this recent podcast with the Secretary-General of International IDEA and the chief economics commentator at the Financial Times was a fascinating discussion on needed reforms included in a new book about the Crisis of Democratic Capitalism. Whereas other conversations are unfolding about: radical new ways that humans might govern themselves that are less technocratic; totally new ways of envisioning our economic systems; and, how we might redefine concepts of security and perceptions of insecurity.

Another fault line is how we grapple with the ways that progressives should bridge across difference within social movements, while also appreciating what it will take to achieve a multi-racial, inclusive democracy in the US; and, the cultural and political change that can be achieved over time by movements like Black Lives Matter that is turning 10 this year.

We bring up these tensions not to seek definitive solutions, but rather to acknowledge that there are many entry points to this work, and what’s important is to be in conversation with each other, while looking for signals of the change we want to see in the world. This is why the practice of sensemaking is so important to the Horizons’ team, both internally and together with colleagues. We plan to share more of our own sensemaking practices externally, such as this short video amongst some of the Horizons team discussing the recent “Alabama brawl” and implications for how we think about incorporating a racial justice lens into our pro-democracy organizing.

Appreciation and respect to all our wonderful partners who engage in all this sensemaking with us! Enjoy these additional resources we’ve been reading, watching, and listening to this month:

READING:

When Democracy Breaks: Studies in Democratic Erosion and Collapse, From Ancient Athens to the Present Day

Edited by Archon Fung, David Moss, & Odd Arne Westad

Harvard’s Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation and The Tobin Project recently released this free online compendium analyzing the factors that make democracy resilient or fragile. “The volume’s collaborators…explore eleven episodes of democratic breakdown, ranging from ancient Athens to Weimar Germany to present-day Turkey, Russia, and Venezuela. Strikingly, in every case, various forms of democratic erosion long preceded the final democratic breakdown. Although no single causal factor emerges as decisive… some important commonalities (including extreme political polarization, explicitly anti-democratic political actors, and significant political violence) stand out across the cases. Moreover, the notion of democratic culture, while admittedly difficult to define and even more difficult to measure, may play a role in all of them.”

Down the Rabbit Hole: Demystifying QAnon Narratives and Networks

This is Signals

Reframe, alongside the Women’s March and Political Research Associates embarked on an 18-month journey “to unravel the connections between QAnon and Q-adjacent networks, their values, narratives, and the disinformation that surrounds it all. In an era where misinformation and conspiracy theories thrive, it’s imperative to understand the terrain so we can organize our communities to be better equipped to fight for a democratic future rooted in justice, equity, and liberation. By critically examining the values, messages, and narratives that emerge from these networks, we hope to encourage a nuanced understanding of their impact on our communities and shifting societal expectations of governance and democracy as a whole.”

15 College Presidents Unite to Advance Civic Preparedness Across the Country

by Rajiv Vinnakota, The Institute for Citizens & Scholars

A new consortium recently launched, the College Presidents for Civic Preparedness, made up of 15 college presidents with diverse perspectives across the political spectrum, but who agree that civic preparedness is essential to the academic experience and campus life. The consortium is also spearheading the Campus Call for Free Expression, a project to promote free expression on individual campuses, such as presidential speeches, training sessions, guest speakers, courses, and artistic endeavors. “The Campus Call embraces different viewpoints, focusing on upholding and advancing the principles of free expression and critical inquiry that are crucial in preparing young people to become empowered citizens.”

Populism Thrives Because People Are Mad, and Also Because They’re Sad

by Charles Lane, Washington Post Opinion

This article summarizes a recent study of social scientists: “Does Anger Drive Populism?” – answering in the affirmative, but with a major caveat. “Anger alone cannot account for recent US vote shifts in favor of populist candidates (of both the left and right). Rather, the trends reflect a wider mix of negative emotions such as sadness, stress, and worry… It’s a portrait of populism as an expression of dismay and disenchantment, not just resentment.”

WATCHING:

Next Frontiers – Unlocking Resources in This Time of Crisis and Possibility

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation in the UK has uploaded all the videos from their second annual conference, Next Frontiers. We would especially recommend the recording of this short presentation by Vanessa Andreotti discussing her new book Hospicing Modernity, where she explores four socially sanctioned forms of denial that our world is changing irrevocably. She describes the change using a metaphor of the House that Modernity Built and extols the need to go beyond reform because “more modernity is not an option, given the violence required to keep modernity in place.”

