Turning Back the Tide of Authoritarianism: International Lessons for the U.S. Legal Community
Introduction
American democracy and the rule of law face increasing challenges, and lawyers and judges must play a key role in meeting these challenges. While litigation remains a cornerstone of defending the rule of law, there is growing recognition that litigation alone is insufficient in the current environment. To support the American legal community in developing additional tools, in October 2025, the Carter Center’s Rule of Law Program conducted a study tour for U.S.-based lawyers working in the pro-democracy space. The group traveled to Warsaw, Poland, to meet with lawyers and civic activists from Central and Eastern Europe who have been working to counter rising authoritarianism for many years.
This article synthesizes five key lessons learned from the European democracy advocates. Participants came away motivated by the expressions of shared values and mutual support among colleagues committed to the principles of democracy and the rule of law. It is our hope that these pro-democracy lessons will expand the tools available for defending democracy, inspire more such experiences, and create new partnerships that promote democratic renewal.
Five Key Lessons
1. Be Creative
Litigation… and beyond: Attorneys are not generally known for a freewheeling style, but our European colleagues emphasized the need for new ways of thinking. We cannot rely only on traditional lawyering tactics; we must also apply informal efforts and skills outside the courtroom. As a colleague from the Hungarian Helsinki Committee shared, while part of the legal community’s role in opposing democratic backsliding is to slow down government overreach through litigation, interventions should also include campaigns of solidarity, forging personal relationships with unlikely allies or groups under attack, and educating the public, both in person and through social media.
Concepts like “the rule of law” can feel vague and abstract to many communities, leaving them to question the value of acting to protect them. Understanding that greater knowledge about the judiciary leads to greater confidence in it, our European colleagues described person-to-person outreach by lawyers and judges targeting wide swaths of the public. This included a bus tour focused on citizen - centered rule of law conversations, holding “legal cafes” to discuss how specific actions will affect community members, and placing a yellow-vested information officer at each protest or vigil to answer questions about the constitution and the reasons for their action from passersby.
We also learned about the effective use of social media, such as the work of the Polish organization Wolne Sady (Free Courts), which uses influencer videos and flash mob campaigns to support judges under attack. A Romanian colleague from Funky Citizens reminded us to ensure we have young people on our teams and involved in our strategic thinking. They possess insights into a critical segment of the population that lawyers rarely reach.
Just do it (imperfectly): While many lawyers are risk averse, in a time of daily “unprecedented” events, we must apply a different calculation. Part of this lesson includes the need for rapid action and proactivity. We learned from several of our European colleagues that matching the speed of the incoming threats means accepting the risk of making mistakes. We must see this as an opportunity for iterative learning and mitigate risk through advance scenario planning and contingency plan development. A representative from the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights offered an example of a misstep in Poland that led to a lesson learned. It involved an advocacy campaign focused on “restoring the rule of law.” While accurate, that framing of the issue failed to engage ordinary citizens because it implied a return to a legal order, they had never directly experienced or trusted. People questioned why they should care about restoring something that had never worked for them. The lesson was that effective advocacy requires thinking more broadly about how to ground language about the rule of law in everyday applications like fairness, safety, and justice.
2. Find New Ways of Communicating
Keep it relatable and hopeful: Related to the lesson of creativity, we learned about adapting our communication style to reach broader audiences. Direct outreach by lawyers going into communities and discussing issues from the perspective of community members rebuilt connections between the legal community and the people, countering their perception of judges and lawyers as elitist or distant.
An example of this lesson was Poland’s Tour de Konstytucja (Tour of the Constitution), a roving campaign designed to depoliticize the constitution and make it a tool for community members. The language lawyers and judges used in these conversations was nonpartisan and designed to reach a wide variety of audiences. One activist referred to “turning off the lawyer.” The atmosphere on the tour was one of positivity. There was cake, there were rock festivals and songs, and the goal was to make the experience something of a celebration of the constitution and the community, rather than a discussion about threats and destruction. We heard about the importance of hope - based communication as an alternative to focusing on threats and fear.
