How to Save a Democracy: Americans Can Learn From Opponents of Authoritarianism Elsewhere (Laura Gamboa, Foreign Affairs

[highplainsdem]

Gamboa is Assistant Professor of Democracy and Global Affairs at the University of Notre Dame and the author of a book on resisting the erosion of democracy.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/how-save-democracy-trump

-snip-

Oppositions need to not only protect the institutional resources they have but also use them to delay, obstruct, and if possible, stop the incumbent’s consolidation of power. Colombia’s opposition did so effectively to stop democratic erosion under President Alvaro Uribe, who served from 2002 to 2010. During his eight years in government, Uribe introduced legislation that sought to increase the powers of the executive, undermine the courts and congress, and co-opt oversight agencies. Despite holding only a minority of seats in congress, opposition parties were able to use procedural maneuvers to block and modify Uribe’s reforms. The president was still able to pass most of his legislation, but thanks to the opposition’s efforts, antidemocratic bills were either delayed, diluted, or saddled with procedural irregularities that made them easy targets for lawsuits alleging they violated the Colombian constitution.

Legislatures, courts, and other institutional spaces can prove useful to pro-democracy actors even after a country has turned more authoritarian. One case with strong parallels to what is happening in the United States today is the capture of Guatemala’s government after the 2016 elections by a coalition of politicians, economic elites, and members of the security apparatus who undermined state capacity for the sake of impunity and corruption. On the eve of the 2023 presidential election, this coalition used its hold over the courts and oversight agencies to bar any promising candidate who might challenge its continued rule.

-snip-

A well-organized nonviolent movement can be particularly effective at defeating an incumbent in an unfair election. In Serbia, the student movement Otpor was key to overthrowing the brutal ruler Slobodan Milosevic in October 2000. Ahead of elections the month prior, Otpor worked with the Center for Free Elections and Democracy, a Serbian election monitoring organization, to register voters, distribute electoral information, and drive voter turnout with creative campaigns. When Milosevic lost the election but refused to concede, Otpor was ready. With thousands of members throughout Serbia, a nationwide organizational structure, connections with civil society groups, and a rigorous parallel vote count that confirmed the opposition candidate’s victory, Otpor was able to quickly call thousands of citizens to the streets and defend the election results.

-snip-

Social mobilization does not always work. According to the political scientist Erica Chenoweth, just 40 percent of nonviolent movements between 1960 and 2010 achieved their aims, and since 2010, that figure has fallen to less than 34 percent. In Serbia and Guatemala, the opposition movements’ reliance on well-organized, flexible organizations with nationwide networks built on traditions of student and indigenous resistance was key to their success. This infrastructure enabled protesters to use creative tactics, stay active for long periods of time, and retain public support by eschewing violence even when they faced government repression. In the United States, investing in these kinds of grassroots movements now can pay off later, especially if the country confronts an unfair election in which the incumbent has engaged in gerrymandering, co-opted the electoral authorities, purged the voting rolls, or implemented laws that make it hard to vote. With the right infrastructure in place, the citizenry can be mobilized to boost turnout on Election Day—and, if necessary, demand that voters’ choices are respected afterward.

-snip-

Much more at the link.

[highplainsdem]

1. kick

[leftstreet]

2. DURec

Thanks for kicking this. I missed it earlier