Belonging Design Principles with Ashley Gallegos

Othering & Belonging Institute

Check out this short, fun video with Ashley Gallegos, Belonging Coordinator at the Othering & Belonging Institute as she introduces their newly released Belonging Design Principles. “This distinct belonging framework includes a set of principles and practices that can root out structural inequality and exclusion of all kinds while helping us turn toward, rather than against, each other. Beyond a call for inclusion into pre-existing structures built to serve only some of us, belonging asks each of us to commit to co-creating new structures built for everyone.

Check My Ads with Claire Atkin

Fission’s DWeb Social

You can watch this short presentation about the AdTech watchdog Check My Ads Institute who are seeking to cut disinformation off at the source, acknowledging that bigotry and hate are fueled and funded around the world by the digital advertising industry. Co-founder, Claire Atkin recently published an article in the Harvard Business Review highlighting the proactive role businesses can play in protecting against democratic decline: Are Your Ads Funding Disinformation? “Propaganda thrives on money, ads, and data. Ad revenue helps propagandists multiply their efforts across networks of content across the web. Data enables propagandists to develop detailed user profiles that help them target people who are susceptible to lies and bigotry. Finally, the ads themselves — particularly those from blue-chip advertisers — lend signals of legitimacy to visitors to disinformation websites.”

LISTENING TO:

What the World Will Become

Podcast Series from The Inclusive Global Leadership Initiative

Check out all the podcasts in Season One in this series about humans from around the world who are dedicating their lives to building a more free and just world. We especially recommend Episode 6, The Making of a Democratic Community in an Authoritarian Landscape with Isabella Picón from Labo Ciudadano in Venezuela. The title of the series comes from abolitionist scholar Ruth Wilson Gilmore: “What the world will become already exists in fragments and pieces, experiments and possibilities.”

Leveraging Networks for Democracy with the Leadership Now Project

Podcast from System Catalysts

Daniella Ballou-Aares, the CEO of the Leadership Now Project and her colleague, Anoop Prakash, the Wisconsin Chapter Lead, discuss the formation of a group of concerned businesses to launch the Leadership Now Project and the power of leveraging networks to protect and renew democracy in the US. The actions that businesses collectively took in Wisconsin during the 2020 election cycle, on a bipartisan basis offer a particularly important example of the proactive role the business community can and should play to uphold democratic norms and values.

Building Bridges Amid Division: Understanding America’s Conflict Dynamics

Peace: We Build It! Podcast from the Alliance for Peacebuilding (AfP)

In this podcast AfP Executive Director Liz Hume “discusses identity-based grievances, polarization, and social cohesion in the US. While conflict is inevitable, violent conflict is not, but it takes correct analysis of conflict drivers, resources, political will at all levels, and everyday people and communities working to prevent conflict and build sustainable peace. Liz welcomes three experts from across the political spectrum to discuss peacebuilding and conflict in the US” including Peter Coleman from Columbia University, Lisa Sharon Haper from Freedom.us, and Charles Lieske from Mediation West in Nebraska.

FOR FUN

A Strategic Analysis of Barbie: The Ideological Hegemony and Failed Revolution of Barbieland

by Lawrence Freedman, The New Statesman

“I want to be a part of the people that make meaning, not the thing that is made.” Barbie

This emeritus professor of war studies at Kings College writes, “all accounts of relationships between characters resembling humans raise issues of power and strategy, and Barbie is no exception. After all, to want to be part of “the people making meaning” could be a strategist’s creed.” So, Prof. Freedman delves into a wide-ranging strategic analysis of the movie Barbie. Spoiler alert – this article “may make little sense even if you have watched the movie but will make none at all if you have not and may contain sufficient information to spoil it if you intend to.”

The summer lull is in full swing in the US as July comes to a close, while we grapple with rising temperatures and guard our energies for the 2024 electoral cycle. We’re all going to need that energy, as we are faced with polls that describe the rising acceptance of political violence, and that “gut-level hatred” is consuming our political lives. Horizons is committed to continuing to work with those who are actively trying to prevent violence and acts of hate being fueled by a clear political agenda. And we find inspiration and hope from the myriad organizing efforts throughout the country.  

The global nature of the authoritarian threat continues to animate our work. Check out, Chief Organizer Maria Stephan’s article in Ha’aretz about pro-democracy protests in Israel and the relationship between Israeli democracy and Palestinian self-determination. Also, registration is now open for the next Othering & Belonging Conference, taking place in Berlin in October. Please join Horizons and others as we reflect on global strategies for countering the far-right and bolstering democracy. 

