How we can meet the challenges of authoritarianism

This article How we can meet the challenges of authoritarianism was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

Embed from Getty Images

As analyses of the 2024 election results continue to pour in, the fact remains that despite (and perhaps, to a certain extent, because of) the 34 felony counts, the embrace of dehumanizing rhetoric and violence, the vows to enact revenge on political opponents and the disregard for democratic checks and balances, Donald Trump was re-elected president of the United States.

The many reasons for the election outcome — ranging from anti-incumbent energy, to inflation and core pocketbook issues, to staggering economic inequality, to deep-seeded racism, misogyny and xenophobia, to broadly felt disillusionment with political institutions and processes, to feelings of helplessness and the desire for a strongman, to rampant disinformation, to our duopolistic party system, to primaries that incentivize partisan extremism — all point to a very messy social and political reality in the United States.  

While many across the country are celebrating the election results, others are experiencing grief, anger and fear. Starting on Nov. 6, numerous predominantly Black organizers, activists and students across multiple states began receiving text messages with racist content telling them to report to their “nearest plantations.” Immigrants and transgender people have expressed fear related to Trump’s plans for mass deportations and deepening anti-trans hate and violence. Republicans who have spoken out against MAGA’s stranglehold on the party have expressed concerns related to Trump’s plans for retribution. 

At the same time, many are embracing this as a moment of radical re-imagination and transformation. Steely resolve and determination are driving many Americans who understand the gravity of the situation and are girding themselves for the work ahead. Many groups across the country, from grassroots movements to more centrist organizations, have been planning and preparing for this type of scenario for months, writing guides and preparing trainings. They have been building relationships and coalitions across issues, sectors and geographies, learning lessons from global experiences in challenging autocracy, holding mass calls to prepare the public for what comes next, and preparing training and coaching “hotlines.”

These efforts include some of the savviest, most experienced organizers and civic leaders across this country. As someone who has been part of some of these spaces, particularly those led by Black and brown leaders, I stand in awe and admiration of their willingness to rise to the occasion at this moment. 

Another reason for hope is that we collectively know a great deal about the playbook authoritarians from around the world, from leftist dictatorships to far-right fascist regimes, use to pit people against one another, gut freedoms, institutionalize corruption and consolidate their power. The American Autocracy Threat Tracker is documenting these dynamics in the U.S., and there has been significant public education related to Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation’s plan for government overhaul written by many Trump insiders. Those Americans living in predominantly rural areas and in states with MAGA trifectas are already intimately familiar with book bans, anti-trans and anti-protester laws, and violence by state and paramilitary forces.

We are also far more familiar with the time-tested strategies for defeating authoritarianism. This is not our first rodeo with authoritarianism in the U.S., as Black, Native American and other historically marginalized communities can attest. We can lean into our own history, notably the Black-led, multiracial civil rights movement anchored in the South that dismantled an odious form of white supremacist authoritarianism, the persistent Native American struggle for sovereignty and self-determination, and the struggles by conservatives, progressives and everyone in between to be included as equals in a United States of America “of, by and for the people.”

We know that every advance towards a more inclusive, multiracial democracy in the U.S. has been met by backlash. That, in turn, has been met by a new generation of courageous people willing to struggle for fundamental rights, freedoms and dignity in the face of bigotry, ignorance and violence. From abolition, Reconstruction and the civil rights movement, to modern-day struggles for worker rights, clean air and water, and gender and racial equality, Americans have collectively risen to seemingly impossible challenges with vision, resolve and strategy.

Authoritarians’ kryptonite

As we contemplate the next four years, we should recall that autocrats are always weaker than they appear, and we are often stronger than we might think. While authoritarian leaders, even those elected through democratic means (or so-called “electoral autocrats”) seem to be in complete control, they rarely are. Their kryptonite is a reliance on the active and passive support of ordinary people throughout society, who provide them with the resources and other sources of power they depend on to get things done. Power can be given, and power can be taken away. 

Workers and unions provide critical labor and economic power; businesses provide financial resources and campaign contributions; religious organizations and communities provide moral legitimacy and robust infrastructure; traditional and social media outlets provide communications networks; bureaucrats provide necessary knowhow and expertise to execute policies; cultural leaders and influencers offer reach and access to fandoms; and the police and military serve as agents for law enforcement and repression. 

Previous Coverage

By targeting the pillars that uphold police violence, Black Lives Matter is shifting power to the people

We are all embedded in these pillars through our involvement at the workplace, as consumers and investors, as members of faith communities, as fans, as members of professional associations, and as members of grassroots organizations. Individually and collectively, we have social, political, economic and financial power in these spaces — power that can be used to either preserve or upend the status quo. The more organized we are, and the deeper our relationships with members of key pillars locally, at the state level and nationally, the more power we can collectively wield. 

