essay on grassroots democracy

The Power of Grassroots Movements in Political Change

The power of grassroots movements has been demonstrated time and time again throughout history. From the Civil Rights movement to environmental activism, ordinary people have come together to change the political landscape significantly. This comprehensive guide will explore the concept of grassroots initiatives and their role in political change.

What Is a Grassroots Movement?

A grassroots movement is a community-based effort that mobilizes individuals around a shared goal or issue. These movements often arise in response to a perceived need for change. They are typically led by individuals or organizations not affiliated with traditional political or social power structures.

Grassroots movements can take many forms, from community organizing to social media advocacy, and they can significantly impact local and national politics.

One of the defining characteristics of grassroots initiatives is their decentralized structure. Unlike traditional political or social organizations, grassroots campaigns do not rely on a top-down hierarchy or centralized leadership. Instead, they are often organized around a network of individuals and organizations that share a common goal or interest.

This decentralized structure allows for greater flexibility and adaptability, as grassroots initiatives can respond quickly to changing circumstances and adjust their strategies as needed.

Another key characteristic of grassroots movements is their focus on local action. Grassroots campaigns often begin at the local level, with individuals and organizations working to effect change in their communities. This allows them to build momentum and support over time as individuals see the impact of their efforts and become more engaged in the movement.

Additionally, their emphasis is on citizen participation. Grassroots initiatives empower individuals to take action and effect change rather than relying on established institutions or leaders. Community participation and public education seek to build a sense of collective ownership and responsibility for social and political disruption and issues.

Ready to make a difference?

Examples of Grassroots Movements

There have been many successful grassroots movements, each with unique characteristics and goals.

One example is the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, which was led by individuals and organizations not affiliated with traditional power structures. Through grassroots organizing, Civil Rights activists mobilized individuals nationwide and effected significant change in voting rights, desegregation, and equal opportunity.

Another example of successful grassroots organizing is the environmental movement, which began in the 1960s and continues today. Environmental activists have organized around various issues, from pollution and climate change to animal rights and sustainable agriculture.

The #MeToo movement, which began in 2017 as a response to sexual harassment and assault, is another example of a successful grassroots campaign. It was initiated by grassroots activism on social media, with individuals sharing their stories of abuse and calling for greater accountability for perpetrators.

Grassroots Movements and Political Change

Grassroots campaigns have long been recognized as a powerful force for political change, particularly at the local level.

One of the most important ways they can affect political change is by influencing elected officials. This can be done through various tactics, such as public demonstrations, petitions, and lobbying campaigns.

For example, a movement focused on improving public services in a particular neighborhood might organize a petition drive calling for increased funding for those services. If enough people sign the petition, elected officials may be more likely to take action in response to the movement's demands.

Grassroots organizing can also shape public opinion by bringing attention to important issues and raising awareness of the need for change. This can be done through media outreach, social media campaigns, and other public services and engagement forms.

For example, a movement focused on environmental activism might use social media to share information about the impact of climate change on local communities and encourage people to take action to reduce their carbon footprint.

Grassroots campaigns can also use lobbying to influence policymakers and affect political change. Grassroots lobbying refers to the efforts of individuals or groups to influence elected officials by communicating their positions on policy issues.

Unlike traditional lobbying, grassroots lobbying is not focused on monetary incentives or personal relationships but on mobilizing a large group of people and community-based organizations to express their views on a particular issue.

Grassroots lobbying can take many forms, including letter-writing campaigns, phone banking, and in-person meetings with elected officials. The use of social media and digital communication platforms has made grassroots lobbying more accessible and widespread, allowing individuals to quickly and easily express their opinions on policy issues and connect with other like-minded individuals.

The campaign for marriage equality in the United States is among the best grassroots lobbying examples. Advocates for marriage equality used various tactics to mobilize supporters and communicate their position to elected officials. Through these efforts, they shifted public opinion and ultimately achieved a landmark Supreme Court ruling in 2015 that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.

