Tag: Research

Wisconsin Business Leaders Ensure Fair Elections

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comparative Caselets: The Civil Service as a Pillar of Support

*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): 

Calling in Calling Out

Building powerful movements for a just and democratic society requires tearing down the walls separating people and welcoming new people into the movement. It takes recognizing that individuals, shaped by their lived experiences, are in different places along their journeys towards growth and change. Call-out culture, which includes public shaming to hold people accountable and oftentimes claiming one’s own moral high ground, can generate antagonism and challenge our ability to make progress together. But what other strategies do we have to hold people accountable for saying and doing harmful things?

Social justice and women’s rights activist Loretta Ross makes a case for the need to “call-in” instead of call-out. This approach prioritizes relationship-building over shaming. By “calling-in” someone who makes a harmful comment, a person may take them aside to share why the comment was harmful or inappropriate and offer alternative framing instead of calling them out in front of a large group. It creates a compassionate space for the person to reflect, hold themselves accountable and grow, instead of a space in which they may deny or deflect responsibility, retreat and/or not return out of shame or embarrassment.

However, not all situations lend themselves to calling someone in. Urgency, power dynamics, and individual safety are all important factors to consider when choosing how to respond to someone engaging in harmful behavior. In other words, calling out may sometimes be the more appropriate approach, especially if the individual in question has more power or is a repeat offender that has not been open to change. Yet, too often, we resort to calling out as the first and/or only option when this is not always the case, and we do so in ways that can cause additional harm and shame. By taking the time to pause and reflect on our intended outcome and how it will serve our larger goals for positive social change, we can create opportunities for people to reflect, grow and re-engage with accountability and new understanding.

Constructive methods of calling in and calling out both involve holding individuals and institutions accountable for harm while centering human dignity and embracing individuals’ capacity to change. However, calling in usually involves a private conversation with a small group or 1:1, while calling out means engaging in a more public space or forum. Based on the larger goal, an individual may choose either approach, or a mix of both—all while centering these approaches around care and a common humanity. At the Horizons Project, we work with networks of academics, social justice activists, bridge-builders, and democracy advocates to better understand how and when to use calling in and calling out methods in a way that will prevent harm, inspire collective learning, and hold people accountable with love.

*We would like to thank Tabitha Moore, a Vermont-based racial justice trainer and activist, for her thought leadership and contributions to this area of exploration as part of The Horizons Project research team.

RESOURCES

Interested in learning more? Check out these resources on calling in and calling out that are inspiring us right now.

Calling In and Calling Out Guide, Harvard University’s Office for Equity, Diversity, Inclusion & Belonging

“In fostering spaces of inclusion and belonging, it is important to recognize, name, and address when individuals or groups with marginalized identities are experiencing harm, such as bias or discrimination. The concepts of “calling out” or “calling in” have become popular ways of thinking about how to bring attention to this type of harm. Knowing the difference between these concepts can help us reflect, then act, in the ways we feel will best promote constructive change. This guide is a continuously evolving document that we plan to improve over time.”

Interrupting Bias: Calling Out vs. Calling In, The Vermont-NEA Racial Justice Task Force and Seed the Way

A quick tips guide for when you might choose to call someone in or out and how to do it.

#ListenFirst Conversations Complete Guide, #Listen First

“A #ListenFirst conversation is any conversation that helps us see each other across differences and discover human connection. It might be between two friends or among many strangers. It might be on a park bench, in a classroom, in the workplace, at home, or online. Regardless of where you are or who you’re with, here are our favorite principles and tips!”

Shame, Safety and Moving Beyond Cancel Culture, The Ezra Klein Show

“When is cancellation merited or useful? When is it insufficient or harmful? And what other tools are available in those cases?”

Loretta J. Ross: “Don’t call people out – call them in”, TED Talk

‘We live in a call-out culture, says activist and scholar Loretta J. Ross. You’re probably familiar with it: the public shaming and blaming, on social media and in real life, of people who may have done wrong and are being held accountable. In this bold, actionable talk, Ross gives us a toolkit for starting productive conversations instead of fights — what she calls a “call-in culture” — and shares strategies that help challenge wrongdoing while still creating space for growth, forgiveness and maybe even an unexpected friend. “Fighting hate should be fun,” Ross says. “It’s being a hater that sucks.”’

