Democracy for All 2021 Action is a national campaign committed to building power for the people and making our government work for all of us. Our diverse coalition includes labor unions, think tanks, racial justice, environmental, reproductive health, and community organizations that represent millions of Americans. We are working toward implementing deep reforms in 2021 to unrig our political system once and for all.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Join a growing community committed to civic renewal.
Subscribe to The Fulcrum and be part of the conversation.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
As political loyalty shifts from institutions to personalities, democratic accountability suffers. Examine the rise of political fandom in democracy.
tomazl / Getty Images
Democracy Needs Citizens, Not Fans
Jun 30, 2026
Democracy often rests on the idea that citizens are political equals. They may be associated with different social organisations and ideological traditions, but in the democratic culture, they interact as citizens with equal rights and equal opportunity. In a democracy, devotion was never expected; it was developed to institutionalise disagreement among equals. The democratic system is associated with impersonal rules instead of personal loyalty, where institutions regulate power and citizens have the freedom to interrogate those who govern them.
However, contemporary political culture in India deviates from this democratic spirit. The status of citizenship is gradually turning to the fandom. The success of politicians is increasingly not measured by their ability to contribute to the path of development but by the size of their digital audiences, social media trends, public spectacles, and emotional engagement. The normalisation of social media has accelerated this transformation. Followers, likes, views, and recommendations become a new form of political capital. In this culture, politicians are often more motivated to gain attention than to achieve meaningful policy outcomes. Consequently, politics now resembles celebrity culture, where popularity and visibility are often mistaken for political efficiency.
This change has consequences in terms of the relationship between leaders and citizens. A citizen and a fan occupy different statuses in a society, and this difference often gives them different roles in a democracy. Leaders undergo a continuous monitoring process based on a rational critique, in the great tradition of citizenship. They may support a government in some aspects while simultaneously opposing it in other aspects. Their submissiveness is ultimately toward constitutional principles, democratic procedures, and public institutions. They have a realisation that no leader is above the law and criticism is not an anti-social act but a democratic process.
However, fans are primarily attached to personalities. The nature of their engagement with politics is much more emotional than institutional. The political centrality revolves around the leader, while institutions lose space in public discussions and expectations. Political questions become personalised. Successes are attributed solely to the leader, while failures are blamed on situations and structure or institutions perceived as obstacles. It no longer connects citizens with the state but admirers to an individual.
Citizens need institutions: the judiciary to protect rights, the legislature to make laws, the election commission to ensure free and fair elections, universities to produce and verify knowledge, and the media to scrutinise power. Citizens often prioritise democracy over any individual because institutions outlast governments and provide coherence to public life. They realise that public trust must rest in procedures rather than personalities.
Contrary fans operate differently. They often invest their trust in the leader, instead of institutions. As a result, if the institution questions the leader, the institution itself may be labelled as ineffective or outdated. Any unfavourable interpretation from the court and the media can be portrayed as biased. Even the research or data that come with the findings contrary to the ideology or personality of the leader may face criticism for disrupting the social system. In this type of political culture, legitimacy depends more on loyalty to the leader than on rules and procedures.
Citizens are increasingly encouraged to associate with personalities instead of institutions.
Supporters may argue that strong leaders are necessary to run the government. Indeed, democracies need leadership, persuasion, and public enthusiasm. Charismatic leaders can mobilise participation, inspire confidence, and overcome political challenges. They can motivate citizens and bring neglected issues into public discourse. Leadership itself is not the problem. The risk emerges only when admiration evolves into unquestioning loyalty and enthusiasm replaces citizenship.
The social risk of fandom lies in the logic of differentiation. Citizenship creates a model of equality despite differences. It enables a political community of relatively diverse people with mutual disagreement to remain within the same political community. Fandom, on the other hand, creates division in society into competing segments of supporters and non-supporters. It shrinks the space for open discourse because the goal is no longer persuasion but affirmation. Public intellectualism shifts from evaluating policies to showcasing loyalty. Criticism is often interpreted as hostility, and disagreement becomes evidence of disloyalty. In this situation, a democratic opponent is no longer regarded as a fellow citizen with a different opinion but as an adversary whose legitimacy itself is questioned.
Ergo, over time, this type of political culture can create a situation of institutional crisis. Consequently, far-reaching democracy declines, and political organisations function centred on individual personalities. Public officials may become reluctant to challenge leaders even when institutional norms require them to do so. Citizens begin evaluating institutions not by their integrity but by whether their decisions favour preferred leaders. Accountability deteriorates when criticism is interpreted as disloyalty. Eventually, governance moves increasingly towards personal authority rather than adhering to constitutional principles.