Tell a story: Storytelling is key to effective communication. A representative from the Georgian Young Lawyers' Association (GYLA) encouraged us to tell stories in all our communications, even our legal briefs, and reminded us that effective narratives must be delivered in ways that resonate emotionally with people. GYLA described how their messaging and strategic litigation against a proposed Georgian Foreign Agents law drew a parallel between the proposed law and repressive laws in Russia. Polish colleagues also shared a lesson learned when they issued a video of lawyers speaking about the Constitution in a manner that was too long and lawyerly. Realizing the message was lost, they worked with actors to create narrative videos, and their products went viral. The most famous showed a soccer match where one team refused to follow the rules and instead attacked the referees.
Partner up and play to your strengths: Recognizing that no one lawyer is gifted in every needed skill, our European colleagues encouraged us to work in teams - those who are skilled communicators can pair up with those who focus on policy or litigation. We also need non-lawyer allies to reach the public effectively. Working in teams allows us to amplify our strengths in a complementary way that opens doors with people who do not think like we do. As one Hungarian colleague put it, “Every Thurgood Marshall needs his Martin Luther King, Jr., and vice versa.”
3. Rethink Approaches to Coalitions
Less organizational identity, more common purpose: A particularly resonant lesson for U.S. participants was that, too often, advocacy groups working together focus on what they are already doing, rather than what needs to be done. Advocates from the Hungarian Helsinki Committee and the Slovakian organization Via Iuris (Through the Law) proposed that the more effective way to approach coalitions is to identify what needs doing to achieve a common goal, and then identify which coalition members are best placed to do it. While each member has its own priorities, if those members only focus on their existing missions, they may miss opportunities for impact.
“If you feel comfortable in your coalition, it isn’t broad enough”: Broad coalitions that include cross-sector, cross-generational, and cross-ideological diversity provide flexibility. This range of representation provides greater options for messaging; for example, who will have the most impact? Who will be most trusted? We learned that Polish lawyers and judges worked with communications experts and artists, and Slovakian organizations worked with religious leaders and LGBTQ+ activists, finding common ground in defending the work of civic organizations. In a Slovakian example, Bishops were the face of a proposal to protect nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) against harmful legislation. This added credibility. However, not every member of a coalition must sign on to its every statement or action. Smaller and more vulnerable organizations need to be able to decide when to opt out in order to reduce exposure.
Sharing resources and responsibility helps coalitions last: For sustainability, Hungarian and Slovakian advocates noted that sharing resources or obtaining resources specifically for the coalition, as opposed to individual organizations, is key. This reduces competition among members, which can be a major source of division. For example, a Hungarian coalition aimed at defeating anti-NGO laws reduced such competition by obtaining a small amount of funds (about $100,000) to support the separate work of the coalition. Also critical is maintaining coalition relationships even when the immediate threat has passed. These connections should not be particular to a crisis; rather, they should be sustained during “quiet” periods, which allows the coalition to reactivate quickly when new threats occur.
Sharing isn’t just for resources; it is also for leadership responsibilities. In the Hungarian example, cooperating organizations learned that coalitions do not always need a permanent leader or centralized formal structure. The role can be shared or rotated depending on the expertise, context, or issue. This group learned a lesson when a specific coalition failed to coalesce because it focused too much on setting up a formal organization when the moment called for more agility.
4. Develop and Exhibit Solidarity and Collective Action
Deeper than coalitions: Our Polish colleagues noted that solidarity work was a large component of their success and a reason they were more successful than in places like Hungary. Judges under attack in Poland had strong support: Lawyers offered free representation and attended hearings in their cases; community groups offered free psychological support; and advocacy organizations established emergency funds for judges whose salaries were suspended or terminated as political retaliation.
Speaking out publicly was also important. Lawyers representing judges served as their spokespersons, communicating about the threats to them and to judicial independence in ways that the judges could not. Support campaigns included social media posts, such as pictures of people holding signs saying, “I stand with Judge Tuleya,” or sending postcards saying, “I’ve got your back” directly to the judge.
