Tag: Security Sector

*By Adam Fefer
Time Period: 2011
Location: Egypt
Main Actors: The Egyptian Military
Tactics
- Withholding or withdrawal of allegiance
- Mutinies by government personnel
- Protective Presence

Between 1981-2011 Egypt was under the authoritarian rule of Hosni Mubarak. Upon taking power, Mubarak imposed a decades-long state of emergency that empowered the security forces to restrict free speech and assembly. The Mubarak regime rigged elections in its favor, violently cracked down on political opponents, and jailed tens of thousands without charge, many of whom were tortured.

The military served as a key pillar of support for Mubarak - himself a former Air Force commander. Mubarak rewarded military elites with control over large segments of the economy as well as positions in government. These relationships secured the military’s loyalty and would guarantee its importance in resolving threats to the status quo. 

On January 25, 2011, inspired by the recent ousting of Tunisian president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, Egyptians staged mass anti-government protests. The protesters, famously centered in Cairo’s Tahrir Square, initially called for an end to economic mismanagement and state violence but broadened their demands to Mubarak’s resignation. In response, Mubarak ordered the military, police, and paramilitary groups to violently disperse the protesters. 

Despite its longstanding allegiance to Mubarak, the military released a statement saying it would not “resort to use of force…[and would respect the] legitimate demands of honourable citizens.” It promised, and in some cases fulfilled its promise, to protect Egyptians from the police and paramilitaries--those elements of the security forces more closely allied to Mubarak. The military did not enforce Mubarak’s curfew, permitted protesters to engage in anti-Mubarak graffiti, and even positioned tanks in between protesters and police. 

As the protests became larger and more threatening to the status quo, Mubarak made a series of concessions (e.g., stating that he would not seek reelection) while continuing to order violent crackdowns against protesters. Throughout this process, the military weighed its options. After the protests began, military leaders negotiated with and worked to stabilize Mubarak’s government. But a turning point came on February 2, when Mubarak loyalists killed 3 and injured 600 protesters. Thereafter, the military more squarely distanced itself from Mubarak. Mubarak’s mix of concessions and violence was ultimately unsuccessful: on February 11 he resigned and the military seized power.

It should be noted that the scope and significance of military defection from Mubarak is a matter of dispute. Although the military did not engage in large-scale public violence, it did at times permit police and militias to enter Tahrir Square, even resupplying them with ammunition. The military prevented protesters from bringing cameras into Tahrir Square and stood by as protesters were attacked. It also engaged in more private acts of violence, such as forced disappearances and extrajudicial detention. Even the memorable display of tanks protecting protesters has been interpreted by some observers as a show of force and intimidation by the military, along with the regular flying of military jets and helicopters above Tahrir Square. 

These important qualifications notwithstanding, the military’s decision not to fire on protesters was significant in unraveling the Mubarak regime. How can we explain these consequential acts of defection? Most explanations highlight the importance of Egypt’s stability and the military’s economic interests. For one, if Mubarak had stayed in power, his son Gamal would have succeeded him. However, Gamal had indicated his support for privatizing many of the assets that military elites owned, thus threatening their economic privileges. In addition, after the US withdrew its support from Mubarak, the Egyptian military was weary of defending such an internationally unstable ruler and losing access to foreign aid and weapons. Protesters’ growing anger made Mubarak’s position even more fragile. Most generally, military leaders were anxious about Egypt’s growing economic stagnation and Islamist opposition to the state; they simply believed these conflicts could be best resolved if Mubarak left office. As the number of defections grew, members of the military believed they would not be punished for following suit.

Despite its differences from the US, democracy organizers can learn much from the Egypt case. A first lesson concerns the importance of civilian oversight of the military. Authoritarians like Mubarak regularly shower military leaders with economic and political privileges. As these privileges increase, the armed forces may be willing to overlook anti-democratic transgressions to preserve its position. Civilian leaders must carefully oversee relations between executives and the military to help ensure the latter’s commitment to democracy.

A second lesson concerns the importance of addressing military grievances. Many Egyptian military elites became aggrieved on account of Mubarak’s economic mismanagement and dictatorial style of rule, which were seen as dangerous threats to their livelihoods. Similarly in the US, resource constraints have been a source of grievance for military leaders. Addressing these issues may help convince military leaders that they have less to gain from supporting authoritarians who make lofty promises about new streams of funding and resources.

Where to Learn More
- Barany, Z. (2011). Comparing the Arab revolts: The role of the military. Journal of Democracy, 22(4), 24-35.
- Bumiller, E. (2011). Egypt Stability Hinges on a Divided Military. New York Times.
- Kirkpatrick, D. (2011). Egyptians Defiant as Military Does Little to Quash Protests. New York Times.
- Shane, S. & Kirkpatrick, D. (2011). Military Caught Between Mubarak and Protesters. New York Times.