History is evident that charismatic leaders, despite long rule, failed to provide long-term stability to their society, while strong institutions often provide democratic stability. Leaders may rise and fall, governments can change, and political movements will evolve. It is the Institutions that ensure continuity, accountability, and legitimacy of power. When the role of citizen goes to prioritise as the role of fan, institutions would weaken in favour of personal loyalty, and democracies become more vulnerable to instability because the mechanisms intended to manage disagreement lose public legitimacy, and the public may use an anarchist way to showcase their disagreement.
Democracy requires participation, conviction, and political passion. But above all, it requires citizens. Leaders may inspire a nation, but only institutions can sustain one. When citizens become fans, institutions become dispensable; and when institutions become dispensable, democracy itself becomes fragile. The survival of democracy depends not on the strength of its leaders but on the strength of its citizens and the institutions they choose to trust.
Ashwani Kumar is teaching Sociology at UILS, Chandigarh University, Punjab. Reach Kumar at ashwinsociology@gmail.com
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
The Fulcrum Opens Applications for 2026 Fall Journalism Fellowship
Jun 30, 2026
Applications are now open for the Fall 2026 Fulcrum Fellowship, a solutions‑focused journalism program designed to train emerging reporters in narrative complexity and community‑centered storytelling. The fall cohort will run from September 14 through October 20, and applications will be accepted until August 3.
The Fulcrum Fellowship is part of the publication’s broader NextGen initiative, which aims to expand opportunities for student journalists and elevate youth voices in coverage of democracy, civic engagement, and public policy. The program builds on the success of previous cohorts and reflects The Fulcrum’s commitment to nurturing journalists who can move beyond polarized narratives.
Executive Editor Hugo Balta, an accredited solutions‑journalism trainer with the Solutions Journalism Network (SJN), leads the fellowship. Under his direction, participants receive hands‑on training in solutions journalism and “complicating the narrative” techniques — approaches that help reporters illuminate not only challenges facing democracy but also the responses emerging in communities nationwide.
As part of an SJN sponsorship, students receive training in climate solutions journalism and produce an original reported story that applies those techniques. This added component expands the fellowship’s focus on narrative complexity and equips emerging journalists with tools to cover climate challenges through evidence‑based, community‑centered reporting.
“We’re seeking young journalists who want to tell richer, more human stories,” Balta said. “This program provides the training and mentorship they need — and reinforces that journalism should empower communities, not just report on them.”
Fellows receive mentorship from the publication’s editorial team and opportunities to publish original reporting. Each fellow who completes the program receives a $1,000 stipend.
The fellowship is open to undergraduate and graduate journalism students in the United States who are in good academic standing. Application materials include:
- A current résumé
- Examples of published or academic work
- A cover letter explaining how the fellowship supports the applicant’s growth
- One letter of recommendation
All materials must be emailed to newsroom@fulcrum.us with the subject line “Fall Fulcrum Fellowship application.”
Expanding Student Journalism Through Partnerships
This year marks the first time The Fulcrum is expanding its fellowship program into the fall, made possible through funding from the Hortencia Zavala Foundation. Fellows will also have the opportunity for their published work to appear on the Latino News Network, extending the reach of their reporting to audiences engaged in conversations about democracy, civic participation, and community renewal.
Key Dates
- Application Deadline: August 3
- Fellowship Dates: September 14 – October 20
Students interested in solutions‑focused journalism and civic storytelling are encouraged to apply early.
READ: Six Emerging Journalists Selected as 2026 Summer Fulcrum Fellows
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of The Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network, and twice president of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists.
Keep ReadingShow less
Texas Department of Public Safety Region II Headquarters on Oct. 1, 2025 in Houston. The state is using DPS records to cross-check a list of registered voters it flagged as potential noncitizens using a federal database.
Antranik Tavitian for The Texas Tribune
Texas Is Cross-Referencing Its List of Potential Noncitizen Voters With Driver’s License Records
Jun 30, 2026
The Texas Secretary of State’s Office is now checking whether 2,724 registered voters it flagged as potential noncitizens may have already provided proof of citizenship to the Texas Department of Public Safety, elections division director Christina Adkins said during a meeting with county election administrators earlier this month. That check comes after county elections officials found the federal database used to generate the list flagged some voters who had already given citizenship documentation to DPS when they registered to vote.