Judges themselves reached out to other judges. They formed associations focused specifically on rule of law issues and developed relationships with other European jurists. As the attacks on Polish judges reached a crescendo, judges themselves organized a march that included their European allies.
Be brave but allow space for recuperation and varying risk tolerance: In Poland, judges were initially extremely wary of speaking out about attacks on the rule of law. One judge described feeling these acts were near “sacrilege.” But as the attacks began to include disciplinary actions, potential suspension from their duties, and reduction or loss of their salaries, judges were moved to step forward. In addition to the March of 1,000 Robes and other actions, judges began standing in front of their courthouses on the 18th of every month as a vigil for the rule of law.
Several of our European colleagues made clear that not everyone is prepared to be brave, and different people face different risks. While we can encourage bravery, we should not force it. Advocates can also take turns in undertaking acts of courage, as individuals must rest and recover.
5. Recognize and Reflect on History’s Influence
Memories as motivation: One Hungarian colleague highlighted how the different histories of Poland and Hungary affected their judges’ reactions to attacks on rule of law. In Poland, the history of the Solidarity Movement gave lawyers, judges, and the public a reference point of cohesion.
The impact of Hungary’s different social history played a role in its more muted public reaction. An advocate from Hungary described his country’s experience with communism taught that staying silent helps people avoid becoming targets. As a result, when attacks began to mount on the rule of law, most declined to speak out. Our European colleagues encouraged us to marshal the freedom fighting narratives of Americans, our revolutionary spirit and ruggedness, and the teachings of courageous civil rights leaders to inspire people to rally around our historical common values.
Lessons on thinking about winning and “red lines”: A constant refrain from the European activists was that facing our difficulties in the U.S. will be a marathon, not a sprint, repeating that it takes years to hone strategies and build coalitions. Some of them have been challenging illiberalism for a decade or more. The pace and methods of attacks may vary, yet they remain determined. Too often, failure to achieve immediate victory leads to discouragement. Our European colleagues recommended a focus on the accumulation of small steps over time to break down barriers.
When we asked our European colleagues how to know when a “red line” has been crossed, signaling that action was appropriate, they suggested we reconsider our approach to the question. One judge responded, if we are waiting to identify a single red line, we are already unprepared. If the warning signs are present, the time for action is now.
Conclusion
Over the course of this study tour, our European colleagues who have been living and working in increasingly authoritarian spaces emphasized that the world is in a new era. We cannot - and should not - go back to “normal.” Our legal community must embrace a forward-looking vision of democracy and how it operates, which means forging new partnerships and thinking in new ways.
As democracy practitioners, we must adapt our understanding of the lawyer’s role and what our civic responsibilities now require of us. This study tour is just one example of the kinds of collaboration, learning, and support available to help us turn back the tide of democratic erosion. By reaching across borders - literal and metaphorical - we can connect with a wealth of allies who are willing and able to offer lessons and solidarity. Individual lawyers, bar associations, pro-democracy civil society organizations, and others must meet this moment not only by relying on familiar means, but by stretching ourselves to use our skills in creative ways that increase our chances of a future where democracy and the rule of law are respected.
About the Authors:
Melissa Hooper is a lawyer and rule of law expert, the Deputy Director for Strategic Democracy Initiatives at the German Marshall Fund, and a Senior Fellow at the U.C. Berkeley Edley Center for Law and Democracy. She created the first program at USAID responding to backsliding in consolidated democracies and was a founding member of the Transatlantic Democracy Working Group - a bipartisan transatlantic group of experts established at GMF. She has lived and worked in over nine countries engaging in rights and rule of law protection with organizations such as the ABA and Human Rights First and testified in Congress five times on these issues. Melissa graduated from Berkeley Law.
Leanne Webster is the Director of the Rule of Law Program at The Carter Center where she leads initiatives focused on protecting civic space in rising authoritarianism, access to justice, and social accountability. Prior to joining the Center, she spent 14 years in international development, working as a democracy and governance specialist on projects in Latin America, Central Asia, and Africa. Leanne received her J.D. from the S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah and her M.P.A. from the Wagner Graduate School of Public Service at New York University.