As you go into August, we hope you find a space for deep rest, and reflect on the role that conflict transformation and listening skills play in all our relational organizing. There are several resources to help, such as this summer survival kit of conflict hacks from Amanda Ripley; and, this summer reading list and overview of the listening arts. If you haven’t checked out our friend Brett Davidson’s writings on how deep narrative work also requires deep listening, don’t miss his recent missive on the meanings of listening.  

It’s an exciting month for Horizons as we welcome a new member of the team, Jarvis Williams who just joined us as Director for Applied Research. Read more about Jarvis and hear directly from him why he agrees with the power of listening for transforming relations and building deep partnerships. Welcome Jarvis!  We also have openings for Research Assistants to work with Jarvis and the team, as we partner with the SNF Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins University on research related to the pillars of support for authoritarianism and democracy. Please help us forward the announcement to any students you know who may be interested.  

We hope you enjoy the additional resources we’ve been reading, watching and listening to this month: 

READING 

Doing the Work While Doing The Work 

by Samhita Mukhopadhyay, The Nation 

“How can social justice organizations prioritize mental health issues while finding ways for their staff and members to stay in solidarity with each other? As we work to undo the legacies of racism and oppression, we are often facing a history of unresolved trauma—our own, and the histories of those we work with… Incorporating trauma-informed perspectives and general mental health awareness has sprouted up in many different places in an effort to counter narratives that we should ignore or override these feelings… But connecting the dots between social justice work and trauma history doesn’t automatically confer the necessary tools to deal with it.” This article is full of wisdom and resources from many leaders showing that prioritizing mental health while also finding ways to remain in solidarity with each other are not necessarily in opposition. 

Is Tennessee a Democracy? 

by Anne Applebaum, The Atlantic 

Anne Applebaum explores the current context in Tennessee from her perspective of reporting on the decade-long democratic decline and rise of one-party rule in Poland and Hungary. “…the cascade of tiny legal and procedural changes designed to create an unlevel playing field, the ruling party’s inexplicable sense of grievance, the displaced moderates with nowhere to go—this [does] seem familiar from other places. So [is] the sense that institutional politics has become performative, somehow separated from real life…Today, Tennessee is a model of one-party rule… Nor will the situation be easy to change, because gerrymandering is something of a blood sport in the state… [And] Getting people to vote is not so easy, either, because Tennessee has some of the nation’s most restrictive voting laws.”  

Why We Shouldn’t Give Up on Organized Religion 

by Tish Harrison Warren, New York Times Opinion 

Check out this interview with Eboo Patel, an American Muslim and founder and president of Interfaith America, a nonprofit that aims to promote cooperation across religious differences. Patel discusses his latest book, “We Need to Build: Field Notes for Diverse Democracy” and speaks about religious identity, diversity and institutions in America.  

More than Red and Blue: Political Parties and American Democracy 

The American Political Science Association (APSA) & Protect Democracy 

APSA and Protect Democracy partnered to support the APSA Presidential Task Force on Political Parties to synthesize decades of research on political parties and what they do in democracies. Key insights include: (1) the current campaign environment, from campaign finance regulations to changes in media, have made it harder for political parties to fulfill their roles; (2) American political parties are easy to join, opening them to new voices and interests but also leaving them vulnerable to capture by those with authoritarian objectives; (3) Racial realignment between the major parties has been growing for decades, changing the way the parties see the political landscape and their incentives for action; and (4) political parties are vital to modern democracy and reform efforts should take their essential roles seriously. 

WATCHING: 

Can We Transform Our Politics? 

Utah Governor Spencer Cox, Braver Angels Convention 

Governor Cox is well known for the public service announcement with his rival candidate, Democratic candidate Chris Peterson during the 2020 race for governor. Research has shown that watching the “One Nation” ad reduced viewers support for undemocratic practices, such as forgoing democratic principles for partisan gain or using violence against members of another party. Check out Governor Cox’s keynote address at the recent Braver Angels Convention in Gettysburg.  

Why Did “Woke” Go from Black to Bad? 

The Legal Defense Fund 

To some, the word “woke” is now a derisive stand-in for diversity, inclusion, empathy and Blackness. When legislators pass a law to “stop woke” in light of the word’s true history as well as its commonly understood meaning, what are they really saying? Check out this recent article by Keecee DeVenny on American Redefined, How Language is Weaponized. “Make no mistake, the linking of discussions of systemic oppression, race, gender expression, and sexual orientation with “anti-American” sentiments is intentional. It’s an attempt to redefine and reclassify who gets to call themselves American, regardless of their relationship to the country.” 