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

*By Adam Fefer
Time Period: 1988
Location: Chile
Main Actors: Fernando Matthei (Air Force General), Rodolfo Stange (General Director of the Police), José Merino (Navy Admiral)
Tactics
- Withholding or withdrawal of allegiance
- Mutinies by government personnel
- Deliberate inefficiency and selective noncooperation by enforcement agents

In 1973, a group of military officers led by General Augusto Pinochet and supported by the United States government overthrew Chile’s democratically elected, socialist president, Salvador Allende. Pinochet’s authoritarian military junta dissolved Chile’s congress, purged the bureaucracy and judiciary of known and suspected socialists, and prosecuted its opponents in military tribunals. Critics of the regime, both elites and ordinary citizens, were arrested without warrant, indefinitely detained, tortured, and executed.

Chile’s 1980 constitution both empowered the military junta and provided for a transition to civilian, democratic rule in 1990. A plebiscite was held in 1988 to determine whether Pinochet would serve as civilian president for another eight years, i.e., from 1990-98. The actions of elite junta members during and after the plebiscite constitute remarkable instances of pro-democracy defection.

In the lead-up to the plebiscite, General Hugo Salas Wenzel, a Pinochet loyalist and director of the secret police, met with intelligence chiefs from the Navy, Air Force, and Police. Wenzel described a plan to invalidate the plebiscite if Pinochet were to lose. After hearing of this plan, Air Force General Fernando Matthei and others requested a meeting with Pinochet where they told him that he must respect the constitution, which Pinochet refused.

On the night of the plebiscite, Pinochet’s supporters requested permission to hold premature victory demonstrations, despite Chile’s authoritarian ban on public assemblies. The supporters likely sought to incite counter-demonstrations, which Pinochet could use as a pretext to justify cracking down on his opponents and invalidating the plebiscite. Police Director Rodolfo Stange refused this request. That evening, Stange’s units arrested agitators from secret police attempting to stir up trouble and refused to promptly release them. 

As Pinochet’s plebiscite loss became clearer to junta leaders, the latter took actions to contradict the disinformation being peddled on state media. General Matthei openly told a group of news reporters that it looked like Pinochet had lost. Later that night, Pinochet met with members of the junta and refused to leave office, threatening to fill the streets with troops and remove any generals who opposed him. The generals told Pinochet that he lacked the power to do any of this. Pinochet then asked the junta leaders to sign a document allegedly containing the meeting minutes; in fact, the document asked for an extension of his authoritarian emergency powers. General Matthei tore up the document and other junta members refused to sign it. Pinochet ultimately left office after his term expired, although he played an important role in Chile’s military and political system thereafter.

These acts of defiance by military elites allied to Pinochet were critical in prompting Chile’s transition to democracy. In addition, their actions were personally risky, as they faced potential prosecution for human rights abuses after Pinochet’s departure. However, Amnesty laws decreed by Pinochet have served to indefinitely protect most junta leaders.

What explains these risky and consequential defections? A first set of factors were domestic: although the military was united in its aversion to socialism, it was more divided with respect to Pinochet’s free market policy agenda as well as the prospect of decades-long military rule. Indeed, Pinochet’s tenure had already reached 16 years and was being proposed to extend to 25. There was a broad sentiment within the military of “mission accomplished”: the purported threats posed by Allende’s socialist government were seen to have been averted by 15 years of military rule. Another set of factors were international: by 1988, the US had deemed Pinochet a liability whose aggressive right wing dictatorship could threaten to incite a leftist revolution. Junta leaders sought continued US support, which was less likely if they refused to distance themselves from Pinochet. 

US democracy organizers may wonder whether lessons can be drawn from the example of a military autocracy like Chile. In spite of its many differences from the US, Chile’s experience highlights the importance of differences of opinion among elites, even those who have supported the authoritarian status quo. In Chile, these differences of opinion --particularly whether Pinochet was a reliable ally-- proved highly consequential for the transition to democratic rule. Pillar leaders, whether supportive or skeptical of democracy, have personal interests they wish to protect that may not always align with the dictator’s interests. As Pinochet’s violence and electoral fraud became increasingly unsustainable, a crucial segment of his allies deemed democracy more consistent with their goals. 

A second lesson relates to the importance of non-elites and their interactions with military elites. In addition to the military defections described above was a sustained, nonviolent struggle conducted by workers, university students, and religious groups, among others. Through peaceful protests and labor strikes, the Chilean masses demonstrated to junta leaders that a post-Pinochet world would not be unstable and chaotic. This points to the importance of democratic mass action as contributing to elite loyalty shifts. 