Pillars are not homogenous, and there are multiple reasons why individuals in key pillars actively or passively support autocrats, ranging from identification with rulers, to values-based reasons, to economic and financial self-interest, to social and cultural reasons. It is important to understand the real motivations and interests of people in these pillars — what they want and what they aspire to — and not take for granted that they share the same analysis that we do. It then involves making interventions, ranging from quiet dialogue to more public forms of pressure, that could nudge them away from supporting authoritarian policies and practices and invite them into new formations.

Recent research has found that in the context of backsliding democracies (as opposed to closed autocracies), dialogue and engagement by movement actors with key institutional pillars is critical to shifting their calculations to get more involved. For example, Ukrainian activists proactively engaged business owners in the leadup to a mass movement in 2004-05 that challenged a Moscow-backed autocrat, securing their financial backing. Ukrainian veterans and retired military officers used quiet outreach to active-duty soldiers and military officials to encourage them to disobey illegal orders to shoot at unarmed protesters.

Once those loyalty shifts have occurred, more confrontational tactics by businesses, religious organizations, unions, professional associations and other key pillars appear to be most effective in shifting power and checking democratic backsliding.

Practically, that might include students and teachers walking out of classrooms in response to government actions or inactions, as we’ve seen with teachers in Hungary and in states across the U.S., and with walk-outs by youth activists from the climate justice movement. Or bureaucrats protecting government functions and slowing things down, as happened during the first Trump administration and in 1920 Germany to reverse the Kapp putsch. It could include labor unions stopping business as usual and paralyzing the economy, a critical factor in South Korea, when unions united the population in challenging the corrupt regime of President Park Geun-Hye, and when the U.S. Association of Flight Attendants threatened to go on strike, which helped end the government shutdown during the first Trump administration.

Successful movements organize campaigns based on realistic yet audacious assessments of what is possible.

It could mean businesses collectively denouncing autocratic policies and actively supporting pro-democratic civic groups, as German and Brazilian business associations have done in the face of far-right nationalism, and as the bipartisan Wisconsin Business Leaders for Democracy has done to hold elected leaders accountable to basic democratic norms. Or security forces could respect their Constitutional oath and refuse to obey regime orders to arrest, detain or shoot at protesters, as happened in Ukraine during the Orange Revolution, in Venezuela during the presidency of Hugo Chavez, and in the U.S. in response to Jan. 6. 

Attributes of successful anti-authoritarian campaigns

As my own research and multiple excellent analyses have demonstrated, the most powerful bulwarks against authoritarianism and democratic backsliding have historically been large, diverse movements capable of mobilizing people to withdraw consent and cooperation from autocratic policies and institutions and sustaining that participation through organization and powerful narratives about a better future. While the size of mass mobilizations is certainly important, quiet and more public acts of defiance by a smaller number of influential individuals and groups can be even more consequential. Quality of participation in nonviolent campaigns is as important as the quantity of people who show up for protests.

At the same time, as we saw with the 2017 Women’s March and the Movement for Black Lives protests in 2020, the largest and most sustained protests in US history, mass mobilizations involving large numbers of diverse people can signal a strong desire for change.

Successful movements have valorized people with different roles and skillsets, including activists, agitators, visionaries, weavers, storytellers, mediators, bridgers, caregivers, policy advocates, builders and a whole host of other roles. They help them find their roles, celebrate their contributions, and deepen their leadership potential. As Common sang in the theme song to the movie “Selma,” “It takes the wisdom of the elders and the young people’s energy, welcome to the story we call victory.” They have also understood that change takes organizing and pressure outside of institutions, while also working with change agents inside institutions — such an inside-outside strategy will be critical in the years ahead. 

Americans are prepared to flex their solidarity muscle.

Successful movements innovate tactically, drawing on the thousands of nonviolent tactics available to activists, organizers and bridge-builders based on a strategic calculus of which tactics are most likely to move specific constituencies. They organize campaigns, strategically sequencing different tactics to achieve specified goals, based on realistic yet audacious assessments of what is possible. Rather than over-relying on a small number of tactics like marches and street demonstrations, which become predictable and easy to repress, they strategize, plan and prepare themselves for openings that require tactical flexibility. The stronger the organizing infrastructure and the deeper the relationships within those structures, the more capable movements are of pivoting, adapting and innovating. 

We know that autocrats often deploy agent provocateurs to provoke protesters to use violence. They then use this violence to justify even more repressive countermeasures while rallying their base and delegitimizing the movement in the eyes of a more general public. Successful movements have planned for such provocations and discussed ways to avoid traps set by their opponents.

They have invested in protection, solidarity and collective care strategies and tactics to sustain momentum and morale in the face of violence and repression. They have planned and trained in de-escalation, invested in on and offline security protocols, recruited protest marshals and adopted codes of conduct. And they have developed strategies and tactics for expanding the base of support for the movement to make it more difficult for regimes to silence them through repression, co-optation or both.