The Resurgence of the ‘Oldest Hatred’: The Effort to Combat Antisemitism 

Aspen Ideas Festival 

“Antisemitic incidents are on the rise in the United States, leaving Jewish communities feeling vulnerable — a sentiment both new and sadly familiar. Among the responses is the first ever U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism, released by the White House, advocating a whole-of-society approach because all of us are affected by hate and it takes all of us to fight it.” Moderated by Katie Couric, this Aspen Ideas Festival panel features Second Gentleman Douglas Emhoff, Eric Ward from Race Forward and Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall from Harvard’s Belfer Center. 

LISTENING TO:  

Advancing Just, Multiracial Democracy with john a. powell 

Momentum: A Race Forward Podcast 

“On this episode, Julie Nelson, Senior Vice President of Programs at Race Forward and john a. powell, Director, Othering and Belonging Institute, come together in a conversation inspired by the recent essay they co-authored, “Advancing Just, Multiracial Democracy.”  They explore the role local municipalities can play in not only defending against “democratic backsliding,” but also in expanding the very nature of democracy, which is critical with the global rise of authoritarianism and nationalism. Julie and john’s work rests on the idea that local governments are uniquely situated to turn grim situations built on “othering” into a global movement grounded in racial justice and belonging.”  

Are ESG Investors Actually Helping the Environment? 

Freakonomics Podcast 

Economist Kelly Shue argues that ESG investing gives more money to firms that are already green while depriving polluting firms of financing that they need to get greener. But she offers a solution, which is to take an engagement strategy with corporations and build power from the inside for change. As the debate about ESG continues to rage, we found this a nuanced conversation in line with our approach to the business pillar within a pro-democracy movement that requires both strategic engagement and pressure tactics. 

Making Reparations a Reality: Blazing a Trail to Racial Repair with Trevor Smith 

Let’s Hear It Podcast! 

Check out this thought-provoking episode with Trevor Smith, the Director of Narrative Change at Liberation Ventures. Trevor is a writer, researcher, and editor of the newsletter – Reparations Daily (ish). During the interview Trevor discusses the growing movement calling for reparations as a catalyst for true racial repair. He invites reflection on how we can all work toward a new narrative of reparations, and how we can create a democracy that is inclusive, empathetic, and centered on principles of justice. 

FOR FUN 

This is Real! Premiere Performance at the 22CI Conference: Forging a People Powered Democracy 

The 22CI conference came to a close earlier this month with a joyful performance of a brand new song crafted during one of the sessions, “Developing a Collective Poetic Voice to Address Authoritarianism Thru Songwriting,” under the direction of Jane Sapp, a musician and cultural worker at Let’s Make a Better World and Cindy Cohen, Emerita of Brandeis University and former Director of the Program in Peacebuilding and the Arts. Special thanks to the members of the “This is Real Ensemble” – Destiny Williams, Jeralyn Cave, Penny Rosenwasser, and Molly O’Connor. You guys rocked it.  

During the month of May, many important resources have been released on both the rise of authoritarianism and on global polarization. Horizons appreciates the opportunity to learn from across regional contexts and supports deep understanding of how the authoritarian playbook is used to fuel divisions and toxic othering. In “America Needs a Cross-National Approach to Counter Authoritarianism” Yordanos Eyoel provides an overview of the newly released report, “Defending and Strengthening Diverse Democracies” that offers lessons from Brazil, India, South Africa, and the United States. The Institute For Integrated Transitions also published as a part of their global polarization program: First Principles: The Need for Greater Consensus on the Fundamentals of Polarisation. Aditi Juneja makes The Case for Expanding the Landscape of Democracy Work; and People’s Action Institute highlights the need for an organizing revival, in their recent report: The Antidote to Authoritarianism.

Horizons Chief Organizer, Maria Stephan, published a comprehensive piece this month on how the global authoritarian playbook is being executed in Florida and lessons for the pro-democracy movement. A special thanks to all the front-line movement leaders in Florida who contributed to this analysis and who continue such important organizing work under such difficult circumstances.

As we kick off the summer in the US with LGBTQI+ Pride month in June, we recommend the new resources provided by Georgetown University’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy & Protections on Protecting Pride Events from Armed Extremist Activity. Our hope is that we continue to care for each other and find new ways of being and doing across our many difference.