Texas officials in October sent counties the list of potential noncitizens generated by checking the state’s voter roll of more than 18 million registered voters against a federal database used to verify citizenship. Soon after the state released the list, counties began to investigate the flagged registrants and mail notices asking them to provide documented proof of citizenship.
County election officials have since confirmed some of the flagged voters were citizens, though a total number was not immediately available. In addition, they found that hundreds of the flagged voters had registered through DPS, which requires proof of citizenship, such as a passport, and keeps copies of such documents on file.
In Travis County, for example, voter registrar Celia Israel asked the state to check the registrants flagged as potential noncitizens in the county against DPS records. The Texas Secretary of State’s Office did so, and found that out of the 97 individuals flagged as potential noncitizens in the county, 11 had already provided proof of citizenship.
Adkins during the meeting said that Travis County officials were the only ones who had requested that the state conduct the check of the records through DPS, according to a recording of the Secretary of State Office’s meeting with county election officials obtained by Votebeat. Now, the state is conducting these checks for flagged voters statewide.
The Texas Secretary of State’s Office had previously told Votebeat and the Texas Tribune that it did not initially check the registrants flagged as potential noncitizens against DPS’ records before sending the list to county election officials to investigate.
That decision prompted a March lawsuit from voting rights groups and some Texas voters who said the state should have done so. The lawsuit is still pending in federal court.
In the meantime, local election officials in some counties have already removed some flagged voters from the voter rolls after they did not respond to requests to provide proof of citizenship.
It’s not clear why the Texas Secretary of State’s Office is checking the list of potential noncitizens against DPS records now and how county election officials will be directed to respond to the findings. The Secretary of State’s Office declined to comment for this story.
Officials push for additional safeguards to use the SAVE database
The federal database state election officials used to identify potential noncitizens is known as the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements, or SAVE, database. The Trump administration overhauled SAVE last year, making it free for states to use and easier to search, and it has urged election officials around the country to use it to search for potential noncitizens on their voter rolls.
Experts and election officials have raised concerns about the SAVE database’s accuracy and reliability, and advocacy groups have filed a federal lawsuit challenging the administration’s changes and how SAVE is being used.
According to the recording, Adkins said the state did not initially check the list of potential noncitizens identified by SAVE against DPS records because that agency already uses the SAVE database.
“Initially, we didn’t think that there would be any kind of substantial difference, but obviously, we have found that there are some discrepancies,” Adkins said in the meeting.
Adkins said the discrepancies affected a “small fraction” of the total list and could be a result of outdated information kept by the SAVE database or by DPS — for example, some of the individuals flagged by the SAVE database may have recently become naturalized citizens — or due to clerical errors.
“No dataset is going to be 100% perfect,” she told county officials. “That’s why we can’t cancel voters outright” without additional investigation.
Adkins said another reason the state didn’t check DPS records before sending the lists to counties in October is because DPS must manually check each record, which takes a long time, and would have left counties with less time to investigate ahead of the March 3 primary election. Federal law restricts election officials’ ability to conduct systematic voter list maintenance within 90 days of a federal election, meaning the window for counties to investigate ahead of the primary ended in early December.
“We wanted to get that data in your hands, where you could at least address some of the kind of low-hanging fruit, is the way I would say it,” Adkins said.
In an emailed statement after this story initially published, DPS officials said the agency is working with the Secretary of State’s Office to “review and provide information from the Driver License System as it relates to registered voters, and requests to verify voter citizenship status are being prioritized.”
During an interim House Elections Committee hearing earlier this month, state lawmakers discussed how the state can ensure that only U.S. citizens are registered to vote. At that hearing, Travis County election officials told lawmakers the state’s move to cross-check the results from the SAVE database with DPS data should be the standard moving forward. Others told lawmakers to consider the amount of time and resources it takes election officials — in counties already strapped for funding — to investigate whether a registrant is a potential noncitizen.
Last year, Texas lawmakers proposed a bill that would require Texans to provide documented proof of citizenship to register to vote, but it failed to pass before the end of the legislative session. The bill was among the most sweeping proof-of-citizenship proposals introduced anywhere in the country, applying not only to new applicants for voter registration but also retroactively to 18.6 million voters already registered in the state.
Natalia Contreras is a reporter for Votebeat in partnership with The Texas Tribune. She is based in Corpus Christi. Contact Natalia at ncontreras@votebeat.org.
Texas Is Cross-Referencing Its List of Potential Noncitizen Voters With Driver’s License Records was originally published by Votebeat Texas and is republished with permission.