Another significant grassroots lobbying example is the recent movement for police reform in the United States. In response to several high-profile incidents of police brutality, activists organized protests, marches, and social media campaigns to demand accountability and systemic change.

These efforts led to the introduction of new legislation and policy changes in several cities and states, demonstrating the power of grassroots initiatives to effect political change.

However, while grassroots organizing can effectively bring about political change, they face several challenges. One of the biggest challenges is sustaining momentum over time.

Grassroots movements are often driven by a sense of urgency and a desire for immediate action, but achieving lasting change can take years or even decades. Maintaining the enthusiasm and energy of movement participants over an extended period can be difficult, particularly if progress is slow or incremental.

Another challenge is the need to balance local action with larger-scale political goals. While grassroots campaigns may effectively achieve change at neighborhood associations or city council levels, they may struggle to impact broader political disruptions such as national policy or global trends.

For this reason, many grassroots initiatives work in partnership with other organizations and stakeholders to build broader coalitions that can bring about change at multiple levels.

Despite these challenges, these movements are critical in shaping local, national, and global political change. Whether focused on improving public services, advocating for social justice, or promoting environmental sustainability, grassroots initiatives are powerful for civic engagement, citizen participation, community engagement, and participatory democracy.

The Role of Social Media in Grassroots Movements

Social media has transformed how people communicate and provided a new avenue for individuals to mobilize and effect change.

One of the primary ways it has impacted grassroots organizing is by helping to spread awareness. Platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram allow individuals to share information and ideas with a global audience. This can be particularly effective when raising awareness about an issue without widespread media coverage.

For example, during the Arab Spring uprisings, social media was used to share images and videos of protests and police brutality, which helped to bring attention to the movement and build support.

It has also impacted grassroots initiatives by facilitating communication and organization. Social media platforms allow activists to connect and coordinate their efforts, even across great distances. This can be particularly important in countries where the government limits traditional forms of communication and organization.

For example, during the Umbrella Movement in Hong Kong, social media was used to coordinate protests and share information about police movements, which helped to keep the movement going for several months.

Social media has also played a significant role in mobilizing people to take action. Using social media platforms to share information about rallies, protests, and other events, activists can quickly and easily reach a large audience and generate interest in their cause. For example, during the Women's March in 2017, social media spread the word about the event, which ultimately drew hundreds of thousands of participants in cities worldwide.

One of the key benefits of social media for grassroots organizing is that it allows activists to connect with supporters and potential allies across the globe. This can be particularly important for movements focused on global issues, such as climate change or human rights.

However, social media also has its limitations when it comes to grassroots organizing. One challenge is the spread of misinformation, which can be used to discredit movements and undermine their credibility.

For example, during the 2016 U.S. presidential election, social media spread false information about candidates and issues, which helped sow confusion and undermine the election process.

Social media also tends to prioritize sensational or controversial content, distracting from important issues and making it harder for grassroots initiatives to gain traction. Additionally, the sheer volume of content on social media can make it difficult for grassroots campaigns to cut through the noise and reach their target audience.

While social media has limitations, it remains a powerful tool for individuals and organizations looking to effect change in their communities and beyond.

Grassroots Movements and Democracy

Grassroots campaigns have played a crucial role in promoting democracy and democratic values such as participation, representation, and accountability. These movements have given voice to marginalized groups, raised awareness about important issues such as zoning laws, and pressured policymakers to be more responsive to their constituents.

Participatory democracy is a form of democracy that emphasizes active community participation in the decision-making processes of government and other important public institutions. It aims to create a more inclusive and transparent democratic system where citizens have a direct say in the policies and decisions that affect their lives.

The participatory budgeting process is one of the most significant participatory democracy examples, where citizens directly allocate public resources. Citizens are invited to submit proposals for how much the city's budget should be spent. These proposals are then reviewed and refined by other citizens and city council officials and ultimately voted on by the community.