Enjoy some of the other resources that the Horizons’ team has been reading, watching and listening to:

READING

Why Voters Who Value Democracy Participate in Democratic Backsliding

by Alia Braley and Gabriel Lenz, Nature Human Behavior

“Around the world, citizens are voting away the democracies they claim to cherish.” This article summarizes research that shows this behaviour is driven in part by the belief that our opponents will undermine democracy first. The study finds that US partisans are willing to subvert democratic norms to the extent that they believe opposing partisans are willing to do the same. When partisans were exposed to the fact that their opponents are more committed to democratic norms than they thought – they became more committed to upholding democratic norms themselves and less willing to vote for candidates who break these norms. “These findings suggest that aspiring autocrats may instigate democratic backsliding by accusing their opponents of subverting democracy and that we can foster democratic stability by informing partisans about the other side’s commitment to democracy.”

How King’s ‘Letter from Birmingham Jail’ parallels the Tennessee Three

by Kristen Thomason, Baptist News Global

One of the Tennessee Three, Rep. Justin Jones tweeted: “There comes a time when you have to do something out of the ordinary. We occupied the House floor today after repeatedly being silenced from talking about the crisis of mass shootings. We could not go about business as usual as thousands were protesting outside demanding action.” This article connects this action to the reasoning of Martin Luther King Jr. 60 years ago as explained in his famous letter from a Birmingham Jail that sometimes actions out of the ordinary are necessary. “Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored.”

Being Human > Being Right

by Thomas Coombes

“Does your approach to social justice depend on showing people that they are wrong (and, therefore, that you are right)?” Our friend The Hope Guy has written a wonderful summary of the insights from four recent books to challenge this all-too-common approach to “being right” and lays out three helpful steps: (1) Recognize when our certainty makes us bad communicators; (2) To change minds, listen; and (3) Make the conversation (not its subject) the story.

WATCHING

The Growing Threat of Christian Nationalism

“What is Christian nationalism and how does it threaten our democracy? Investigative reporter Katherine Stewart, author of The Power Worshippers: Inside the Dangerous Rise of Religious Nationalism, Eric K. Ward, executive vice president at Race Forward, and Guthrie Graves-Fitzsimmons, communications director at  Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty (BJC) and a member of BJC’s Christians Against Christian Nationalism campaign discuss the rise of Christian nationalism, its intersection with antisemitism, racism, and extremism, and why we should be paying attention.” (This is the second program in a four-part series on Exploring Hate.)

A Brief but Spectacular Take on Finding Hope in a Difficult World

PBS Newshour

Simran Jeet Singh is executive director for the Aspen Institute’s Religion and Society Program and author of “The Light We Give: How Sikh Wisdom Can Transform Your Life.” Singh shares his Brief But Spectacular take on how by focusing on the positive aspects of our multi-religious, racial and ethnic world, society can disrupt bias and build empathy.

The Abortion Talks

This documentary film by Josh Sabey and Sarah Perkins follows the crimes and trial of John Salvi—and the story of six women, all of them leaders in the pro-life and pro-choice movements, who sought to ensure that it would never happen again. To coincide with the film’s impact campaign, Picture Motion has launched a Screening Tour, providing access to the film and an accompanying Discussion & Action Guide at a sliding fee scale. If you are interested in hosting a film screening, you can contact Picture Motion here.

Imagination Infrastructure

ICYMI, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation recently released all the video recordings from their convening “A Time Between Worlds” where a series of inspiring speakers from around the world discussed aspects of imagination infrastructure. Olivia Oldham summarizes various concepts of imagination as a way “of seeing, sensing, thinking, dreaming” that creates the conditions for material interventions in, and political sensibilities of the world. Imagination is thus a transformative practice, which has the capacity to cultivate and foster alternatives to social, political, cultural and economic conditions; it is a prerequisite for changing the world for the better.”

LISTENING TO

“Polarization” Is Not the Problem. It Obscures the Problem – with Shannon McGregor

Is this Democracy Podcast

In this interview McGregor discusses her recent article, A Review and Provocation: On Polarization and Platforms and reflects on: “Why do scholars, politicians, journalists, and pundits cling to the idea of “polarization”? [Her] answer lies in the fact that the empirical, normative, and historical inadequacy is not a bug, but a feature of the polarization narrative – it is precisely the fact that is obscures rather than illuminates the actual problem that makes it attractive. The “polarization” concept is useful if you want to lament major problems in American politics, but either don’t see or simply can’t bring yourself to address the fact that the major threat to American democracy is a radicalizing Right, is the threat of rightwing authoritarian minority rule. In this way the concept even provides a rhetoric of rapprochement since it does not require agreement as to what is actually ailing America, only that “polarization” is to the detriment of all.”