Where to Learn More
- Kornbluh, P. (2023). The American Ambassador Who Helped Stop a Coup in Chile. The Nation.
- Kurtz, L. (2009). Chile: Struggle against a military dictator (1985-1988). International Center on Nonviolent Conflict.
- Merloe, P. (2023). Standing with Democracy over Military Dictatorship: Chile’s 1988 Presidential Plebiscite. National Democratic Institute.
- Spooner, M. H. (2011). The General’s Slow Retreat: Chile After Pinochet. University of California Press.

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

*By Adam Fefer
Time Period: 1982-1986
Location: The Philippines
Main Actors: Armed Forces of the Philippines, Reform of the Armed Forces Movement (RAM), Fidel Ramos, Juan Ponce Enrile
Tactics
- Selective refusal of assistance by government aides
- Mutinies by government personnel
- Blocking of lines of command and information by government personnel

The Philippines became increasingly authoritarian during the 1965-86 tenure of President Ferdinand Marcos. Between 1972-1981, the Marcos regime ruled under martial law, suspending parliament and censoring the media. Marcos justified these measures by exaggerating the threat of communist and Muslim insurgencies. Under this pretext, the Marcos regime committed grave human rights abuses, including torture, extrajudicial killings, and forced dissapearances. The 1986 presidential election, Marcos’ last before fleeing the country, was marked by widespread fraud and state violence.

The armed forces were a key pillar propping up Marcos’ dictatorship, detaining and repressing those who threatened his grip on power. Officers were promoted, dismissed, and reshuffled in accordance with their loyalty to Marcos. In the mid-1980s, a dissatisfied military faction formed the Reform the Armed Forces Movement (RAM). RAM became a haven for key military defectors, including Defense Minister Juan Ponce Enrile and Chief of the Philippine Constabulary Fidel Ramos.

One month after the unfree and unfair 1986 election, RAM, under the leadership of Enrile, planned a coup against the Marcos regime. The coup was aborted after officers loyal to Marcos preempted it. However, the coup-plotters retreated to and occupied multiple military camps, namely Camp Aguinaldo and Camp Crane. There they engaged in a standoff with the loyalist forces.

During the standoff, RAM’s leadership coordinated with Catholic Cardinal Jaime Sin as well as civilian political leaders, meeting secretly at their respective homes. Sin called on Filipinos to stand together against Marcos via the church-run Radio Veritas. Millions of unarmed citizens gathered to protect the RAM leadership, forming human barricades at the military camps. Marcos ordered his troops to fire on the protesters, which the troops refused to do. Defections began to spread throughout the armed forces, particularly the Air Force and Marines. As the military, Filipino society, and the US withdrew its support, Marcos fled the country in February 1986, going into exile in Hawaii.

The Philippines’ “People Power” revolution was one of the 20th century’s most successful nonviolent uprisings, inspiring protesters at Tiananmen Square, the 1989 revolutions in Eastern Europe, and the Arab Spring. Filipinos ousted a dictator who had been in power for over two decades and enjoyed extensive US support. And despite the crucial role played by the armed forces, People Power inaugurated a civilian administration. Nevertheless, democracy in the Philippines has not consolidated since Marcos’ ouster and there have been multiple attempted military coups.

US democracy organizers can learn much from the military’s actions during People Power. For one, the security sector can be an important ally in the fight against dictatorship, this in contrast to the assumption that soldiers favor strongmen leaders promising stability. Filipino military elites demonstrated powerfully their opposition to Marcos’ election-rigging and repression of unarmed civilians. At the same time, their behaviors were shaped and influenced by the mass mobilization of Filipino civilians, who demonstrated a collective rejection of the Marcos dictatorship through disciplined nonviolent action. Moreover, their commitment to democracy need not be exclusively moral: elites from the security, business, and religious pillars were strategically committed to both preventing communist and Islamist forces from gaining power and to retaining US financial and military support (Mendoza 2009). 

A second lesson is that pro-democracy movements are more likely to succeed when they mobilize a large and diverse set of supporters. The Philippines’ security sector not only worked against Marcos but coordinated their actions with business elites and high-ranking Catholic leaders. All three pillars worked alongside and protected the popular protesters. 

Where to Learn More
- Amnesty International (2022). “EDSA People Power Revolution.” 
- Mendoza, A. (2009). “‘People Power’ in the Philippines, 1983–86.” In A. Roberts & T. G. Ash (Eds.), Civil resistance and power politics: the experience of non-violent action from Gandhi to the present. Oxford University Press.
- Tesoro, J.M., & Saludo, R. (1996). “The Legacy of People Power.” AsiaWeek.