How to talk to insurrectionists and conspiracy theorists, Nafees Hamid, CNN

“I’m a cognitive scientist who has been studying the drivers of political violence for the better part of a decade. My work has involved interviews, social network analysis, psychology experiments, and surveys of jihadists, white nationalists, and conspiracists. My colleagues and I also conducted the first-ever brain scan studies on jihadist supporters. Our findings point to one thing that ordinary people can do if they feel that someone they know might be getting radicalized: Stay connected.”

Restorative Movement Building

What does it mean to challenge injustices and address societal harms in ways that strengthen social bonds and encourage longer-term healing? Restorative Movement Building is at the nexus of social justice and peacebuilding work. Individuals using restorative tools, approaches and mindsets are challenging injustice, building power and disrupting harmful systems in ways that promote healing, prioritize belonging and seek societal transformation.

Overall, this approach centers love, nonviolence and shared humanity as essential to transforming society in a way that works for everyone. At The Horizons Project, we see Restorative Movement Building as a central thread across all our areas of exploration. It can incorporate calling in and calling out strategies, create space for healing trauma, address toxic polarization through prioritizing relationships and provide a frame for a larger narrative focused on collective action while building belonging.

While activists, peacebuilders, and organizers have been working on social and economic justice, political violence prevention, and democracy strengthening issues for decades, they tend to work in siloes based on different approaches. At times, and especially in the short-term, these approaches can be in tension with one another. Social justice actors see a real urgency to raise awareness of injustices and address the power dynamics that uphold them to achieve transformational change. On the other hand, peacebuilders may seek a slower pace of change to make time for building relationships and encourage empathy and understanding so that no one gets left behind or inadvertently excluded as society progresses.

These different approaches can strengthen and reinforce one another in the long-term and make change more sustainable. The key challenge The Horizons Project is attempting to address is to help all these actors see themselves as operating within the larger ecosystem of social change working towards shared goals. Restorative practices help us to accept these tensions as normal and expected, so different groups can come together to learn and grow in their respective approaches (emergence) and determine who is best placed to take on specific roles/actions.

Restorative Movement-Building is a concept that the Horizons team is still exploring, scoping, and defining for ourselves. We are eager to engage with and learn from our partners in the process. Check back later for more information and resources as we embark on this journey together.

RESOURCES

Interested in learning more? Check out ten resources on Restorative Movement Building that are inspiring us right now.

Healing Resistance: A Conversation with Author Kazu Haga, The Horizons Project

“Nonviolence is a cornerstone of activism and radical change, but less attention has been given to the restorative power of nonviolent resistance. In this recent Horizons Project event, Senior Advisor Maria J. Stephan interviewed author and Kingian nonviolence practitioner Kazu Haga on his book, Healing Resistance: A Radically Different Response to Harm. The event publicly launched the Horizons Project.”

Healing Resistance: A Radically Different Response to Harm, Kazu Haga, Parallax Press

“Activists and change agents, restorative justice practitioners, faith leaders, and anybody engaged in social progress and shifting society will find this mindful approach to nonviolent action indispensable. Nonviolence was once considered the highest form of activism and radical change. And yet its basic truth, its restorative power, has been forgotten. In Healing Resistance, leading trainer Kazu Haga blazingly reclaims the energy and assertiveness of nonviolent practice and shows that a principled approach to nonviolence is the way to transform not only unjust systems but broken relationships.”

The Relational Work of Systems Change, Katherine Milligan, Juanita Zerda and John Kania, Stanford Social Innovation Review

“Sometimes we lose sight of a simple truth about systems: They are made up of people. Despite all of the frameworks and tools at our disposal and all of our learning as a field of practice, purely technical, rational approaches to systems change will not make much of a dent in shifting power or altering our most deeply held beliefs. If most collective impact efforts fall short of supporting people to change in fundamentally consciousness-altering ways, then, the system they are a part of will not significantly change either.”

The Three Horizons of innovation and culture change, Daniel Christian Wahl, Activate the Future

“‘Three Horizons thinking’ is an effective method for making sense of and facilitating cultural transformation and exploring innovation and wise action in the face of uncertainty and not-knowing.”