A Slow Civil War? Jeff Sharlet

Future Hindsight Podcast

Jeff Sharlet discusses his latest book, The Undertow: Scenes from a Slow Civil War, reflecting on the democratic decline in the US, and the role of myths and martyrdom within fascist narratives. “On the Far Right, everything is heightened―love into adulation, fear into vengeance, anger into white-hot rage. Here, in the undertow, our forty-fifth president, a vessel of conspiratorial fears and fantasies, continues to rise to sainthood, and the insurrectionist Ashli Babbitt, killed on January 6 at the Capitol, is beatified as a martyr of white womanhood. Framing this dangerous vision, Sharlet remembers and celebrates the courage of those who sing a different song of community, and of an America long dreamt of and yet to be fully born, dedicated to justice and freedom for all.”

Hungary: Learning useful lessons from your enemies

Strength & Solidarity Podcast

“The election in 2010, of Hungary’s Prime Minister Victor Orban and his Fidesz party triggered a lurch to the right and authoritarian rule. It brought legal restriction, bureaucratic harassment and public vilification to the country’s civil society and human rights community. Official hostility made it difficult for [non-profits] to survive and made individual rights workers’ lives hell. It would not have been surprising if the net outcome of such targeting were a weakened human rights movement and a profound loss of confidence. And yet, says Stefánia Kapronczay, co-director of the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union, that is not what has happened. Instead, finding themselves blocked from their former work of advocacy and litigation, human rights workers pivoted to a model of grass roots activism that puts citizens’ needs and their values about rights and justice at the heart of movement-building. It is work they had not been doing enough of, she argues, and it is making the constituency for human rights stronger.”

How the News Media Shortchanges Nonviolent Resistance

War Stories Peace Stories Podcast

“The right to peaceful protest is considered fundamental in democracies around the world.  Nonviolent protest movements, like the Gandhian movement for independence in India or The Civil Rights Movement in the United States, are celebrated in history books. Yet if you go looking for coverage of nonviolent protest in the news media, most of the time you’ll come up short. In this interview, Horizons’ Chief Organizer, Maria J. Stephan widens the lens on nonviolent resistance and offers tips for how journalists could apply that lens to tell more complete and captivating stories.

INTERESTING TWEETS

https://twitter.com/mandyvandeven/status/1659512753197920258?s=46&t=ZGflLAVoklsIznGScm-xuA

https://twitter.com/PENamerica/status/1658835073548836868?s=20

https://twitter.com/SocietalThinkng/status/1656999428157259776

https://twitter.com/onesixcomics/status/1654491162613362691?s=12&t=ZGflLAVoklsIznGScm-xuA

FOR FUN

Astronaut shares the profound ‘big lie’ he realized after seeing the Earth from space

by Tod Perry Upworthy

“Sixty-one years ago, Yuri Gagarin became the first human to make it into space and probably the first to experience what scientists now call the “overview effect.” This change occurs when people see the world from far above and notice that it’s a place where borders are invisible, where racial, religious and economic strife are nowhere to be seen.…In a compelling interview with Big Think, astronaut, author and humanitarian Ron Garan explains how if more of us developed this planetary perspective we could fix much of what ails humanity and the planet.”

*This article was written by former Director of Applied Research Jonathan Pinckney.

Why should labor unions and professional associations care about authoritarianism?

American democracy is in a moment of crisis. Long-standing trends and practices that undermined agreement on the rules of the political game have been weaponized by a segment of our political class that seeks to undermine constitutional rights and freedoms, exclude minority groups from power, and suppress opposition through disinformation and violence.

Democratic backsliding in the United States is a particular threat to labor and professional organizations. The research is clear: democracy is good for labor. Democracies not only provide more robust protections for freedom of association, they pay higher wages! Rollbacks in democracyhave led to significant attacks on both labor rights and the autonomy of professional organizations in India, Hungary, and elsewhere. Would-be authoritarians undermine the autonomy of outside organizations to centralize control over all the major organs of society.

Both labor and professional groups have played critical roles in advancing and protecting democracy in the past, and many continue to do so today. When labor and professional groups join social movements pushing for democratic change, they tend to have much higher rates of success and long-term sustainability. Professional disciplines such as the law have particularly important relationships to the state of American democracy. Yet there is a strong need in the current moment of democratic crisis for disparate efforts to protect and advance democracy to be levelled up and conducted collaboratively with the broader pro-democracy ecosystem.

How can Labor and Professional Groups Support Democracy?