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

*By Louis Pascarella
Time Period: December 2016
Location: United States, North Dakota (Standing Rock Reservation)
Main Actors: Veterans, Veterans Stand for Standing Rock
Tactics
- Protest
- Non-violent occupation
- Assemblies of protest

The Standing Rock protests began in April of 2016 in response to the building of the Dakota Access Pipeline near the Standing Rock Reservation. Citing concerns over environmental destruction, water contamination, and the desecration of sacred sites, nearby Indigenous groups attempted to stop the pipeline’s construction. Protesters sued for an injunction in court, while setting up camps and active protests outside the construction area. Peaceful protests were met with violence; a mix of police, National Guard, and private security forces used water cannons, tear gas, rubber bullets, pepper spray, batons, and dogs to repress protesters. 

Witnessing the violence against peaceful protesters, and wanting to use their experience and social capital, veterans organized a campaign to protect protesters from violence. Describing her reasons for participating, veteran Danielle Bradley stated, “I couldn’t take the mistreatment of the protesters and sit at home and do nothing about it… we came out to show that we will defend the people of this country, even when our obligation on paper has ended.” Coast Guard veteran Asleigh Jennifer Parker stated their intentions to help protesters: “We want to offer them a moment of peace and, if we can, take a little bit of pressure off.”

The group “Veterans Stand for Standing Rock” crowdfunded a campaign which raised over $500,000 to purchase supplies and other aid resources. Veterans Stand for Standing Rock, alongside other unaffiliated veterans, showed up at Standing Rock around December 1^st, 2016. Over 2,000 veterans arrived, with another 1,000 in waiting (the camp could not accommodate everyone). From the onset, veterans ceded leadership to tribal leaders, recognizing that as new members to the movement, they were best suited to a support role. When asked to ensure their presence was peaceful, veterans shed their “battle gear”, deciding they did not want to appear as aggressors dressed similarly to the militarized security forces.

On the day of protest, veterans arrived at the front lines and helped with setup. Veterans built shelters, maintained fires for warmth, and protected the perimeter of the camp. They placed themselves physically between security forces and the other protesters. The presence of veterans was a success. As described by former Marine Tom Petersen, “The police started backing down. In the face of such an impressive veteran presence, law enforcement vehicles began leaving. Then, a little after 4 p.m., an announcement came over the speakers. The Department of the Army halted the project.” While the Department of the Army’s hold would not remain indefinitely, the pause allowed protesters space to rest and reorganize.

Activists can learn much from the efforts of veterans at Standing Rock. Most importantly is that diverse groups strengthen movements. Inclusion of veterans in the resistance space afforded Standing Rock protesters with unique skills and greater public exposure. Due to their combat experiences, veterans were willing to stand up to militarized security forces, especially in defense of other protesters. Additionally, veterans wield high levels of respect from the public. This fact deterred security forces from their “usual” repression, as they knew engagement would incur higher costs.

Veterans at Standing Rock also catalyzed success through their desire to work with Indigenous leaders. The willingness to accept tribal leadership directive and commit wholly to peace was a major factor in their success: veterans deterred security forces and aided Indigenous protesters in a supportive and deferential manner. Following direction eased concerns regarding a large influx of newcomers. This is important as coalition building can lead to tensions between different factions. Clear communication of goals and observation of already established leadership ameliorated tension. Additionally, the dedication to nonviolence meant veterans did not (purposely or not) encourage violence and place others in danger. As a movement, the Indigenous protesters felt it important to convey a message of nonviolent resistance, and veterans obliged this wholeheartedly.

Where to Learn More
- Standing Down, Standing Together: Coalition-Building at Standing Rock
- Why I Joined My Fellow Vets at Standing Rock This Weekend
- 2,000 veterans to give protesters a break at Standing Rock
- Thousands of Veterans Descend on Standing Rock to Protect and Serve
- Veterans Stand for Standing Rock: “We Will Never Stop Protecting”
- Veterans to Serve as ‘Human Shields’ for Dakota Pipeline Protesters

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

*By Adam Fefer
Time Period: June 2000
Location: Venezuela
Main Actors: Venezuelan Military Officers
Tactics
- Selective social boycott

Venezuela began a long, sad road towards authoritarianism and economic crisis during Hugo Chávez’s presidency (1999-2013). The 1998 election ended four decades of competitive two-party politics in Venezuela. Chávez, a military officer who had been imprisoned in 1992 for plotting a coup d'état, won the 1998 election without a mainstream nomination. During his campaign, Chávez deployed populist rhetoric against a corrupt and unequal system that could no longer meet voters’ needs, for example calling to “fry” his opponents. 

After his 1998 victory, Chávez moved to rewrite the constitution, slowly eroding Venezuela’s system of checks and balances. He then proceeded to dismiss the Supreme Court and legislature. Chávez’s military allies and former coup-plotters were tapped as ministers of defense, transport, and taxation, as well as state governors and directors of Venezuela’s secret police. Regional army commands were empowered to oversee elected officials. Many such appointments were made without legislative approvals. Meanwhile, military courts largely shielded human rights abusers from civil prosecution.

