Call for Papers: Case studies on bridging to counter authoritarian populism
Original illustration by Ilian Iliev for Fine Acts
The Democracy & Belonging Forum is opening a call for papers to identify case studies that showcase bridging and belonging approaches to countering authoritarian populism in Europe and North America. The resulting paper series will feature six cases from across both regions, to be published in Fall 2025. Please read below to learn more about what types of case studies we are seeking and information regarding submission. Selected authors will receive a €750 honorarium (excluding VAT) for their contribution to this project.
Context
Authoritarian populist movements are thriving globally by exploiting identity-based divisions and leveraging fear and anxiety to justify an erosion of democratic norms and freedoms. Central to their appeal are two powerful narratives:
(1) the “us vs. them” binary, which portrays the “Other” as a homogeneously dangerous out-group, often defined in racial, ethnic, or religious terms, that threatens the safety or economic security of a narrowly conceived in-group;
(2) the “people vs. the elites” binary, where “elites” are accused of prioritizing the interests of the “Other” over those of the in-group and the “people” is narrowly defined and embodied by the authoritarian populist leader and acolytes.
Through these narratives, authoritarian populists have developed a lens through which to interpret reality, providing a coherent understanding of events in times of uncertainty that centers othering and anger while alleviating fear and anxiety. By scapegoating marginalized groups and blaming vaguely defined elites for complex societal challenges, these movements build strong in-group solidarity—sometimes even bridging identity lines—leading to significant electoral success, governing power, and cultural change.
Although authoritarian populist narratives often build on genuine grievances, whether economic, cultural, or otherwise, their proposed solutions fail to tackle the root causes of these challenges, such as inequality fueled by unregulated capitalism, and tend to aggravate them. Instead, authoritarian populist actors misdirect blame toward out-groups, advocating for exclusion or expulsion rather than meaningful reform or transformation.
Challenge
The continued success of authoritarian populist movements and leaders underscores pressing challenges for pro-democracy, social justice, and human rights movements:
These movements must find ways to counter the appeal of authoritarian populism without alienating those drawn to its narratives out of legitimate dissatisfaction with the status quo;
They must avoid inadvertently deepening societal divisions or mistrust—dynamics that have fueled authoritarian populism’s success, while recognizing the valid reasons for mistrust and the need to address them;
They need to hold both the need for change and the difficulties and anxieties that change can bring about, which is particularly relevant in understand the authoritarian dynamic, as suggested by research from scholar Karen Stenner;
They need to balance arguing for and building projects oriented towards pluralism and a better democracy, while recognizing that democracies as they currently exist have perpetuated violence against specific communities;
These movements must prioritize centering social justice and uplifting marginalized communities while grappling with the deliberate counter-framing of equity and inclusion efforts as divisive or polarizing. This calls for a critical examination of strategies and narratives to identify those that effectively advance the quest for justice without fueling backlash, ensuring that the fight for equity remains both principled and impactful.
Current strategies to oppose authoritarian populism often fail to avoid these tensions. A common strategy, for example, is to highlight the threats authoritarian populist movements pose to democracy. This approach is sometimes perceived as a defense of an inequitable status quo. Indeed, such framing risks reinforcing perceptions of exclusion and inequality, which are defining features of existing democratic structures. Moreover, accusations of being “anti-democratic” can fall flat when authoritarian populist actors enjoy genuine popularity and broad support.
Conversely, an alternative response to authoritarian populism has been the retreat of various movements and identity groups into single- or shared-identity spaces, an understandable reaction in times of heightened fear and othering. For marginalized or targeted groups, these spaces often provide a sense of immediate safety. Yet, as many leading activists and scholars have observed, such inward-focused approaches are limited when it comes to building collective power or advancing positive, systemic alternatives. True safety and resilience stem not from in-group bonding alone but from robust, inclusive social structures that address the needs of all communities. Achieving this requires strong coalitions that bridge group lines, an approach which is likely to bring discomfort, disagreement, and even a sense of insecurity.
The Need for a Different Approach
At the Democracy & Belonging Forum, we believe that effective resistance strategies to democratic erosion and systemic injustice as well as the proactive building of democracies rooted in belonging lie neither in “blame and shame” strategies nor in inward-focused bonding. Instead, we advocate for approaches rooted in bridging—cultivating connections across lines of difference—and shared belonging, which prioritizes inclusion, visibility, agency, and connection for all communities, while recognizing and attending to existing power imbalances.
These approaches are powerful for two key reasons:
1. They shield communities from the “divide and conquer” tactics central to authoritarian populist strategies.
2. They lay the groundwork for the building of inclusive and resilient alternatives to the status quo, creating the conditions for lasting trust and cooperation across identity lines.
It is not enough to simply call out the harms of authoritarian populist discourse or block their policies. We must go further by investing in structures and spaces that foster trust-building and enable collaboration across divides. Only by building these shared “containers” can we create the resilience and unity needed to counter authoritarian populism and support viable, inclusive alternatives.
Project Description
In an effort to highlight potential solutions to this challenge, the Democracy & Belonging Forum is launching a Call for Papers for case studies that showcase effective strategies to counter authoritarian populism. We are particularly interested in efforts that employ bridging and belonging approaches, while also critically extracting lessons on failures—examining what does not work—to provide valuable insights for others seeking to build on tested strategies.The resulting paper series will feature six cases from across Europe and North America. Examples of featured interventions might include bridge-building efforts across different contexts or divides, narrative change strategies, restorative and transformative justice programs, deradicalization programs, and interventions involving art.
Goals and Outcomes
The goals of this project are manifold:
To highlight approaches that build power and belonging, rather than fragment or stoke mistrust
To seed exchange between civic actors working in different contexts to counter authoritarian populism and build belonging
To identify victories but also failures and learnings to be avoided in future efforts
To uplift the new possibilities that open when engaging bridging and belonging approach
To clarify interplay between justice / belonging and democracy / civic co-creation and to demonstrate the need for approaches that address both.
Submission Guidelines:
Abstract: Applicants should share an abstract of [e.g., 250–300 words] that summarizes the key arguments, methods, and contributions of your paper. You can submit your abstract here.
Once the piece is admitted, we expect papers that range between [e.g., 2,500–5,000 words], including references, tables, and appendices. Shorter pieces (e.g., essays, commentaries) will be accepted; please specify the intended format in your submission.
Originality: Submissions must be original, unpublished work. Papers under consideration elsewhere will not be accepted.
Language: Submissions must be in English, in non-academic language and a register that is accessible to lay audiences
Timeline:
Submission Deadline (proposal): March 18, 2025
Submission Deadline (final piece, first draft): May 30, 2025