Citizen assemblies and community engagements are other significant participatory democracy examples, where randomly selected citizens to come together to deliberate and recommend important public issues. These assemblies are designed to represent a diverse population and provide a space for citizens to engage in constructive dialogue and debate.

Community participation has been praised for its potential to increase citizen engagement and promote greater accountability and transparency in government decision-making. By involving citizens directly in the policymaking process, participatory democracy can also help increase government actions' legitimacy and effectiveness.

Grassroots initiatives also promote democratic representation by advocating for the rights and interests of marginalized groups. By bringing attention to the concerns of underrepresented communities, these movements help ensure that policymakers are responsive to the needs of all citizens, not just those who are politically powerful or well-connected.

Changing political party affiliation is a common occurrence in democratic societies. Grassroots organizing can play a role by mobilizing citizens to switch parties or become independent.

The Role of Independents

When citizens change their party affiliation, they express dissatisfaction with the current political landscape and seek a new path forward. This can be a powerful way for citizens to exercise their political power, hold elected officials accountable and help mitigate political disruptions.

There are different ways to change political party affiliation in national and local elections, and the process varies depending on the country and political system. In some cases, how to change one's political party to independent requires them to wait until a certain period, such as during election cycles in city council elections and other local elections, to make the switch.

For those who want to become independent , the process is often similar to changing political party affiliation. However, additional steps may be involved, such as registering as an independent voter or meeting certain requirements, depending on the political system.

Regarding candidate resources independent party, grassroots initiatives can be critical in providing support and resources for candidates who align with their values and goals. Candidate resources for independent parties can include fundraising, volunteer recruitment, and media outreach.

Additionally, independent candidates can look to community-based organizations and neighborhood associations for support in building their campaigns. Independent candidates, especially in local elections, need to have a strong message and platform that resonates with voters and aligns with the values of their grassroots supporters.

Accountability is another key democratic value that grassroots initiatives help promote. By holding elected officials and other leaders accountable for their actions, these movements help ensure that those in power are responsive to the needs of their constituents.

They can help promote democratic values by challenging the status quo and pushing for systemic change. By organizing around issues such as economic inequality, social justice, and environmental protection, grassroots initiatives can help to reshape the political landscape by eliminating political disruption and promoting more inclusive and equitable policies.

Moreover, grassroots initiatives help promote participatory democracy by fostering citizen engagement. By providing opportunities for citizens to get involved in political activities, such as organizing voter registration drives or attending town hall meetings, these movements help build stronger and more active communities.

By promoting citizen engagement, grassroots initiatives help create a more informed and participatory democracy where citizens have a direct role in shaping public policy.

Grassroots movements have the power to create meaningful change in the political landscape. Through local action, community engagement, social media, and a commitment to democratic values, ordinary people can make a difference. Understanding the power of grassroots initiatives allows us to work towards a more just and equitable society.

Want to learn how you can become part of a movement for change? Check out volunteer opportunities through Good Party , and join the growing community of Americans who are working to reform our democracy.

• Politics & Social Sciences
• Politics & Government

Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required .

Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.

Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.

Image Unavailable

• To view this video download Flash Player

From the Ground Up: Essays on Grassroots Democracy Paperback – October 6, 2022

• Print length 280 pages
• Language English
• Publisher Black Rose Books
• Publication date October 6, 2022
• Dimensions 5.5 x 8.5 inches
• ISBN-10 1551647362
• ISBN-13 978-1551647364
• See all details

Editorial Reviews

About the author, product details.

• Publisher ‏ : ‎ Black Rose Books; New edition (October 6, 2022)
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• Paperback ‏ : ‎ 280 pages
• ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 1551647362
• ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-1551647364
• Item Weight ‏ : ‎ 1.11 pounds
• Dimensions ‏ : ‎ 5.5 x 8.5 inches

Customer reviews

Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.

