Editor’s note: This piece is a heavy hitter. Damn!
Will foundations get picked off one by one as law firms have?
Do we need a NATO-style approach to defending pro-democracy orgs (and foundations)? (If you come for one, you come for all.)
There’s no pluralism under authoritarianism. What does that mean for the pluralism field?
Read on!
Let’s start with the good news—in recent years, the democracy field has celebrated some major wins:
We've shown that Americans aren't as politically polarized as headlines suggest—finding common ground on hot-button issues from reproductive rights, immigration, climate change, commonsense gun laws, and a more inclusive history education.
We’ve seen that intervening on partisan polarization can succeed through myriad evidence-backed interventions, like correcting meta-misperceptions, promoting pro-democratic and inclusive programming, and messaging about belonging.
We’ve identified key dynamics underpinning democratic backsliding, from shifting national demographics and backlash to inclusive change to manipulation by conflict entrepreneurs to exploit and weaponize difference.
We've grown from a somewhat niche concern to an (almost, maybe?!) popular field (thanks in no small bit to Democracy Notes!).
And yet, democracy is eroding in real time. Despite our progress, we are not yet organized at the scale that this moment demands.
Between you and me, I’ve been facing some doubt—are we ready to act?
At our gatherings, we often acknowledge rising authoritarianism, but too often we retreat into our separate agendas, siloed—or, echo chambered—organizations, and sometimes circular strategies for democracy, pluralism, and peace.
But the elephant in the room remains: pluralism cannot exist under authoritarianism.
A functioning democracy—where diverse perspectives are heard and represented—is only possible when the rules of the game remain fair, when power is held accountable, when people’s rights and freedoms are upheld. Authoritarianism destroys that foundation. It replaces plurality with obedience, debate with coercion, diversity with forced uniformity.
History doesn’t wait for the perfect moment to act. And like other dictators, it took Hitler just 53 days to dismantle a democracy. We are watching an authoritarian power grab unfold in the United States right now—not as a hypothetical or a warning for the future, but in real time. We are in a closing window to save democracy in the United States.
To democracy funders: We need a NATO-style approach to democracy defense—if you come for one of us, you come for all of us. This means incentivizing deeper collaboration between frontline organizations and breaking down silos between democracy and intersecting issue areas. Fund shared infrastructure, coordinated action, and collective legal defense. Disjointed programs will not meet this moment—unified, strategic, and cross-sectoral actions will.
This approach also applies to funders themselves. We’ve seen major law firms get picked off one by one—what happens when the same tactics come for democracy nonprofits or foundations? Will we stand alone, or will we commit to a collective defense? Now is the time to build the alliances that will hold.
To nonprofits and civil society: It’s time to turn our statements and thought pieces into joint action. Share networks. Pool resources. Work outside of our traditional partners and use adaptive language. Build strategic, cross-sector coalitions with clear roles in countering authoritarianism.
The research is clear: authoritarianism is best countered by small, agile networks with centralized coordination and strong cross-group relationships. No single leader. No lone hero organizations. Just strategic, collective action.
This isn’t about partisanship. It’s about whether we allow authoritarianism to take root and destroy the very conditions that make democracy and pluralism possible.
Those working to undermine democracy expect us to remain fragmented, slow, and reactive.
Let’s prove them wrong by putting our learning and experience into action.
Jasmine Ramsey is a Program Director at Beyond Conflict.
Have thoughts on this piece? You can submit a pitch to Democracy Notes Perspectives here.
I strongly agree with Jasmine's argument here--especially the case for speedy collective action, with solidarity across different orgs and networks in the pro-democracy space. Where I notice a lot of unnecessary stumbling blocks is around the notion of "pluralism." There are no small number of people in the nonpartisan democracy sector who feel that pluralism means that any idea, policy, or orientation that emerges within a putatively "democratic" system is by definition a "democratic" one and must be welcomed under the banner of "pluralism." So, if a party within a democratic system is captured, let's say, by an authoritarian movement with an authoritarian leader, then their authoritarian ideas and policies have suddenly become "democratic." Obviously this is unworkable, saying that one must include both pro-democratic and anti-democratic (or authoritarian) ideas and policies to have a pluralistic democracy. Still, it is quite a common, if unhelpful, view.