Given that autocrats rely on fear and divide-and-rule tactics to bolster their power, successful pro-democracy movements often use humor and satire. This can surface the absurdity of authoritarian practices, get people to think differently and prod them into action. To strengthen the sense of collective defiance and solidarity, movements have turned to symbolic, lower-risk tactics (like the banging of pots and pans in Chile, the turning on and off of lights in Turkey, or the wearing of paper clips in Denmark). This sends the message that “we will not obey the autocrats” and “we are in this together” without putting people at unnecessarily high risk of repression. 

Previous Coverage

Political violence is surging, but there’s a playbook to counter it

However, movements challenging power structures are almost invariably met with threats, intimidation and acts of physical violence by state and non-state actors. Incidents of hate-fueled violence are on the rise in the U.S., and threats, harassment and acts of physical violence are having a chilling effect on the ability of individuals and groups to participate meaningfully in political and civic life. Given the prospect of these threats intensifying, we need to plan and prepare ways to make the threats and violence backfire, raising the costs to perpetrators while protecting our communities. Across the U.S. and globally, communities have organized broad-based coalitions and mobilized using creative, often humorous tactics to make political violence backfire, and trainings are now available to support communities willing to take action. 

Signaling a strong commitment to solidarity (an attack on one is an attack on all) is especially important following the election of a president who has platformed violent rhetoric and the scapegoating of historically marginalized communities, and has vowed to enact revenge on opponents. Fortunately, as we saw with the popular response to the Muslim ban during the first Trump administration, and with the building of sanctuary mechanisms for undocumented immigrants in towns and cities across the country, Americans are prepared to flex this solidarity muscle.

Already, a new Congressional bill (H.R. 9495) that would grant the executive branch extraordinary power to investigate, harass and effectively dismantle any nonprofit organization — including news outlets, universities and civil liberties organizations  — of tax-exempt status based on a unilateral accusation of wrongdoing was met with a swift response. A coalition of over 120 civil liberties, religious, immigrant rights, human rights, racial justice, LGBTQ+, environmental and educational organizations wrote to the House of Representatives to oppose it. Days later, H.R. 9495 failed to pass a vote in the House, perhaps one of the earliest victories for the new anti-authoritarian coalition.

We need to work together to help ensure that when individuals, organizations and groups take courageous stands, risking punishment, they feel strong support and solidarity from the widest and most influential “we” possible. A Solidarity Pledge or a Freedom Pledge that individuals and groups across the country can sign on to is one possible action. In such a pledge, they would vow to not obey any orders that impinge on the rights, freedoms and dignity of other people, to not give up freedoms voluntarily, and to be guided by a spirit of love and solidarity.

Embed from Getty Images

It will also take doubling down on investment in solidarity infrastructure. That includes safety and security support, legal aid, emotional and mental health support, financial assistance to cover lost livelihoods, strategic communications and narratives support to incentivize courageous action and creative coalition-building.

Blocking, bridging, breaking and building

Building and sustaining a movement-of-movements that draws on the beautiful diversity and profound gifts, talents and determination of the American people will take various interlocking strategies.

These strategies, which have been articulated by various social change groups here, here, and here include bridging across differences within and across movements and other key groups to deepen understanding, resolve conflicts, and build broad fronts grounded in mutual interest. That bridging work is important to be able to strategically block authoritarian practices and protect vulnerable people and groups from violence and repression. And to break the MAGA faction from its pillars of support and support healthy political pluralism, all while building broad-based power capable of achieving transformative changes to our political and economic systems.

These bridging, blocking, breaking and building strategies involve both institutional strategies, like advocacy and election-related mobilization to continue to contest for power, and extra-institutional organizing and direct action strategies that will allow us to push back in cases where institutions are under attack.

This work will take significant investment in collective care, relational organizing within and across our movements — and with pillars that have powerful constituencies. We will also need to bolster our leadership, organizing and mobilization skills and capacities. It will take experimentation and adaptation for different rural and urban contexts, where distinctive conditions require different strategies and tactics. As preliminary research has found, cuts to essential programs (SNAP, Head Start), public schools and health care envisioned in Project 2025, further restrictions on abortion access, attacks on local unions, and botched responses to climate crises could lead to the formation of unlikely alliances, particularly in rural areas.     

There is significant movement infrastructure to build on in this country, notably local and state cross-issue, cross-sector coalitions, tables and movements that have been chalking up impressive wins. National networks and movement spaces exist and are currently strategizing and preparing for what comes next. Developing meaningful ways to connect these efforts to “big tent” spaces that bring in more ideologically diverse actors, including those from the business, faith, unions and veterans’ communities — plus political leaders and elected officials from across the political spectrum who remain committed to rejecting authoritarian policies and practices — remains both a challenge and an opportunity in this moment.

Building that relational infrastructure grounded in trust and mutual respect, while meaningfully confronting the deeper causes of our current democratic malaise, will require courage, curiosity, tenacity and a commitment to a truly beloved community. I believe we are up for the task.

This article How we can meet the challenges of authoritarianism was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

People-powered news and analysis

Source: https://wagingnonviolence.org/2024/11/how-we-can-meet-challenges-of-authoritarianism/