During Venezuela's 2000 election, opposition parties had a strong showing. This competitive atmosphere helped opponents raise awareness of Chávez’s undemocratic attempts to consolidate power. Although he won the election, some of Chávez’s key military advisors deserted him during the campaign. In June, a ceremony was held for 93 retiring officers who were to receive the military’s highest honors. In opposition to Chávez’s power-grabbing and military interference, 42 of the 93 officers did not attend the ceremony. 

The retiring officers’ boycott did not ostensibly hamper Chávez’s efforts to consolidate power alongside his military allies. It was relatively small-scale and was not followed up by any observable additional resistance tactics. However, the boycott sent a strong signal that Chávez’s actions violated norms of Venezuelan democracy. Democracy organizers in the US could benefit from further studying acts of resistance among Venezuela’s armed forces, especially in light of Donald Trump’s attempts to politicize the US military.

Where to Learn More

• Freedom House. (2001). “Freedom in the World: 2000-2001.”
• Human Rights Watch. (2013). “Venezuela: Chávez’s Authoritarian Legacy.” 
• Kronick, D., Plunkett, B., & Rodriguez, P. L. (2023). “Backsliding by surprise: the rise of 
• Chavismo.” Political Science Research and Methods, 11(4), 838-854.
• Schaffer, M. (2023). “Trump Politicized the Military. Was That the Real Problem With the Jan. 6 Response?” Politico.

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

*By Sivahn Sapirstein
Time Period: Summer 2020
Location: Portland, Oregon (and then spread across USA)
Main Actors: Wall of Vets Facebook Group
Tactics
- Protective Presence
- Nonviolent Interjection

Following the police killing of George Floyd in May 2020, demonstrators organized across the United States to protest police violence, systemic racism, and systemic inequality. In Portland, Oregon these protests took place nightly for several months. The protests were primarily peaceful, though punctuated by occasional violent escalation. After over a month of protesting, then-President Trump sent federal troops to Portland, without the approval of the Governor or Mayor, claiming that the city and state politicians had lost control. While the purported purpose was to subdue the protests, in many cases the federal agents escalated conflict by employing excessive (and illegal) tactics, including abducting protesters off the street.

Observing these dynamics unfold, Christopher David, a Navy veteran, decided to attend a protest to speak with officers about what he saw as a violation of their shared oath to support, uphold, and defend the Constitution. After speaking to several officers, David was beaten by federal agents and pepper sprayed, resulting in a broken hand. A video of the encounter went viral, inspiring veterans from a variety of branches and backgrounds who resonated with the call to remove federal troops. Together, through Facebook and other community groups, they organized the “Wall of Vets” to protect protesters’ first amendment rights. 

The strategy built on the legacy of human protective walls and the wider practice of protective presence and nonviolent intervention, where third party groups strategically place themselves to deter violence directed against others. For the “Wall of Vets,” protesters gathered to stand between federal agents and protesters, anticipating the violence of previous nights but intending for their presence to function as a “shield” for protesters. The veterans involved were also aware that their presence and legitimacy would bring increased media coverage which would raise the profile of the protests nationally and perhaps shift the narrative. As the group represented a wide spectrum of political orientations, their unifying purpose was defending the protesters’ constitutional rights to protest and freedom of speech. Specifically, they saw their presence at the protests as a continuation of the oaths they took in the US armed forces. 

In addition to showing up for protective presence as a group and communicating with other organizers already on the ground, David made a point of refocusing media coverage of his experience being attacked back to the protests, the issue of systemic racism in America, and his duty towards the Constitution and the American people. Considering the shared history and understanding between veterans and the current federal agents, David and other attendees hoped that their engagement would have a unique capacity to lower conflict and excessive tactics by federal troops, with the ultimate goal of removing federal troops entirely from the protests. Around two weeks later that goal was achieved, ushering in an ease in tensions at the nightly protests. 

Where to Learn More
- Lombardi, Chris. “How military veterans are answering the call to defend Black lives.” Waging Nonviolence, Oct. 29, 2020. 
- Baker, Mike. “A ‘Wall of Vets’ Joins the Front Lines of Portland Protests.” New York Times, July 25, 2020.

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

*By Sivahn Sapirstein
Time Period: January 2021
Location: Washington, DC
Main Actors: US Joint Chiefs of Staff
Tactics
- Letters of Opposition or Support

On January 6th, 2021, the United States faced a direct threat to its democracy. Encouraged by former President Donald Trump and defended by a significant number of politicians, the January 6th attack on the US capitol was a last-ditch attempt to undermine the 2020 presidential election by preventing an official count of the Electoral College votes. While the violent mob was unable to stop the proceedings, and Joe Biden became president shortly after, the scope and length of the attack were particularly concerning to pro-democracy Americans.

