Tag: Pillars

*By Lucianne Nelson
Time Period: 2017-2018
Location: United States
Main Actors: Immigration & constitutional law attorneys; civil rights activists; members of state and national government; business & labor leaders
Tactics
- Civic Engagement
- Media Outreach
- Petitions
- Signed Letters of Support
- Legal Aid
- Amicus Brief

Beginning in early 2017, the Trump administration issued a series of Presidential Proclamations that indefinitely banned travel to the United States from several predominantly Muslim countries. In late 2017, the administration suspended programs for refugee processing and family reunification that largely served Muslims applicants. The impact of these orders—collectively known as the “Muslim ban”—created chaos at airports across America. Individuals traveling from these countries were detained, questioned, or abruptly deported. Even some lawful permanent residents of the US were held for prolonged periods before being allowed back into the country. Others were stranded at airports, prevented from boarding flights to the United States. 

The impact of the Muslim ban triggered wide-scale protests as translators, organizers, and immigration advocates flooded airports to support travelers and family members of loved ones detained under the executive order. Business leaders such as Sergey Brin (Google) and Sam Altman (OpenAI) protested in support of detainees at their local airports while others spoke out against the executive orders and recalled their employees to the US The ban also triggered wide condemnation from universities, academics, and other public intellectuals. Editorial boards also denounced the ban. Members of Congress, including Senators Elizabeth Warren and John Lewis, joined protests in their home states as well. Over nine hundred career diplomats in the US State Department issued a memo of dissent, outlining their disapproval of the Muslim ban. 

As concerned Americans assembled at airports to protest the travel ban, so did lawyers. Hundreds of attorneys crowded at international terminals, sitting shoulder-to-shoulder, and crouching on the floor with laptops, conducting legal research and writing motions to file at court. And, as the Trump administration continued to refine and implement the Muslim ban, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and partner organizations filed a series of lawsuits to challenge these immigration sanctions. Once the cases advanced through the legal system, other lawyers filed amicus briefs in opposition to the Muslim ban. These briefs provided critical perspective and expertise to the Supreme Court as it considered the constitutionality of the executive orders. Removal or deportation defense work is complicated, challenging, and time-consuming, but many of the attorneys who rallied against the Muslim ban volunteered independently and immediately. In taking on the pro bono work of defending travelers impacted by the Muslim ban, attorneys practiced civic vigilance and upheld core principles of democracy. 

The Muslim ban represents only one of many attacks against Americans’ civil rights. By publicly protesting the ban, lawyers (and activists, business leaders, Congress members, and other government actors) fulfilled a critical role in shoring up American democracy. One key lesson of the response to the Muslim ban is the power of a rapid, organic response by those with expertise in a moment of crisis, followed by a more sustained response by formal organizations. Lawyers did not wait for the bar association or the ACLU to take action but responded immediately to the impending crisis. This helped check the direct negative effects of the Muslim ban. Then, over the long-term structured organizations took the lead. Successful defense of American democracy will require both a quick immediate response to direct violations of rights, and the construction and maintenance of well-resourced advocacy organizations that can keep this response going.

Where to Learn More
- The Evolution of the Muslim Ban - an Explainer
- Impacts of the Muslim Ban 2019
- Legal Heroes in the Trump Era: Be Inspired. Expand Your Impact. Change the World

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

*By Lucianne Nelson
Time Period: Present
Location: United States
Main Actors: The American Medical Association (AMA)
Tactics
- Declarations by Organizations and Institutions

In its June 2022 annual meeting, the American Medical Association (AMA) identified voting as a social determinant of health. As a result, doctors are making voter engagement a part of whole-person health care. Over 700 clinics, hospitals, and medical offices are helping their patients register to vote. The AMA is encouraging medical professionals to add a nonpartisan civic health screening, with the hope that helping people vote can address long-standing health disparities. According to the AMA, making ballots more available can help people better advocate for health-related issues such as clean air, better access to health care, and women’s or children’s health. The AMA is also helping patients to understand that social determinants of health—like affordable housing, food security, environmental rights, and disability accommodation—are equally important issues on many ballots. Per the AMA: “More voting is associated with better health outcomes. And as a rigorously nonpartisan organization, we work with our advisers across the political spectrum to ensure that resources are not partisan and that they speak to the daily experiences of Americans in their health.”

The broad reach of healthcare systems, combined with the trust that doctors, nurses, and social workers often have in their communities, offers an innovative avenue to engage voters, and the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 allows many hospitals and clinics to provide voter registration as a patient service. The AMA is encouraging individual doctors and healthcare providers to bring nonpartisan conversations into the clinical practice, connecting health professionals with nonprofits like AltaMed and Vot-ER to integrate civic engagement into health care. Organizations like these help people to register, without endorsing a political party, policy, or candidate. Vot-ER develops tools, training, resources, and programs for doctors, medical schools, clinics, and hospitals “build healthy communities powered by inclusive democracy.” Vot-ER reported that the healthcare industry helped nearly 50,000 Americans initiate their voter registration or request a ballot in 2020. The majority of those patients registered successfully and approximately 85% cast a ballot in the general election.

