Understanding authoritarianism can be challenging because it often doesn’t manifest suddenly.
Instead, it typically unfolds through a series of actions that may appear unrelated at first glance: targeting scientists who present inconvenient truths, limiting voting access, penalizing nonprofit organizations, interfering with governmental decisions, or fostering rhetoric that turns Americans against each other.
Viewed in isolation, these actions might seem minor or temporary. However, collectively, they pose a greater threat to the democratic principles vital for the flourishing of people, communities, and science.
Authoritarian movements frequently employ disinformation, historical revisionism, and attacks on independent evidence sources because informed citizens are more capable of identifying power abuses and holding leaders accountable. When facts are up for debate and history is manipulated for political aims, communities struggle to comprehend current events, learn from history, and make well-informed future decisions.
Over the past year, I’ve discussed how authoritarian movements undermine facts, silence dissent, target vulnerable groups, and weaken democratic institutions. These developments highlight a pattern that jeopardizes inclusive and participatory democracy. As I argued in What Authoritarian Regimes Do and later in Divide and Destroy, authoritarianism progresses by eroding the institutions and democratic norms that enable full public participation and leader accountability.
In a time when Americans are deeply divided on many policy matters, we must uphold and promote the democratic principles that resonate across the political spectrum, even when they seem less visible. Throughout my career, and particularly in the last year, I’ve engaged with various constituencies, industries, faith traditions, communities, and political views. Despite disagreements on significant issues like climate policy, taxation, healthcare, immigration, and education, there is a consensus that democracy is worth safeguarding. In a healthy democracy, diverse viewpoints are a strength, not a weakness.
It’s crucial to recognize that democracy in the United States has not always been equitable for everyone. Historically, many communities have faced exclusion from complete participation, been denied representation, or encountered obstacles to exercising their rights. Defending democracy should not preserve these inequities but should enhance democratic institutions to be more inclusive, representative, and responsive to all. A commitment to democracy necessitates both safeguarding valuable aspects and addressing areas that have frequently fallen short.
As worries about the health of American democracy increase, it’s time for people from different political traditions, industries, communities, and issue areas to unite around essential commitments necessary for democratic self-governance. These are not a political agenda and do not require agreement on every national issue. Instead, they establish a common foundation and minimum unity points that enable continued democratic disagreement.
Without adherence to the rule of law, free and fair elections, a free civil society, and a peaceful conflict resolution commitment, our capacity to address any issue is compromised. These four principles are critical to a functioning and healthy democracy. Losing any one of these equates to losing our democracy as we know it.
Commitment to the Rule of Law
The rule of law is a fundamental democratic safeguard because it ensures accountability in power. It dictates that no individual, political party, or institution is above or below the law. Constitutional rights are universal. Individuals are entitled to due process, equitable treatment, and protection from arbitrary government actions. Public officials are held accountable for abuses of power, and institutions like courts, Congress, state governments, inspectors general, journalists, watchdog organizations, and the public act as checks against power misuse.
For those of us invested in science and evidence-based policymaking, the rule of law has tangible implications. Scientific integrity relies on institutions operating under established laws, standards, and procedures instead of political loyalty. Public health protections, environmental safeguards, and scientific research programs depend on transparent processes that limit politicized decision-making.
When leaders attempt to weaken oversight, ignore legal boundaries, substitute expertise with loyalty, or dismiss evidence conflicting with political goals, they aren’t just altering policy. They’re undermining systems that keep the government accountable to its citizens, eroding trust necessary for collaboration.
The rule of law transcends political alignment; it is a democratic principle. Regardless of political stance, we all benefit from a system where rights are safeguarded, laws are applied fairly, and those with public authority are accountable for their actions.
Commitment to Free, Safe, and Fair Elections
Democracy hinges on voters’ ability to choose leaders and hold them accountable. Every eligible voter should participate freely, safely, and without intimidation. Elections should be conducted fairly, and outcomes respected.
These commitments may seem basic, but they are crucial and must be upheld. Elections are a direct means for people to exercise power in a democracy. They communicate community priorities, evaluate leaders’ performance, and shape public policy.
The Center for Science and Democracy has long stressed that a healthy democracy reflects the people’s will and fosters broad participation and fair representation. Our election science research has identified evidence-based methods to increase voter access, improve election administration, bolster public confidence, and ensure meaningful democratic participation opportunities.
Yet, many communities still face participation barriers. Restrictive voting laws, threats to election workers, attacks on election legitimacy, and extreme partisan gerrymandering all undermine democratic accountability. These barriers often disproportionately affect communities historically excluded from political power.
Amid political polarization, reaffirming a simple principle is crucial: political power derives from the people. Protecting free, safe, and fair elections safeguards all other democratic rights.
Commitment to a Free Civil Society
Democracy is sustained not only through elections and government institutions but also through the myriad organizations and communities that form civil society. Scientists, journalists, faith communities, educators, businesses, labor organizations, artists, nonprofits, advocacy groups, and local civic organizations all contribute to a society where people can participate, organize, solve problems collectively, and hold leaders accountable.