To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.

No customer reviews

• Amazon Newsletter
• About Amazon
• Accessibility
• Sustainability
• Press Center
• Investor Relations
• Amazon Devices
• Amazon Science
• Sell on Amazon
• Sell apps on Amazon
• Supply to Amazon
• Protect & Build Your Brand
• Become an Affiliate
• Become a Delivery Driver
• Start a Package Delivery Business
• Advertise Your Products
• Self-Publish with Us
• Become an Amazon Hub Partner
• › See More Ways to Make Money
• Amazon Visa
• Amazon Store Card
• Amazon Secured Card
• Amazon Business Card
• Shop with Points
• Credit Card Marketplace
• Reload Your Balance
• Amazon Currency Converter
• Your Account
• Your Orders
• Shipping Rates & Policies
• Amazon Prime
• Returns & Replacements
• Manage Your Content and Devices
• Recalls and Product Safety Alerts
• Conditions of Use
• Privacy Notice
• Consumer Health Data Privacy Disclosure
• Your Ads Privacy Choices

Grassroots Democracy and Governance in India

Understanding Power, Sociality and Trust

• © 2022
• Amiya Kumar Das 0

Department of Sociology, Tezpur University, Tezpur, India

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

• Examines governance in India from sociological perspective
• Combines narratives and ethnographic data to understand the conundrum of governance and the politics of Neoliberalism
• Appeals to a broad audience of researchers and policymakers

356 Accesses

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this book

• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Other ways to access

Licence this eBook for your library

Institutional subscriptions

About this book

Similar content being viewed by others.

Grassroots governance and social development: theoretical and comparative legal aspects

The Problem of Democracy in Two Brazilian Governance Experiences

Governance at Grassroots–Rhetoric and Reality: A Study of the Union Parishad in Bangladesh

• Sociology of Governance
• Embedded governance
• Rituals of governance
• Body and Paper documents
• Performative governance
• Paper citizenship

Table of contents (7 chapters)

Front matter, sociology of governance and the grassroots democracy.

Amiya Kumar Das

Locating the State, Power and Governance in the Social Sphere

Seeing like a citizen: people’s everyday engagement with the state and governance, documenting the body: entitlements and paper citizenship, rituals of the state: enchanting elections and enacting citizenships, corporatization of the state in the neoliberal era, state, political clientelism and governance in india: concluding observations, back matter, authors and affiliations, about the author, bibliographic information.

Book Title : Grassroots Democracy and Governance in India

Book Subtitle : Understanding Power, Sociality and Trust

Authors : Amiya Kumar Das

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5110-7

Publisher : Springer Singapore

eBook Packages : Social Sciences , Social Sciences (R0)

Copyright Information : Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022

Hardcover ISBN : 978-981-19-5109-1 Published: 02 January 2023

Softcover ISBN : 978-981-19-5112-1 Published: 03 January 2024

eBook ISBN : 978-981-19-5110-7 Published: 01 January 2023

Edition Number : 1

Number of Pages : XIV, 178

Number of Illustrations : 1 b/w illustrations, 13 illustrations in colour

Topics : Political Sociology , Development and Social Change , Governance and Government

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

A Journal of Ideas

Middle america reboots democracy, we spent months talking with anti-trump forces—and they’re not who pundits say they are., tagged donald trump grassroots activism politics resistance.