This graphic is not in the book chapter this excerpt is taken from. Source: H3Uni

Why coalition building isn’t about the coalition: Listening, leading, and making change happen, Nick Martlew, Mobilisation Lab

“Think of any campaign success you’ve seen or been involved in. I would wager good money (and as Yorkshireman I don’t say that lightly) that it wasn’t achieved by one actor alone: it was collective action that brought about change. Now think of when collective action becomes the worst form of coalition building, sacrificing ambition and wasting time. For the people whose rights we’re fighting for, that’s unacceptable. It’s also avoidable.”

Making Change: What Works, The Institute for Public Policy Research

“Movements change the world. Throughout history, loosely organized networks of individuals and organizations have sought changes to societies – and won. From the abolitionist struggle and campaigns for voting rights to #MeToo and #BlackLivesMatter, the impact of movements can be seen everywhere. Over the last year, IPPR and the Runnymede Trust have sought to understand what we can learn from movements that have made change – as well as those who have fallen short – for our efforts to create change today.”

Collaborating with the Enemy, Adam Kahane, Harold Jarche

“When two or more parties get together to address a problematic situation, they ask themselves a series of questions to understand their options. First they determine if they can change the situation. If so, can they effect change unilaterally, in which case they can force their solution. If they cannot change the situation, then they have two unilateral decisions possible: adapt to what has been forced on them, or exit the situation if possible. If they can change the situation but cannot effect change unilaterally,” then new options open.

Synergizing Nonviolent Action and Peacebuilding Guide and Online Course, United States Institute of Peace

“The Synergizing Nonviolent Action and Peacebuilding (SNAP) guide provides a strategic framework for activists, peacebuilders, and organizers working to transform violent conflict and advance a just peace. It demonstrates how nonviolent action and peacebuilding approaches can be used together synergistically to mobilize communities, address power imbalances and conflict drivers, and support inclusive, participatory peace processes.”

Organizing Tools from Liberating Structures

“This website offers an alternative way to approach and design how people learn and work together. It provides a menu of thirty-three “Liberating Structures” to replace or complement conventional meeting and engagement practices.”

Trainings from East Point Peace Academy

With trainings on healthy conflict engagement, Kingian nonviolence, and vulnerability, East Point Peace Academy provides diverse opportunities to build up your restorative resistance practice.

Movement Ecology: Self-Paced Course, Ayni School

“This self-paced mini course on Movement Ecology is an introduction to understanding the many different strategies that arise when we are faced with creating social change.”

THE VISTA: July 2023

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.  

Welcome to Jarvis Williams, New Director of Applied Research at The Horizons Project!

Enjoy this short interview between our Chief Network Weaver Julia Roig and our new Director of Applied Research Jarvis Williams as he describes his excitement and motivation about joining the Horizons’ team.

Julia: Hi everyone, Julia Roig, the Chief Network Weaver at the Horizons Project, celebrating on this hot summer day, that we have a new team member who has joined us at Horizons, Jarvis Williams.

We just wanted to have a chance for you to be able to say hi to everybody because of course, since we’re so into working within a broad ecosystem of a lot of different partners, we wanted to give you a chance to tell us something about yourself.

Jarvis: Well, first of all, thank you. It’s so exciting to be with the team. I enjoyed the interview process, I think I told a friend of mine I held you captive for several hours when we were supposed to be talking for a short amount of time, but it’s just great conversations.

But I think that probably explains part of who I am. I really enjoy trying to be in community with people.

I think three things that would probably define who I am now is that I’m highly sensitive to the power of relationships to change people’s lives and that’s important to me.

It started growing up in a small community in Mississippi and watching my father be in relationship with patients, watching people in the church be in relationship. So I care about that and my work culture matters to the extent that I’m in relationship with great people.

I guess the other two things that really matter to me that I guess define who I am is that I have attempted to try to be attendant to what people believe.

Why their beliefs matter to them, not simply just to change their beliefs, but to appreciate how they have come to see the world the way they do.

And then I’ve really committed myself to trying to be a part of helping us to get better information about what we believe so we can actually act better. And that’s where scholarship and academia comes into play, trying to learn about the world we live in, in a reliable way.