These institutions provide independent information sources, expertise, and community leadership. They create opportunities for engagement beyond the ballot box and ensure public decisions are informed by diverse experiences and perspectives.
Historically, authoritarian movements have aimed to weaken civil society because independent organizations create alternative power and accountability centers. Efforts to intimidate critics, suppress dissent, attack universities, politicize research, undermine journalism, or pressure organizations to conform to government political ideology often seek to limit public organization and challenge capabilities. As I wrote earlier this year, democracy depends on access to reliable information and informed public affairs decisions. A shared commitment to independent facts and knowledge is essential for democratic decision-making and public accountability.
This is why UCS has extensively documented attacks on science. When scientists are silenced, data removed from public access, research politicized, or independent expertise sidelined, the consequences extend beyond science. These actions weaken independent fact sources, complicating public evaluation of government decisions and leader accountability.
A free civil society is not an impediment to democracy; it is one of its greatest strengths.
Commitment to Resolving Conflict Peacefully
Democracy does not eradicate conflict; it provides a framework for peaceful conflict management.
People will always have differing opinions on political priorities, public policies, and the country’s future. These disagreements are not signs of failing democracy; in many ways, they indicate democracy’s functioning. Citizens have the right to advocate for their beliefs, challenge government actions, protest injustice, and organize for change.
Democracy cannot endure if political competition is replaced by intimidation, coercion, or violence.
Free speech is vital to democratic life, but so is rejecting political violence and rhetoric that incites violence against perceived opponents. Democratic societies rely on our willingness to regard each other as fellow citizens, even amid strong disagreements.
A recurring theme in my writing on authoritarianism has been the danger of dividing society into “us” and “them”. Historically, authoritarian movements have used fear, scapegoating, dehumanization, and disinformation to isolate vulnerable communities and consolidate power. These tactics erode public trust, fracture communities, and hinder accountability.
Political opponents are not enemies; they are fellow participants in a shared democratic endeavor. Maintaining this understanding is crucial for democracy’s survival.
We Must Unite Around Democracy, Not Agreement on Policy
Democracy is not a spectator sport or an individual pursuit. It is a collective exercise in self-governance that relies on people working together across differences to address problems, hold leaders accountable, and shape their communities’ future. The ability to cooperate despite disagreements is one of democracy’s greatest strengths, and why movements and coalitions are essential during times of democratic strain. The importance of pro-democracy movements is not that everyone agrees on everything, but that we do not.
It’s important to acknowledge that we can uphold democracy’s foundational principles even while disagreeing on numerous public policy questions. Some will propose different solutions to the same problems, while others will compete in the marketplace of ideas or argue for different priorities. None of this changes when we unite behind these core principles of a healthy democracy. These principles are a foundation, not a limit. They allow us, with diverse interests and perspectives, to collaborate in defending democracy without abandoning our values or priorities.
For UCS, these commitments emphasize something long understood: science and democracy rise and fall together. Democracy creates conditions for evidence to be gathered, debated, challenged, and applied for the public good. Science helps people comprehend complex issues, evaluate competing claims, and hold decision-makers accountable. Both rely on transparency, participation, and freedom from political coercion.
From Principles to Action
Commitment to principles matters only if acted upon, and history shows that democratic institutions are not protected by individuals acting alone. They are defended through collective action. Communities organizing together, people supporting one another, coalitions working across differences, and movements demanding accountability have repeatedly helped democracies endure authoritarian pressure. This illustrates a simple lesson: concern is not enough. Defending democracy requires collective action.
We all have a role in safeguarding the democratic values that enable science, accountability, and public participation. This work can take many forms, but key actions include:
- Defend facts, evidence, and independent science. Speak out when facts are distorted, research politicized, or scientific expertise sidelined. Reliable information is crucial for both science and democracy.
- Protect free, safe, and fair elections. Support efforts to expand participation, shield voters from intimidation, and ensure respected election results. Democracy functions only when everyone has meaningful participation opportunities.
- Stand with communities and institutions under attack. Civil society is strongest when people support journalists, educators, scientists, nonprofit organizations, faith communities, and others advocating for democratic values.
- Reject attempts to divide us through fear and scapegoating. Authoritarian movements often aim to turn neighbors against each other. Building solidarity across communities is a powerful way to resist these tactics.
- Take action when opportunities arise. Whether contacting elected officials, participating in community meetings, joining local organizations, attending public events, providing mutual aid, or supporting UCS campaigns, democracy relies on those who choose to engage rather than look away.
The future of our democracy will not be determined by a single election, court decision, or political figure. It will be shaped by whether people continue to defend the institutions, rights, freedoms, and democratic norms that enable self-governance. As I argued in Scientists Must Act, a significant danger in authoritarian moments is believing that ordinary people lack the power to influence events. History suggests otherwise. Democratic institutions are strongest when people show up to defend them. We are the ones we have been waiting for.
*CoPilot AI was used in the writing of this piece.