Resistance march in Philadelphia, March 8, 2017. -- Photo by Joe Piette via CC 2.0

Nancy Reynolds looks like no one’s idea of a revolutionary, least of all her own. She has a quick and contagious smile, shiny coiffed hair, a bad knee, and four grandchildren. Heartbroken after the defeat of Hillary Clinton—for whom Reynolds had spent long hours canvassing in the fall of 2016—she marched in protest in January 2017. When the 2018 anniversary march rolled around, she made sure to fit it in, but it wasn’t easy. These days Nancy Reynolds has campaigns to run: as Hampton Township coordinator for one friend’s Pennsylvania state senate campaign; as a canvass organizer for the slate of first-time candidates she helped elect to Hampton town council in November 2017, breaking long decades of Republican dominance; and now as signature-gatherer for her own campaign for election to her local Democratic Party committee as well. A retired children’s librarian, Nancy has long been a powerhouse within her local community, which is nestled in Pittsburgh’s northern suburbs. Prior to 2016, local and state politics were not on her radar screen. Now they dominate her to-do list every day.

Similar stories to Nancy’s are unfolding in suburbs and towns all across her home state and the country. She and tens of thousands of other women, mostly mothers and grandmothers ranging in age from their 30s to 70s, are fueling an American political transformation that most media outlets are systematically missing, or at least misreading.

To be sure, outlets have reported a handful of high-profile indicators of nationwide civic rumblings: big turnouts to hundreds of Women’s Marches in January 2017, and again a year later, as well as the emergence of a flood of Democratic congressional challengers for 2018, with a record-breaking proportion of women. But there’s a deeper and broader shift powering these indicators, and those who see only nationally visible events may miss it entirely. Far from the bluest strongholds, a huge demographic swathe of forgotten Americans is remaking politics, and it is not the one getting most of the press. The new upsurge is not centered in the progressive urban enclaves where most national pundits live; nor is it to be found among the grizzled men in coal country diners where journalists escape to get out of the bubble. Neither of those poles looks much like most of America anyway. About half the country lives in the suburbs, twice the number who live in either fully urban or rural settings. More than half of Americans are also women— and of those, half are in their thirties to sixties. It is in this Middle America, and among these Middle Americans, that political developments since the November 2016 election have moved fastest and farthest.

One of us, Lara Putnam, is a professor at the University of Pittsburgh, who teaches history but does not usually get to watch it in the making. Yet over the past 14 months, as she has met woman after woman like Nancy, in the course of her own citizen engagement work in the cities and suburbs of southwestern Pennsylvania, Putnam has come to believe there is an epochal “generation” in the making: a cohort of Americans for whom life-cycle stage and personal trajectory collided with public events—the election of Donald Trump; the Women’s Marches and calls to action that followed—in ways that changed life after life in very similar, and very consequential, directions. Meanwhile, the other one of us, Harvard University political scientist Theda Skocpol, has been making field trips to eight non-big-city counties in North Carolina, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Pennsylvania—and in each place she has found newly formed citizens groups also spurred to action by the November 2016 election outcome. Skocpol has (along with Harvard PhD student Leah Gose) collected questionnaires from organizers and participants in some three dozen local groups active across all regions of the state of Pennsylvania. When notes were compared, our observations lined up almost perfectly, laying the basis for this article.

The tidal shift underway has little in common with the precedents pundits lean on. This is not a leftist Tea Party, because newly engaged suburban activists hail from across the broad ideological range from center to left. It’s not a Sanders versus Clinton redux, because that “last year’s news” divide is flatly irrelevant to the people working shoulder-to-shoulder in the present. It’s not an Occupy Wall Street-type questioning of liberal democracy, because these activists believe laws can make good government as strong and transparent as possible. It’s not the 1960s, with young people leading the way—although there are lots of helpful teenagers in the background saying, “Mom, it’s fine: go to your meeting; I’ll get dinner myself.”

The protagonists of the trends we report on are mainly college-educated suburban white women. We tell their stories not because college-educated white women are the most Democratic slice of the electorate (they aren’t) or because they are the most progressive voices within the Democratic Party (they aren’t) or because they have a special claim to lead the left moving forward (they don’t: nor do they pretend to). Rather, what we report here is that it is among these college-educated, middle-aged women in the suburbs that political practices have most changed under Trump. If your question is how the panorama of political possibility has shifted since November 2016, your story needs to begin here.