In response, the Joint Chiefs of Staff published an unprecedented letter to the joint forces. The Joint Chiefs is a politically appointed body comprised of the top eight military officials in the country and headed by the Chairman who serves as the principal military advisor to the White House. Given their rank, their commentary has serious implications. The letter stated plainly that the events of January 6th were an assault on American democracy and against the rule of law. It also emphasized how the US military will continue its 250-year legacy of defending the Constitution and reiterated that President-elect Biden will be the next Commander in Chief, in line with the rule of law. 

While the ideals listed in the letter – a commitment to the Constitution and upholding the rule of law – are not themselves political, any commentary by military officers on ongoing political matters is nearly unprecedented in American history. The only similar act in recent history is the “revolt” by retired generals against former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s management of the Iraq War in 2006. However, as with most instances of political involvement from the armed forces, these were all former officers. The US military has an important standard of maintaining an apolitical approach to domestic politics, which is critical to ensure civilian control over the armed forces. However, in the months leading up to January 6th this reputation was being challenged. While broader trends of politicizing political appointees are not directly linked to the Trump presidency, during Mr. Trump’s time in office, his remarks of “my military” and the planned surprise photo-op with General Mark Milley (the chairman of the Joint Chiefs) after using the National Guard to clear peaceful Black Lives Matter protesters, an incident General Milley apologized for soon after, particularly threatened to damage the reputation of nonpartisanship. 

Therefore, in publishing this letter reminding the public of the military’s primary commitment to the Constitution, the Joint Chiefs not only rejected the prospect that they would be a pawn in any plans to overthrow American democracy, they were also working to reestablish a key pillar of American democracy: their own nonpartisan status. 

Where to Learn More
- Military Chiefs Remind Troops of Their Oath After Fallout From Assault on Capitol

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

*By Claire Trilling
Time Period: December 2002 - December 2004
Location: Ukraine
Main Actors: General Volodymyr Antonets, veterans & officers in the Ukrainian security forces
Tactics
- Dialogue/engagement 
- Fraternization 
- Withholding or withdrawal of allegiance
- Deliberate inefficiency and selective noncooperation by enforcement agents

In 1999, Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma won a second term in an election marred by irregularities, kicking off a period of democratic decline that lasted until 2005 and was characterized by high levels of corruption and the repression of dissidents. Two major nonviolent resistance campaigns occurred during this period. The first was the “Ukraine Without Kuchma” movement in 2000, which involved mass protests in the capital, Kyiv, against the corruption and illegal activities of President Leonid Kuchma and other oligarchs. Although the government effectively repressed the campaign, leading civil society groups engaged in careful training and network-building over the subsequent years.

At the same time, however, the government and its supporters undertook further actions to erode Ukrainian democracy. In 2004, as Ukraine faced a presidential election, the ruling party put forward Viktor Yanukovych as their presidential candidate and began a shadow campaign of manipulation and sabotage to ensure his victory. When, despite widespread evidence of fraud, the Central Election Commission announced Yanukovych had defeated opposition candidate Viktor Yuschenko, civil society groups activated their networks and, in partnership with the opposition coalition of political parties, Our Ukraine, kicked off the “Orange Revolution,” named after the color of the opposition coalition. 

At the heart of the mass resistance campaign was the nonviolent occupation of Independence Square in Kyiv, which drew millions of participants, many of whom symbolically wore orange. Much of the city mobilized to support the protest camp, while citizens outside Kyiv organized local demonstrations, marches, and strikes. During the campaign, a network of veterans organized by former General Volodymyr Antonets played a crucial role in preventing a violent crackdown against the protesters by state security forces.

General Antonets joined the opposition after being pushed out of his position as Chief of the Ukrainian Air Force by President Kuchma in 1999. Beginning in December 2002, Antonets recruited volunteers from among his retired colleagues with the goal of building bridges to the state security forces. Together, they conducted outreach to mid-ranking officers, military families, and other veterans, gradually organizing regional teams that could pass information from their contacts to Antonets and his partners in the Our Ukraine coalition. The veterans’ network helped the opposition party stay up to date on opinions and attitudes among the security forces toward the government. 

When the Orange Revolution broke out, the veterans mobilized their regional networks. Strategically working from the grassroots up, they recruited a critical mass of lower-ranking soldiers who were prepared to refuse any orders to use arms against civilians. Building from that base, Antonets and his team then negotiated informal agreements with middle- and upper-ranking military officers that they would also refuse to use force against protesters and that they would intervene if the government attempted to use the police or special forces to do so.

