Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

America needs a cross-national approach to counter authoritarianism

America needs a cross-national approach to counter authoritarianism
Oliver Helbig / Getty Images

Yordanos Eyoel is the Founder and CEO of Keseb, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization building an ecosystem for cross-national learning, collaboration and innovation to advance inclusive and resilient democracies.

In September 2022, American headlines blasted the results of a new poll: an equal proportion of Democrats and Republicans had indicated that U.S. democracy was “in danger of collapse.” It was touted as a rare moment of convergence in an otherwise highly polarized political climate. Yet, the poll did not explore what people meant by democracy, surfacing a much larger question about the country’s collective vision or lack thereof for its system of governance.


From its inception in Athens, dēmokratia was designed for a homogenous group of people with similar racial, social and economic privileges. Yet, with its inherent values of individual choice and collective voice, democracy offers the most compelling vision and a system of government for human flourishing. This is especially salient for multiethnic and pluralistic societies, the testbeds of “the great” experiments in diverse democracy, as the renowned democracy scholar, Yascha Monk, discusses in his recent book. While there have been varying degrees of success across diverse countries, achieving a truly inclusive model of democracy that equitably protects and honors the dignity and rights of all members of society has yet to be fully actualized.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Although difficult to sustain, democracy builds its foundations on diversity and on the contest of ideas in the political space. Today, this very idea of diversity within a democracy has become a ubiquitous wedge issue that has fueled authoritarian, ethnonationalist and xenophobic movements in the U.S. and across the globe. While all nations need a unified vision and narrative about who they are, the existential question of national identity is uniquely difficult yet momentous for diverse democracies.

Last year, 8 out of 10 people resided in a country that is not fully free. With democracy at a critical inflection point, it is imperative to open the aperture of analysis beyond a single country in order to uncover patterns and levers to reverse democratic erosion.

Four former colonies - Brazil, South Africa, India and the United States - which represent 25% of the world’s population collectively, offer critical insights that can deepen our understanding of the crisis facing diverse democracies. These countries surface immediate priorities for pro-democracy civil society intervention, particularly for practitioners and philanthropists.

The newly released report, Defending and Strengthening Diverse Democracies by Keseb, a nonpartisan, pro-democracy nonprofit organization highlights five drivers of recent deterioration of democratic ideals, culture, and systems across Brazil, India, South Africa and the United States. These drivers are: (1) economic change and persistent or deepening inequality, (2) rapid demographic changes, (3) dysfunctional and unregulated information ecosystems, (4) cooperation between opportunistic populist leaders and political elites, and (5) cross-border learning and solidarity by authoritarian movements and leaders.

Over the next several years, innovation will be vital to the success of pro-democracy civil society organizations in resisting democratic regression and enabling their countries to realize the full promise and potential of truly inclusive and diverse democracies. This requires civil society organizations to access a range of support, including robust financial and human capital, leadership development, national and transnational platforms to exchange knowledge and tactics, and peer learning and support networks.

While the number and nature of pro-democracy civil society organizations differs across the four countries due to factors including differing legal frameworks, degrees of political freedom, and funding environments, Keseb's analysis has surfaced four immediate opportunities for philanthropy and practitioners in Brazil, India, South Africa, and the United States:

1. Immediately bolstering multi-year investment in targeted efforts to:

a. Promote free, fair and trusted elections;

b. Build a leadership pipeline for representative government;

c. Combat mis- and disinformation; and

d. Cultivate informed, empowered, and engaged citizens and voters.

2. Embracing issue intersectionality and re-envisioning what it means to be a “democracy organization.” Many organizations, often grassroots ones, are employing issue-based, intersectional organizing strategies in areas such as climate justice, racial equity, and economic empowerment that are in reality moving the needle in strengthening democracy, but often are not considered “democracy” organizations. There is a unique opportunity for philanthropy to break down the siloing of issues and help civil society organizations reinforce their issue-based work where it intersects with democracy.

