Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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.

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

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Crowd of people walking on a street.

Andy Andrews//Getty Images

Paul Ehrlich was wrong about everything

Biologist and author Paul Ehrlich, the most influential Chicken Little of the last century, died at the age of 93 this week. His 1968 book, “The Population Bomb,” launched decades of institutional panic in government, entertainment and journalism.

Ehrlich’s core neo-Malthusian argument was that overpopulation would exhaust the supply of food and natural resources, leading to a cascade of catastrophes around the world. “The Population Bomb” opens with a bold prediction, “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

People clear rubble in a house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026 in Tehran, Iran. The United States and Israel continued their joint attack on Iran that began on February 28. Iran retaliated by firing waves of missiles and drones at Israel, and targeting U.S. allies in the region.

Getty Images, Majid Saeedi

Bravado Isn’t a Strategy: Why the Iran War Has No Endgame

Most of what we have heard from the administration as it pertains to the Iran War is swagger and bro-talk. A few days into the war, the White House released a social media video that combined footage of the bombardment with clips from video games. Not long after, it released a second video, titled “Justice the American Way,” that mixed images of the U.S. military with scenes from movies like Gladiator and Top Gun Maverick.

Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon, War Secretary Pete Hegseth boasted of “death and destruction from the sky all day long.” “They are toast, and they know it,” he said. “This was never meant to be a fair fight... we are punching them while they’re down.”

Keep ReadingShow less
A student in uniform walking through a campus.

A Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) cadet walks through campus November 7, 2003 in Princeton, New Jersey.

Getty Images, Spencer Platt

Hegseth is Dumbing Down the Military (on Purpose)

One day before the United States began an ill-defined and illegal war of indefinite length with Iran, Pete Hegseth angrily attacked a different enemy: the Ivy League. The Secretary of War denounced Ivy League universities as "woke breeding grounds of toxic indoctrination” and then eliminated long-standing college fellowship programs with more than a dozen elite colleges, which had historically served as a pipeline for service members to the upper ranks of military leadership. Of the schools now on Hegseth’s "no-fly list," four sit in the top ten of the World’s Top Universities for 2026. So, why does the Secretary of War not want his armed forces to have the best education available? Because he wants a military without a brain.

For a guy obsessed with being the strongest and most lethal force in the world, cutting access to world-class schools is a bizarre gambit. It does reveal Hegseth doesn’t consider intelligence a factor–let alone an asset–in strength or lethality. That tracks. Hegseth alleges the Ivies infect officers with “globalist and radical ideologies that do not improve our fighting ranks…” God forbid the tip of the sword of our foreign policy has knowledge of international cooperation and global interconnectedness. The Ivy League has its own issues, but the Pentagon’s claim that they "fail to deliver rigorous education grounded in realism” is almost laughable. I’m a veteran Lieutenant Commander with two Ivy League degrees, both paid for with military tuition assistance, and I promise: it was rigorous. Meanwhile, are Hegseth’s performative politics grounded in reality? Attacking Harvard on social media the eve of initiating a new war with a foreign adversary is disgraceful, and even delusional.

Keep ReadingShow less
Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?
Person working at a desk with a laptop and books.

Are We Prepared for a World Where AI Isn’t at Work?

Draft an important email without using AI. Write it from scratch — no suggestions, no autocomplete, and no prompt to ChatGPT to compose or revise the email.

Now ask yourself: Did it feel slower? Harder? Slightly uncomfortable?

Keep ReadingShow less