In August 2020, the American medical profession launched a civic health initiative and has celebrated Civic Health Month each subsequent year. This coalition now includes over 300 partners and over 80 medical schools participate in the Health Democracy Campaign. For the AMA, the goal of these kinds of initiatives is to empower each voter to choose who best represents them and use their own voice to advocate for their health. 

However, the AMA is facing some skepticism from the congressional Doctors Caucus. Some members are concerned that the AMA is overstepping its professional expertise, and its position on voting exacerbates friction with those congressional conservatives around social advocacy. Even with this resistance, the AMA is continuing to build partnerships with civic engagement groups and other medical trade groups (like the American Psychiatric Association) to serve patients by protecting democracy.

The AMA offers an innovative model for pro-democracy movement building by helping health centers identify their role in civic responsibility. The AMA recognizes that its members—doctors, nurses, etc.—are trusted pillars in many communities and can act as powerful vehicles for bringing underrepresented Americans into the electoral process. A key lesson here is how trade organizations can leverage their issue expertise and networks of support to bolster democracy. Civil society actors and the AMA have much to gain from these collaborations. Together, they are serving their patients and addressing the health of the nation. 

Where to Learn More
- Why it’s OK for doctors to ask their patients about voting
- Evaluating AltaMed Voter Mobilization in Southern California, November 2018
- Civic Health Month

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

*By Louis Pascarella
Time Period: 1977-1981
Location: Brazil
Main Actors: Brazilian Doctor’s Union
Tactics
- Professional Strike
- Slowdown Strike
- Marches
- Establishing new social patterns

In 1964, a military coup overthrew Brazil’s democratically elected president João Goulart and initiated a period of military dictatorship. Following this coup, military repression targeted any member of civil society found favorable to democracy. One target of this repression was the country’s doctors. The military began a purging process, identifying any “progressive” elements in the medical community and removing them from positions in hospitals, schools, and research centers. These medical professionals were then labeled as subversives, and were often detained, tortured, or even murdered by the regime.

About a decade later, doctors began organizing large-scale resistance to the military regime, beginning with junior residents in São Paulo hospitals. Low wages, poor working conditions, and mismanagement of the health sector by the military dictatorship were the primary driving factors. The young doctors also saw an opportunity, as an economic downturn and pressure from civil society had led the regime to express intentions to liberalize. Because of this combination of factors, doctors’ protests quickly spread across Brazil. Residents engaged in work stoppages and slowdowns, eventually recruiting permanent non-resident doctors and hospital staff. Despite threats of dismissal from various state governors, officials were forced to relent in the face of hospital collapse. 

With initial protests a success, reform minded doctors began a campaign to fully transform the Brazilian health sector. Running under “Medical Renewal” and “Movement for Medical Renewal,” progressive doctors won elections to leadership roles in doctor’s unions across the country. These key positions in leadership helped reformist doctors spark a stronger and more prolonged protest movement. Legal fights and additional protest support (including strike assistance) were some of the main strategies pursued by union leadership. Perhaps most importantly, doctors connected their struggles to other unions across Brazil. The powerful auto workers' union (led by future president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva), teachers unions, public sector workers and others found a strong ally in doctors, coordinating joint May Day rallies and strikes across Brazil. This participation demonstrated the solidarity of workers, regardless of profession, in protecting rights and demanding democratic reforms. Leadership in other unions met with Brazilian doctors, supported and encouraged their efforts as the Brazilian government attempted to “buy out,” and later repress the disgruntled medical community. 

Some within the Brazilian medical community attempted to undermine the resistance efforts. These “old guard” elements profited from the corrupt system and felt doctors should be treated differently (or better) as members of the professional rather than working class. The relationships formed between doctors and other professions (teachers, trade workers, etc.) helped to minimize this influence and isolate voices who were only interested in personal aggrandizement. 

The military dictatorship’s attempts to disrupt doctors’ organizing failed. Hostile takeover of unions and detention of leaders only further galvanized doctors, who were able to fall back on their labor allies in midst of targeting. By July 1981, the doctors won a series of major reforms, including significant pay increases and better working conditions. 

While the movement of doctors ostensibly concluded in 1981, the profound struggle laid the groundwork for the eventual collapse of Brazil’s military dictatorship. The military regime depended on creating divisions across professions and class. With the medical community organized and connected to the broader struggle for democracy, the military regime’s hold on power dwindled. Using work slowdowns and outright stoppages, associations of Brazilian doctors won victory after victory. By 1984, doctors joined millions of other rallying Brazilians, resulting in the end of military rule in 1985 and the advent of Brazilian democracy in 1988. Brazil’s doctors illustrated the power and value of professional associations in a democratic movement.