3. Shifting insufficient and reactive philanthropy that perpetuates fragmentation among practitioners: The impact of pro-democracy civil society organizations is hampered by two mutually reinforcing dynamics:

a. Election-anchored philanthropic capital flow that creates a “boom and bust” effect. For example, overall U.S. democracy funding to civil society organizations dropped by 50% from 2020 (US $2.5 billion) to 2021 (US $1.3 billion); and

b. Fragmented and narrowly specialized pro-democracy organizations, often creating a divide between national and local groups and grassroots and grasstops efforts.

4. Building an inspiring collective narrative for sustaining democracy to combat the appeal of authoritarianism, particularly among disillusioned citizens for whom democracy has failed to deliver its promise of economic security.

In today's reality, threatened by a transnational authoritarian movement, it is no longer sufficient to support national pro-democracy efforts in isolation. This is particularly important for Americans to recognize - we have as much to learn from the world as we have to contribute to it. We have to develop transnational pro-democracy ecosystems that can significantly accelerate learning, collaboration and innovation by civil society organizations and leaders.

The mega experiment of diverse democracy is under threat. This is the moment to galvanize and build solidarity across borders to give rise to an inspiring, inclusive, and resilient 21st century democracy in the U.S. and globally.

Read More

Couple lying in tall grass

As many as 50 million to 60 million Americans may have decided that they don’t want to have kids.

Peathegee Inc/Getty Images

Voters without kids are in the political spotlight – but they’re not all the same

Jennifer Neal is a professor of psychology at Michigan State University. Zachary Neal is an associate professor of psychology at Michigan State University.

In the 2024 election cycle, voters without children are under the microscope.

Republican vice presidential candidate JD Vance has said that “childless cat ladies” and older adults without kids are “sociopaths” who “don’t have a direct stake in this country.”

So it was notable that when pop star Taylor Swift endorsed Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris, she didn’t simply express her support and leave it at that. She also called herself a “childless cat lady.”

Keep ReadingShow less
People protesting for voting rights in front of the Capitol

The Supreme Court eliminated provisions of the Voting Rights Act in 2013.

Michael Nigro/Pacific Press/LightRocket via Getty Images

The voter fraud conversation is the wrong one to be having right now

Rajasekar is an assistant professor of sociology at University of Illinois Springfield and a public voices fellow with The OpEd Project.

For the past decade, America has been mired in a repetitive, pointless conversation about “voter fraud,” helped in no small part by Donald Trump’s efforts to undermine voters’ faith in the electoral process.

During the presidential debate with Kamala Harris in early September, Trump insisted that he was the true winner of the 2020 election, and he has repeatedly hinted that he will not accept the election results this November if they are not in his favor. Since then, Trump and other GOP politicians have continued to put forward baseless arguments about voter fraud, including claims that Democrats are registering non-citizens and undocumented migrants to purposefully skew election results.

Keep ReadingShow less
Money surrounding the Capitol

Federal elections in 2024 will cost at least $16 billion, according to OpenSecrets.

Douglas Rissing/Getty Images

Total 2024 election spending projected to exceed previous record

Bryner is director of research and strategy for OpenSecrets. Glavin is deputy research director for OpenSecrets.

With weeks left until Election Day, OpenSecrets predicts that 2024’s federal election cycle is on track to be the costliest ever, with a total cost of at least $15.9 billion in spending. This will surpass the 2020 cycle’s record-smashing total of $15.1 billion.

Outside groups, largely super PACs, have spent roughly $2.6 billion on 2024 federal elections, outpacing spending in any previous cycle. If the current spending trends hold, OpenSecrets projects that total outside spending for the entire election cycle will exceed $5 billion.

Keep ReadingShow less
"Diversity," "Equity" and "Inclusion" on wood blocks
Nora Carol Photography/Getty Images

DEI is worth saving if programs focus on expanding advantages

Myatt is the co-founder ofThe Equity Practice and a public voices fellow alumna through The OpEd Project.

DEI backlash is prolific. Many companies inspired to begin diversity, equity and inclusion work after the racial unrest of 2020 are pausing those same efforts in response to pushback from customers and employees.

The reasons for the pushback vary, but for many, DEI represents a threat to status and access to resources. These fears are not entirely unfounded. Some DEI strategies aim to “level the playing field” by eliminating what some see as unfair advantages.

Keep ReadingShow less