Demonstrators themselves added indirect pressure on top of the veterans’ bridgebuilding work, often chanting “the military is with the people'' at protests. On November 28th, the efforts to induce a loyalty shift among the security forces (away from the autocratic ruler and in support of democratic constitutionalism) paid off. When the Interior Minister attempted to mobilize special forces outside Kyiv to crack down on the protests in the city, Our Ukraine leaders received warning through the veterans’ network and reached out to the Army Chief of Staff, who threatened to place soldiers between the special forces and the protesters. The Interior Minister backed down, and the demonstrations continued without the threat of violent repression. 

Mass mobilization continued unimpeded for five more days, until the Supreme Court acknowledged the use of fraud and ordered new elections for late December 2004. Parliament revised the country’s electoral law to limit the potential for fraud and put forward constitutional reforms that would limit the powers of the president thereafter. Yuschenko won the new elections, and the backsliding trend quickly reversed.

Where to Learn More
- Binnendijk, Anika Locke and Ivan Marovic. 2006. “Power and persuasion: Nonviolent strategies to influence state security forces in Serbia (2000) and Ukraine (2004).” Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 39: 411-429.
- Global Nonviolent Action Database. “Ukrainians overthrow dictatorship (Orange Revolution), 2004.” Swarthmore College, 2011.
- Kuzio, Taras. 2005a. “The Orange Revolution: Ukraine’s 2004 Presidential Election.” Democracy at Large, 1(2), 8-11.

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

*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 leverage the high levels of respect that most Americans have for them to be powerful persuaders for democracy. For example, during the 2020 election statements by retired military flag and general officers demanding that election officials ”Count Every Hero” served as a powerful, nonpartisan counterweight to attempts to undermine the right to vote.

• 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.

At the time of writing our November newsletter, the results of all the US mid-term elections are still unknown. One clear win for democracy was that most of the local Secretary of State and Gubernatorial candidates who were “2020 election deniers” were unsuccessful in their bids for office. As we celebrate the wins of the many pro-democracy candidates and the tireless community organizers around the country, Horizons has been reflecting on Daniel Stid’s recent blog “…the conflation of democracy with politics is one of the biggest challenges to sustaining it. Democracy is so much larger than politics… we have to do a better job demarcating when we’re talking about what, otherwise we can create an idea or expectation that democracy is only working when we get the political wins we want, or that everything we don’t agree with is inherently anti-democratic”.

We still have a lot of work to do on the democracy agenda in the US and globally, and there are many resources and thought leaders offering a path forward. The Brennan Center for Justice provided a thoughtful analysis of How Voter Suppression Legislation is Tied to Race.

Erica Chenoweth and Zoe Marks from the Harvard Kennedy School recently released a seminal report (commissioned by Social and Economic Justice Leaders Project) Pro-Democracy Organizing against Autocracy in the United States: A Strategic Assessment & Recommendations, that proposes nonviolent resistance strategies, support systems to protect communities at-risk, and infrastructure needed for effective pro-democracy organizing. Others are asking In a Fast-Changing Political Landscape, How is The Democracy Alliance Evolving? And, also offering observations that Philanthropy Needs New Strategies to Save American Democracy.

Jill Vialet from the Center for Social Sector Leadership describes a new form of Democracy Entrepreneurship and highlights the importance of bringing an entrepreneurial mindset to the work of democratic reform. Part of this new mindset is how we talk about democracy, and in his recent opinion piece, How to Strangle Democracy While Pretending to Engage in It, Carlos Lozada reflects on how the rhetoric we use can “move public discourse beyond extreme, intransigent postures of either kind, with the hope that in the process our debates will become more ‘democracy friendly’”.

At Horizons, we are committed to helping build a renewed global democracy movement, and the recent article by Rachel Kleinfeld, A Helsinki Moment for a New Democracy Strategy discusses lessons from the democracy community’s last paradigm shift to provide a lens for seeing what we need next; and, how countries need to work together on shared challenges. Finally, we hope you’ll tune in to the recent podcast interview with Horizons’ Co-Lead and Chief Organizer, Maria Stephan on the Difficult Conversations Podcast where she discusses the US’s long history of authoritarian tendencies, exactly how those tendencies are manifesting today, and how the tools and strategies of nonviolent action can be used to effectively counter them.

As we prepare for the Thanksgiving holidays in the US, we are grateful for all the inspiring work and important ideas reflected in what we’ve been reading, watching, and listening to:

READING

The Pillars of Support Project

By The Horizons Project

Horizons recently launched a new initiative to compile research and make recommendations for engaging different pillars within society that are positioned to incentivize pro-democracy behavior or continue to prop up an authoritarian system. There are many excellent organizations working within these pillars, such as faith communities, the private sector, organized labor, and veterans’ groups to name just a few.