US activists can learn much from Brazil’s doctor strikes. The importance of coalition building is of note. Doctors occupy a different position among the working population, generally regarded as professionals, rather than traditional labor. Autocratic governments tend to use this distinction to fragment workers, even currying favor with the professional class to keep them sidelined from political struggles. By “bringing in” professional groups like doctors, more traditional labor elements diversify and broaden their ability to put pressure on the government. In Brazil, this meant that the trade unions could rely on the threat of hospital strikes to heighten democratization attempts. Conversely, these professional workers benefit immensely from the large numbers present in labor groups. Professionals make up a smaller share of the working population than skilled labor, which means they lack some of the benefits larger unions can provide. This weakness can be ameliorated through partnerships with mass organizations. Additionally, this partnership helps to insulate the professional movement from internal strife by providing allies and support from outside the movement. Finally, Brazil’s doctors emphasized the power of strikes and work slowdowns in pressuring governments and initiating change. 

Where to Learn More
- White Coats with Blue Collars: Doctors’ Labor Protests and the Struggle for Democracy in Brazil, 1978–1982

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*By Lucianne Nelson
Time Period: Civil Rights Era, 1955-1970s
Location: United States
Main Actors: The Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC); Labor unions
Tactics
- Mass action
- Boycotts
- Protests/Marches
- Protective Presence/Witnessing 

Following the success of the Montgomery bus boycotts, civil rights leader Bayard Rustin identified the need for a central organization to coordinate and support nonviolent direct action across the South. Martin Luther King, Jr., consulting with Rustin, invited other Black leaders and ministers to establish a coalition that would mobilize the community and strengthen the influence of churches against segregation. Together, they established the Southern Christian Leadership Conference in 1957. 

Unlike other umbrella groups that recruited individual members, the SCLC leveraged faith communities and other local organizations to mobilize individuals into a collective movement equipped to fight segregation, advocate for voting rights, and promote nonviolent action as a strategy. And, given its coalition-based approach, the SCLC developed a strong alliance with labor unions. Several labor unions—including the Teamsters, the United Packinghouse Workers of America (UPWA), and the United Auto Workers (UAW)— supported SCLC campaigns by organizing union members to participate in direct-action protests, marches, and other acts of civil disobedience. Together, the SCLC and labor unions coordinated mutual solidarity under the banner of “jobs and freedom.”

In 1962, the SCLC launched Operation Breadbasket to create economic opportunities in Black communities. Operation Breadbasket was a selective patronage program that leveraged the persuasive power and organizing strength of Black churches. Groups of ministers surveyed the hiring practices of local businesses, then requested that companies with few (or no) Black employees “negotiate a more equitable employment practice” and hire qualified candidates within a set time frame. At the same time, these ministers urged their congregations to (re)consider the morality of shopping at stores or buying from businesses that took money from the Black community but underemployed African Americans (leading to several boycotts and “Don’t Buy” picketing initiatives). When the SCLC implemented Operation Breadbasket in Chicago, members of the Teamsters and the UPWA unions helped with on-the-ground movement building.

Ralph Helstein, who led UPWA for 20 years, closely advised Martin Luther King, Jr. and the SCLC. Helstein was a “pioneer” of the Civil Rights movement, and the meatpackers union focused on expanding equal employment rights for minorities through its Anti-Discrimination Department. Under Helstein’s leadership, the UPWA supported the Montgomery bus boycott by providing training to organizers and by donating money to support the protest. Members of the UPWA offered additional support to the SCLC by participating in civil rights campaigns throughout the country during the 1950s and 1960s. The union also launched a Fund for Democracy in the South, which raised over $11,000 in local contributions for the SCLC. Additionally, the UPWA supported students who were involved in the Civil Rights movement through scholarships and Helstein contributed his experience as a labor organizer to help the SCLC train student volunteers. 

In addition to UPWA, the United Auto Workers and the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) also shared the SCLC’s vision for “jobs and freedom.” These labor unions joined the 1963 March on Washington in support of robust civil rights legislation. Union members were among the 200,000 who marched to protest high levels of Black unemployment, work that offered most African Americans only minimal wages and poor job mobility, systematic disenfranchisement of many African Americans, and the persistence of racial segregation in the South. Labor groups were instrumental allies of the SCLC and the Civil Rights movement because unions underscored the social, political, and economic impact of racial equality.

Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, labor unions offered institutional support for the Civil Rights Movement and were strong allies of Civil Rights leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. One key takeaway is that diverse groups strengthen movements. Even though labor unions were founded to protect worker’s rights, the unions which supported the Civil Rights movement recognized the value of advocating for (and with) other marginalized groups.

Another essential lesson this case offers is the power of collaboration. The SCLC deployed its network to protest and take other meaningful action, and labor unions offered a systematic, organized framework of support that ensured the SCLC could maintain its pro-democracy efforts. This cross-issue, collective action produced a more robust movement. By engaging in civil rights action, unions fulfilled a critical role in building American multi-racial democracy. 

Where to Learn More
- The National SCLC | SCLC History
- Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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