Julia: Yeah, that’s great. And, you know, I failed to even describe the fact that you’re taking on the role of the Director of Applied Research.

So I’m really glad that you mentioned the power of, academic rigor and your experience with research. And so I’m really curious for you to share what you’re the most excited about with regards to this job, and the Horizons mission and what you’re going to be doing in this role?

Jarvis: Oh, absolutely. I think for me, the wording that really just fascinated me was this idea of connective tissue. What do we need to know to help us connect better? Or what beliefs do we have that may be prohibiting us from connecting? And so I know that to confront the moment I think we find ourselves in with all kinds of threats, we don’t have to just connect, but we have to have a certain depth to those connections. And in order to explain some of that, it requires… interrogation to those deep beliefs that complicate how we act. And so in Horizons Project, religion, the role of Christianity in democracy, I think it’s a deep conversation that we need to think about.

The challenge of race, I think those are deep conversations. There are moments where you have to try to have a polite conversation to move on, but to build great relationships, there needs to be great understanding. And sometimes it takes a kind of depth of understanding to get there.

And then this mystery we call democracy. What beliefs are essential to be able to hold on to what we have and what beliefs have complicated it? So Horizons gives me an opportunity to, think about not just, what we know about those beliefs, but how people are actually living out those beliefs currently, and to be in relationship with them and to push and to probe and to learn and I think I’m excited about being in a space where we’re not trying to pretend we don’t disagree, but we are curious how we can believe better about each other.

Julia: Yeah, that’s beautifully put, and folks are going to very quickly realize, why you were the right choice to join our team and all this “connective tissue-ing” that we’re trying to do.

So Jarvis, just to end, you are going to interact with a lot of different folks, it’s the joy of this work of being ecosystem organizers.

So for those partners or those collaborators who are going to have the opportunity to work with you, what would be something that you’d want them to know about you as you’re getting started?

Jarvis: Yeah, I think two things for me. One, I will absolutely listen to them. I will care to hear and to see the world through their eyes. And I think that is connected to the other thing, that they will absolutely be respected. And for me, if you know that you will be heard and that you will be treated with respect, I think that’s what I would want to offer.

And in the words of John Lewis, whatever good trouble we get into, we’ll be fine. As long as we respect each other and listen.

Julia: Well, wise words to end on. And you know, Jarvis, we really are just thrilled on behalf of Maria and Tabitha and Nilanka and the whole team, just we want to give you a big warm welcome .

We’ll look forward to a lot of good trouble coming next.

Well, I so appreciate it. And I’m so happy to be a part of this team.

Julia: Thanks Jarvis.

THE PILLARS PROJECT: Veterans and Military Families

*By former Director of Applied Research Jonathan Pinckney.

Why should veterans and military families care about authoritarianism?

American democracy is in a moment of crisis. Long-standing authoritarian trends and practices by a dedicated segment of our political class are undermining shared agreement on the rules of the political game, curbing constitutional rights and freedoms, excluding minority groups from political representation, and using disinformation and violence to suppress opposition. A growing segment of anti-democratic extremists have taken one of our political parties hostage, sidelining principled and patriotic pro-democracy leaders, in an attempt to advance a white Christian nationalist agenda.

Veterans are uniquely positioned to help stem this authoritarian threat. Upon entering their military service, veterans swore an oath of office to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. They chose to put their country above all else, and for that, they are venerated in their communities as true patriots and model citizens. Veterans have been on the frontlines of the fight against authoritarianism in the U.S. and around the world throughout our nation’s history. From the beaches of Normandy to the Korean Peninsula to the shore of Kuwait, committed servicemen and women risked their lives to defend freedom and democracy. Today, however, the authoritarian threat is found much closer to home.

Former top military commanders, including Gen. James Mattis, Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, and Gen. Mark Milley, among others, have modeled how both veterans and current servicemen and women can uphold their oath and code of ethics by standing against strongman tactics. Yet, as the January 6 insurrection revealed, some of the same characteristics that inspired veterans to serve—including a strong sense of patriotism, duty, and volunteerism for a purpose bigger than themselves—can also drive them down paths of violent extremism and manipulation by dishonorable, undemocratic actors.