Keep ReadingShow less
The 50: Indiana
In Indiana, Three Organizations Push Back Against Barriers to Democracy
Jun 29, 2026
INDIANAPOLIS, Indiana —After months of political pressure and millions of dollars spent backing primary challengers, President Donald Trump was largely successful in urging Indiana Republican voters to remove several GOP state senators who opposed the congressional redistricting plan during the May primary election. The shake‑up has intensified debate over how Indiana’s political maps are drawn — and who ultimately benefits.
- YouTube youtu.be
The League of Women Voters of Indiana argues that the state’s current redistricting system has produced a level of single‑party dominance that weakens democratic accountability. According to the organization, supermajorities can operate with little incentive to compromise, negotiate, or engage the public.
“We’re not attacking Republicans. We’re attacking supermajorities,” said Barbara Tully, a League Board member. “Right now, the Republican caucuses have all the power… Everything goes on in secret behind the doors. There’s no negotiation between the two. That’s not right.”
League leaders say the consequences are most visible at the ballot box. When districts are drawn in ways that all but guarantee one party’s victory, they argue, candidates have fewer reasons to engage with voters outside their base.
Linda Hanson, President of the League, said noncompetitive districts erode the basic expectation that elected officials should answer to the public as a whole.
“If you have candidates who are not in competitive districts, they’re also not going to feel they need to talk to all the public,” Hanson said. “They just want to put an R or a D by their names and have that stand for who they are.”
Common Cause Indiana points to a deeper structural issue: lawmakers draw the very districts they run in. Julia Vaughn, Policy Director for the organization, calls it a built‑in conflict of interest that fuels partisan gerrymandering and can dilute the voting power of diverse communities by splitting up established communities of interest.
“This was an attempt not just to silence the voices of Democratic voters but also to silence communities of color,” Vaughn said. “The two congressional districts that were targeted are by far the most diverse communities in our state.”
Both groups say the solution is to remove redistricting authority from elected officials and hand it to an independent, politically balanced citizen commission with no personal stake in the outcome.
Alongside its policy advocacy, the League is investing in long‑term civic engagement through a peer‑to‑peer high school ambassador program. The initiative hires and trains students to promote voter registration and education within their own schools, aiming to build stronger civic habits among future voters.
Investing in the Next Generation
Even as they push for structural reform, advocates are working to strengthen civic engagement among young Hoosiers.
The League of Women Voters of Indiana is investing in a peer‑to‑peer high school ambassador program that hires and trains students to serve as voting advocates within their schools.
Meanwhile, the Indiana Bar Foundation is expanding civic literacy statewide through classroom resources, competitions, and teacher training.
“We provide professional development, trainings, and resources for teachers,” said the Foundation’s Executive Director, Charles Dunlap. “They’re on the front lines in the classroom, and we see our role as supporting them.”
The Foundation tracks engagement in programs like High School Mock Trial and We the People to measure impact.
Kate Hollingsworth, a 2026 spring intern with the Indiana Bar Foundation, represents the kind of civic‑minded young leader these programs aim to cultivate. Fresh off her high‑school graduation, she and her We the People team advanced from the state finals to the national competition.
“It’s such a good experience — something all students should do,” Hollingsworth said. “It gives you civic perspectives you can use no matter what career you pursue.”
Hollingsworth believes young people must develop their own political voice rather than inherit one from older generations or party labels. She said meaningful civic engagement requires separating issues from partisanship and listening respectfully to different viewpoints.
“I’ve spoken about current issues in a mature way, and I’ve gotten negative feedback from older people,” she said. “But I respond respectfully. It’s important not to shut out other opinions.”
She added that political identity should not dictate every belief.
“People get stuck on having a certain party label,” she said. “But what matters is thinking about what’s best for our country.”
Though their strategies differ, the League of Women Voters, Common Cause, and the Indiana Bar Foundation share a common purpose: protecting and strengthening democratic participation in Indiana.
In a moment when voting rights are contested and civic trust is fragile, their work offers a reminder that democracy is not self‑sustaining. It requires advocates, educators, and institutions willing to stand up for the principles that bind a nation together.
And in Indiana, those voices are speaking loudly.
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of The Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network.
The 50 is an award-winning documentary series. The four-year multimedia initiative led by The Fulcrum, travels to communities in every state to uncover what motivated Americans to vote in the 2024 presidential election. Through in-depth storytelling, the project examines how the Donald Trump administration is responding to those hopes and concerns—and highlights civic-focused organizations that inform, educate, and empower the public to take action.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More