• Labor and professional groups can be influential persuaders for democracy, when it is clear that they are speaking for the interests of their members and not seeking political power. For example, in Tunisia lawyers’ associations played a powerful role in advocating for the rule of law during the Ben Ali dictatorship, and later used the respect and symbolic power of their black robes on the front lines of 2011 “Arab Spring” uprising to lend legitimacy to those protests and help facilitate a democratic transition.

• Labor and professional groups bring formidable organizing skills and networks to the pro-democracy ecosystem. For example, the civil rights movement in Winston-Salem, North Carolina had foundered, struggling to attract participants and effectively organize the Black community until tobacco industry unions (led by Black workers) organized membership drives for the NAACP, began building dense local networks among the Black working class through activities centered on the local union hall, and organized citizenship classes, political rallies, and mass meetings on civil and voting rights issues.

• Labor and professional groups can often provide crucial resources for frontline activists struggling to advance democracy, from professional know-how to specialized access to political elites. During the 2017 protests against Trump administration’s “Muslim ban,” thousands of lawyers descended on airports to provide pro bono legal counsel to immigrants caught by the ban. Conversation and connection between organizers and professional groups can help better catalog what resources are needed in the moment, and help streamline effective coordinated action.

• In moments of democratic crisis, labor and professional groups are critical sources of organized non-cooperation, from organizing sectoral or general strikes to refusing to participate in legal proceedings or unjust professional standards. Research shows that the capacity for such widespread non-cooperation is crucial to counter an authoritarian breakthrough. For instance, widespread strikes organized by labor unions in cooperation with pro-democracy activists have been crucial in pushing back against democratic backsliding across many countries including Sri Lanka, India, Fiji, and South Korea.

The Horizons Project’s Work

• Research and Analysis: As part of its larger pillars of support project, Horizons is examining how labor and professional organizations have helped protect democracy in the US and other countries during democratic backsliding, and the most effective ways to do so. We will be working with labor and professional groups to share the results of this research, providing practical tools and ideas to help shift priorities and collective action to pro-actively protect democracy from the current authoritarian threat. Horizons will be producing short, action-focused publications and, together with partners, hold a series of salons on Labor and Democracy.

• Relationship-Building: Research shows that protecting and restoring American democracy will require united effort across a wide range of sectors. Horizons is building connective tissue between labor and professional groups and other key nodes in the pro-democracy ecosystem to strategize how efforts at protecting democracy can be most effectively coordinated both at the state level and nationally. We plan to organize both formal events and informal conversations between labor and professional organizations, grassroots organizers, and others in the pro-democracy space to help build the foundations for united action to protect democracy as we move towards the 2024 election and beyond.

*This article was written by former Director of Applied Research Jonathan Pinckney.

Why should faith communities care about authoritarianism?

A flourishing democracy is one of the strongest protections for the free exercise of religion. From the persecution of Christians and ethnic cleansing of Uyghur Muslims in mainland China to the suppression of the Baha’i faith in Iran to the targeting of religious minorities in the backsliding democracy of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s India, the pattern from around the world is clear: when democracy breaks down, people of faith suffer.

The connections between faith and freedom are even more important at a time when some American politicians are appropriating religion to advocate for an exclusive “Christian nationalism” that uses government to impose their ideology on others. The examples of dozens of countries that have put the supremacy of one religion at the center of their politics shows the devastating consequences of this approach: heightened deadly conflict, increased political corruption as political leaders adopt the mantle of religion to pursue their personal agendas, and often a decline in the vibrancy of religious life. Indeed, the close affiliation of a political ideology with certain brands of Christianity is the primary reason for the stunning growth over the last three decades in Americans abandoning identification with religion.

Yet the answer to the appropriation of religion by an authoritarian faction in the United States is not to depoliticize religion. Indeed, history shows that when people of faith withdraw from the social issues of the day their withdrawal reinforces existing systems of injustice.

Instead, faith communities have a critical role to play in revitalizing our democracy and countering toxic polarization. Communities of faith have always been a bedrock of American democracy. Following one’s conscience in defiance of established state churches motivated the pilgrims and many of the other early immigrants to North America. Faith was at the center of almost all the great American social movements; from the Abolitionist movement against slavery in the 1800s to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s. As the great writer of Democracy in America Alexis de Tocqueville put it: “in America the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom…[are] intimately united.”

So what does this role look like for faith communities in America today? The specifics will look different depending on faith communities’ positioning in the rich tapestry of American religious life. But the history of religious engagement in struggles for democracy in America and around the world suggests a few common effective strategies.

How can Faith Communities Support Democracy?