Authoritarians seek to leverage Americans’ respect for veterans and current servicemen and women by using them as political pawns and targeting them and their families with anti-democratic misinformation and disinformation. More troublingly, White supremacist and other anti-government violent extremist groups explicitly seek out veterans for recruitment, hoping to use their discipline, skills, and credibility while taking advantage of their struggle to find purpose and community after leaving the military.

Getting veterans and military families directly involved in the struggle for democracy is a potent way to draw on the strong sense of civic duty and the skills and discipline that veterans and those who support them have developed during their military service. It can also provide a powerful avenue for preventing recruitment into violent extremist groups and help assuage the difficulties of the transition to civilian life. Many American veterans who have gotten involved in pro-democracy struggles see their activism both as a direct continuation of the commitments they made through their oath of allegiance, and as a core community through which they are able to find collective purpose in civilian life.

Veterans and military families have a long history on the forefronts of activism to advance American democracy. Today, many organizations are mobilizing veterans and military families for greater civic engagement. Leveling up those engagement efforts and joining forces with the larger pro-democracy ecosystem can be a powerful force for protecting, healing, and revitalizing American democracy.

How can Veterans and Military Families Support Democracy?

  • Veterans can use their discipline, training, and high levels of community cohesion to be powerful mobilizers for democracy, participating in and often leading community organizations and social movements to protect the right to vote and advance the rights of all Americans to fully participate in our democratic process. During the civil rights movement, Black WWII and Korean War veterans like Medgar Evers and Hosea Williams drew on the skills and confidence they gained during their military service to lead key civil rights organizations and often lead the way in the riskiest forms of activism.
  • Veterans and military families are in a particularly influential position to build bridges across partisan and identity-based divides. Toxic partisan polarization has extended across almost every major social identity in American life, from geography to hometown to race and ethnicity. Yet veterans and military families span the political spectrum. This makes non-partisan veterans groups one particularly important forum for conversation to break down toxic polarization, build networks across divides, and counter the misinformation and disinformation that authoritarian actors use to undermine American democracy.
  • In moments of democratic crisis, veterans can be important influencers to active-duty military, police, and other security forces, drawing on their connections and shared experience to call on people in these institutions to stand up for democracy and not follow illegal or unconstitutional orders. For instance, during the “Orange Revolution” in Ukraine, former air force chief General Volodymyr Antonets built an extensive network of contacts among mid-ranking Ukrainian officers that helped ensure that the Ukrainian military was not used to violently suppress peaceful pro-democracy protesters.

The Horizons Project’s Work

The Horizons Project recognizes the importance of veterans as a force for democracy and is engaging with diverse veteran service and military family organizations to help establish a common framework to understand and combat the authoritarian threat. We also seek to link these organizations more strategically with the pro-democracy civil society ecosystem. We are reaching out to or partnering with organizations such as We the Veterans, Divided We Fall, Veterans for Political Innovation, Common Defense, Armed Services Arts Partnership, Military Veterans in Journalism, The Mission Continues, Veterans for American Ideals, Secure Families Initiative, and National Military Family Association, among others.

  • Research and Analysis: As part of its larger pillars of support project, Horizons is examining how veterans have helped protect democracy both in the US and other countries during democratic backsliding, and the most effective ways for veterans to leverage their unique position to do so. We will work with veteran and military family groups to share the results of this research and explore practical tools and ideas for how veteran service and military family organizations can mobilize their respective constituencies to pro-actively protect democracy from the current authoritarian threat. Horizons will produce short, action-focused publications and, together with partners, hold a series of salons on Veterans 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 among veteran and military family groups, as well as other key nodes in the pro-democracy ecosystem to strategize how efforts to protect democracy can be most effectively coordinated at the state level and nationally. We will organize both formal events and informal conversations between veteran service and military family 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.

THE PILLARS PROJECT: Labor Unions and Professional Associations

*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.

THE PILLARS PROJECT: The Business Community

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

Why should business leaders care about authoritarianism?

There is a long-standing recognition among many American business leaders that fostering a democratic political environment is in the interest of American businesses. The research is clear: Democracy is good for business. Populism, polarization, and rising authoritarianism undermine a free market economy, punitively and inefficiently politicize tax and regulatory policy, and create significant political risk. While supporting political leaders who undermine democracy may yield short-term benefits, it does not provide the foundation for stable business growth. Multi-national companies have well-developed responsible business principles and best practices for engaging foreign governments and civic groups in fragile democracies, but the sector is just recently turning needed attention to the alarming rate of democratic decline in the US.