The Role of In-Group Moderates in Faith Communities

by The One America Movement (OAM)

When OAM describes the role of in-group moderates, they “aren’t talking about being politically or socially moderate, compromising your values, or changing who you are. Being an in-group moderate means that you are willing to speak out when members of your community (your friends, your family, your coworkers, your congregation, your political party) behave in a way that contradicts your values. This act of speaking up can look like pulling someone you love aside to explain to them how concerned you are about their words or actions”.

The Importance of Corporate Political Responsibility

by Andrew Winston, Elizabeth Doty, and Thomas Lyon, MIT Sloan Management Review

Corporate Political Responsibility (CPR) is a broader take on old-school corporate social responsibility, or CSR. CPR focuses on how business influences four key systems: the rules of the game (markets, laws, and regulations), civic institutions and representation (for instance, protecting democracy), civil society and public discourse, and natural systems and societal shared resources. The article includes a helpful table on “Putting Corporate Political Responsibility Into Action”.

Could Veterans Put Us on a Path Toward Bringing Respect and Civility Back to Politics?

by Dan Vallone, Stars and Stripes

As we celebrated Veterans Day November 11^th, this special edition of Stars and Stripes highlighted the research of More In Common that found that 86% of Americans say they trust veterans to do what is right for America and 76% say veterans are role models for good citizenship. “This trust and respect holds true for Republicans, Democrats and Independents alike, and speaks to the distinct potential veterans have to bring Americans together across our political divide”.

WATCHING

Perspectives from Neuroscience: Visualizing the Wonders of the Brain

by Dr. Richard J. Davidson; The Wellbeing Summit for Social Change

The Wellbeing Project held a Summit for Social Change in June 2022 that brought together global social, governmental, arts, and business leaders to advance individual and collective wellbeing for those working on the front lines of social change. You can watch all the videos of the presentations and check out the practical tools and arts installations presented at the Summit here. This session on the neuroscience of wellbeing was one of our favorites.

Signals in the Noise

by Reframe

Check out this great Tik Tok explanatory video on how wellness and fitness influencers create pathways to misinformation and QAnon conspiracy theories. (And while you’re there, check out their other super videos on misinformation and other narrative change topics)!

Building and Sustaining Resilience Amid Rising Political Violence

by Western States Center (WSC)

WSC hosted a series of conversations, Looking Forward by Looking Back, to learn from those who have waged a long-term struggle against authoritarianism to reflect on the choices we will make to protect inclusive democracy in the US. If you missed this inspiring webinar sharing important lessons from the experience in South Africa, we highly recommend taking time to watch the recording; you can download the presentation slides here.

LISTENING TO

These Political Scientists Surveyed 500,000 Voters. Here Are Their Unnerving Conclusions

The Ezra Klein Show podcast

John Sides and Lynn Vavreck — political scientists at Vanderbilt and U.C.L.A., respectively — discuss the findings of their new book, The Bitter End: The 2020 Presidential Campaign and the Challenge to American Democracy. In this podcast, they make an interesting argument that our politics aren’t just polarized, but calcified, describing the process and implications of this calcification.

Complexity & Genius

The Deep Dive podcast with Philip McKenzie

Systems-level change is hard. In this podcast, Jennifer Garvey Berger discusses her new book Unlock Your Complexity Genius which explores how we think about and process complexity and how we leverage that thinking to understand ourselves and the world we inhabit.

Ripples of Hate

StoryCorps podcast

In 2012, StoryCorps broadcast a conversation with a young woman involved in the murder of Mulugeta Seraw, a Black man in Portland, Oregon. A decade later, they revisited it to look at the ripples of racist violence, and a few people who fought to stop it.

How to Depolarize Deeply Divided Societies

The Conversation Weekly podcast

Jennifer McCoy, a political scientist at Georgia State University, is studying cases of depolarization from around the world over the past century. Her research is identifying a couple of fundamental conditions of countries which have successfully depolarized (and sustained it.) Robert Talisse, a political philosopher at Vanderbilt University, describes a different phenomenon that he calls belief polarization. Talisse doesn’t believe polarization can ever be eliminated – only managed. And he has a couple of suggestions for how.

INTERESTING TWEETS

FOR FUN

Fine Acts teamed up with the Democracy & Belonging Forum, an initiative of the Othering and Belonging Institute at the University of California, Berkeley – to produce a collection of powerful visual artworks on the topic of Bridging & Belonging. They “commissioned 40 amazing artists to work on the topic, through the prism of solutions and hope. All works are now published under an open license on thegreats.co, their platform for free social impact art, so that anyone – including educators, activists and nonprofits globally – can use them in their work”.