• Communities of faith often come with unique positions of moral influence that make them powerful persuaders for democracy. Such acts of persuasion are most effective when they are clearly linked to faith community’s spiritual mandates, and when they directly address the spiritual and moral claims of those undermining democracy. For instance, in Malawi in the 1990s a pastoral letter by Catholic bishops condemning restrictions on political freedoms was pivotal in leading to the restoration of democracy. The letter linked human rights and freedom to the Catholic Church’s spiritual mission and undermined the moral authority that dictatorial president Hastings Banda claimed as a church elder. Religious women like Quaker Minister Lucretia Mott leveraged their faith and gender as powerful advocates for the abolition of slavery in the 1800s. More recently, after the January 6^th attack on the Capitol, numerous faith leaders, such as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, issued statements calling on their members to “honor democratic institutions and processes.”

• Persuasion is important but may have a limited impact unless it’s backed up by courageous acts of noncooperation, where religious leaders, institutions, or communities refuse to continue normal patterns of behavior in response to egregious violations of democratic principles or human rights. There is a long and storied tradition of non-cooperation and civil disobedience across many faith traditions, from the earliest history of Christianity to modern debates on civil disobedience in Islam. For example, during the People Power movement in the Philippines, courageous Catholic nuns who knelt before tanks while praying the rosary were crucial in preventing a violent crackdown and ensuring the movement’s success.

• Faith communities can engage in bridgebuilding and mediation, drawing on their positions of respect in the communities where they live and work to connect parties across difference. Democratic breakdown is fueled by hyper-partisan polarization. Faith communities provide one of the strongest and most resilient forums for overcoming that polarization. Effective engagement typically looks more like shared effort towards common goals, rather than dialogue for dialogue’s sake, and requires outreach beyond sympathetic audiences. In Liberia, Muslim and Christian women ended their country’s civil war by forming the “Women of Liberia Mass Action for Peace” that brought women together across long-standing divides and pressured their government and rebel groups to do the same.

• Faith communities are often one of the best-placed organizations for providing material support for pro-democracy mobilization. Community organizing networks rely on the physical infrastructure, interpersonal networks, and practical resources that churches, temples, mosques, and other religious institutions provide. This approach was most famously and effectively used in the American civil rights movement, when Black churches formed the backbone for almost every major civil rights campaign. Similarly, evangelical churches in East Germany in the 1980s provided one of the few free spaces for organizing against the country’s Communist dictatorship, playing a pivotal role in the nonviolent resistance campaign that led to the fall of the Berlin Wall.

• Faith communities often provide great symbolic power to unify across difference, build momentum to push for change, and remain resilient in the face of challenges. From the freedom songs of the civil rights movement to the Muslims and Christians joined in prayer during the Arab Spring in Egypt to the courageous activists of the Polish Solidarity movement against Communism celebrating Mass on the frontlines of their campaign for freedom, religious faith is one of the most powerful animating forces in the struggle for justice and democracy.

The Horizons Project’s Work

The Horizons Project recognizes the importance of the faith community as a force for democracy and is engaging with diverse faith leaders and coalitions to establish a common framework to understand and combat the authoritarian threat; and strategically link faith-based organizations with the pro-democracy civil society ecosystem. We are reaching out to or partnering with organizations such as the One America Movement, the Kairos Center, the Poor People’s Campaign, the Initiative on Catholic Social Thought and Public Life at Georgetown University, the Ignatian Solidarity Network, NETWORK, Sojourners, Faith in Public Life, Friends Committee on National Legislation, Mormon Women for Ethical Governance, Pax Christi, and the National Council of Churches.

• Research and Analysis: As part of its larger pillars of support project, Horizons is examining how faith communities have protected democracy both in the US and other countries during democratic backsliding, and the most effective ways for faith communities to do so. We will be working with faith communities to share the results of this research, providing practical tools and ideas to help shift priorities and collective action to pro-actively protect democracy from the current authoritarian threat. Horizons will be producing short, action-focused publications and, together with partners, hold one or more salons on Faith and Democracy.

• Relationship-Building: Research shows that protecting and restoring American democracy will require united effort across a wide range of sectors. Horizons is building connective tissue between faith communities and other key nodes in the pro-democracy ecosystem to strategize how efforts at protecting democracy can be most effectively coordinated both at the state level and nationally. We plan to organize both formal events and informal conversations between faith leaders, grassroots organizers, and others in the pro-democracy space to help build the foundations for united action to protect democracy as we move towards the 2024 election and beyond.

*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