Beyond the general advantages of fostering democracy, individual companies have much to gain from leading in pro-democracy work. In a survey of 3,000 Americans, 76% said they would prefer to work at companies that promote democracy, and 81% said they were more likely to recommend those companies’ products.

Thus far, much of the work to promote democracy by businesses has been limited to areas such as get-out-the-vote programs, civic engagement partnerships or depolarization initiatives, all important efforts, but with limited impact given the problem’s scale. As a resurgent debate about the role of business in society becomes increasingly politicized, especially around issues of ESG and DEI, there is a dedicated authoritarian faction deploying tried and true tactics to divide the country while undermining core democratic institutions. This dynamic has opened criticisms of the “politicization of business” and calls for corporate restraint in politics. There is an urgent need, however, for corporations and business leaders to distinguish between normal politics and attempts to roll back democracy. Partnering with others to take courageous stands in the face of these anti-democratic forces is critical, requiring better alignment and coordination with the diverse, trans-partisan pro-democracy civil society ecosystem in the US.

How can business leaders support the pro-democracy ecosystem?

  • Business leaders can be powerful persuaders for democracy through making public statements condemning anti-democratic practices and upholding the rule of law. Such statements are particularly powerful when made in concert with social movement leaders and other “unlikely allies.” For example, the US Chamber of Commerce joint statement with the AFL-CIO on the day of the 2020 election sent a powerful signal that American society was united in its demand for a free and fair election, and a statement by over 70 Black executives condemning a 2021 Georgia law restricting voting rights helped show corporate America’s support for democratic rights.
  • Statements can send powerful signals but are typically insufficient when not backed up by concrete action. Beyond statements, business leaders can refuse to cooperate with authoritarian practices, cutting off their normal patterns of interaction with political leaders and organizations that undermine democracy to continue. For instance, after the January 6th insurrection, nearly 150 companies ended their campaign contributions to the members of Congress who refused to certify the 2020 election.
  • Businesses can also provide material support for key activities by social movements and civil society organizations working directly to advance democracy. Charitable donations are just one piece in a much larger tactical repertoire, and often not the most effective piece. Businesses also have deep resources of technical expertise, insider knowledge, and human capital that can be leveraged to support pro-democracy work. Several American companies have provided their employees with paid time off to vote, protest, or dedicate time and resources to pro-democracy actions.
  • Business leaders can play a key role in bridgebuilding and negotiation. Business leaders can leverage their relationships to political elites to advocate for democracy in private, and, when appropriate, act as trusted intermediaries between movements and government leaders. For instance, during the Greensboro, North Carolina lunch counter sit-ins in the civil rights movement executives from the Burlington Fabrics company organized a committee of civic leaders that, through their negotiations with lunch counter business owners, helped give greater legitimacy to the Black student-led sit-ins and facilitated Greensboro’s desegregation.

The Horizons Project’s Work

The Horizons Project recognizes the importance of the business community as a force for democracy and is engaging with many diverse business leaders and coalitions to help establish a common framework to understand and combat the authoritarian threat; and link the corporate sector more strategically with the pro-democracy civil society ecosystem. We are reaching out to or partnering with organizations such as the Civic Alliance, Leadership Now, the Erb Institute at the University of Michigan, the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, Business for America, the American Sustainable Business Network’s Business for Democracy working group, the Business Roundtable, and the Ethical Capitalism Group.

  • Research and Analysis: As part of its larger pillars of support project, Horizons is examining how businesses have helped protect democracy both in the US and in other countries during democratic backsliding, and the most effective ways for businesses to leverage their unique position to do so. We will be working with business leaders 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 Business and Democracy in 2023.
  • Relationship-Building: Research shows that business efforts to promote social good are most effective when done in concert with social movements, and that protecting and restoring American democracy will require united effort across a wide range of sectors. Horizons is building connective tissue between business leaders 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 business 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.

Exploring Narrative Practices for Broad-based Movements in Contexts of Democratic Decline

*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

Resource type

Tags

Search