What’s Going On Out There?

Pundits regularly portray the action underway since November 2016 as a national movement—“The Resistance.” This can enshrine a common misperception, however: an understandable one, though, since the metropolitan advocates to whom the national media turn to explain the “newly energized grassroots” at times exaggerate the left-progressive focus of the activism underway and overestimate their own importance in coordinating it. Moreover, since this mobilization is both decentralized and based in face-to-face rather than virtual actions, it is impossible to scope from a distance. This revolution is not being tweeted; and even in the private Facebook groups most local groups maintain, the most prolific posters may not represent the views and focus of the members most active in real life. Local interviews and observations are, therefore, the best way to understand what is going on.

To be sure, new national resistance organizations like Indivisible, Sister District, Run for Something, Action Together, Swing Left, Women’s March, and many others have stepped up—and staffed up—to offer encouragement and tools via Internet outreach; and many of these national groups aspire to coordinate and speak for more widespread local activism. Most local founders of post-November 2016 grassroots groups say that they did indeed (sooner or later) read the Indivisible Guide; and they also testify to using ideas and tools from many of these national organizations. Nevertheless, it is clear that the national organizations did not themselves create the dizzying array of local groups—the “ pop-up groups ,” one bemused but grateful Virginia campaign manager called them—that spread like wildfire in the days, weeks, and early months after November 2016.

Though not nationally directed, the new activism cannot be understood as just local, either. As similar small groups have emerged in parallel across America, they have taken inspiration from one another, looked for ways to link up in regions and states, and continued to take pointers from national sources . Still, we know of no local group whose vision, plans, capabilities, or ties are limited to those offered by just one national-level advocacy organization or coordinating framework. Instead, local leaders seek out many ideas, tools, and connections, actively picking and choosing what they and their fellow participants find most helpful in their particular circumstances. We suspect that leaders and funders of national “resistance” organizations may fail to grasp the degree to which local citizen activists are eclectically leveraging varied menus of assistance, taking what they need from various offerings rather than lining up under any particular national flagship.

Again, these local stories have been similar across the country. Regular citizens bitterly disappointed with the 2016 results emerged from what many call a “period of mourning” to start planning activities, coordinated by pairs or trios or handfuls of self-appointed leaders. Some of these sparkplugs already knew one another, while others connected on buses to the 2017 Women’s Marches or “met” online, sometimes facilitated by the PantSuit Nation Facebook group that connected hundreds of thousands of women in anticipation of the first female President. Although men are certainly involved in the local groups that have taken shape since the election, women are indeed very much in the vanguard making up about 70 percent of the participants and most members of the leadership teams.

Often employed or retired from teaching, business, nonprofits, or government social service posts, these organizers already knew how to put out messages, plan gatherings, and share information. Word spread through churches, unions, PTAs, and local good government groups, and dozens of friends, neighbors, and co-workers assembled for founding meetings in living rooms, in libraries or church basements, or at local restaurants. Aware of the homogeneity of their communities, many sought to take on board the calls for attention to race-based disparities that came to the fore around the first Women’s March. In localities where few minority people are directly involved, leaders regularly sponsor discussions of racial justice issues or reach out to cosponsor events or campaigns with NAACP chapters and immigrant-supporting groups.

In the early months of 2017, entire groups met often face to face. Soon, many hived-off committees or task forces started focusing on particular tasks, like coordinating calls to congressional offices, organizing information sessions, gathering petitions for anti-gerrymandering referenda, or putting out newsletters. Everywhere, participants worked through much of 2017 to save health reform; and many undertook campaigns to fight gerrymandering or address educational and environmental issues or speak up on behalf of refugees and immigrants. But it would be wrong to see these groups or their parts as issue specialists, because the common refrain everywhere is about protecting American democracy and reclaiming citizen ownership of public life. Before “this election,” explained one Ohio woman, “I have never been involved in any type of politics, activism…. I couldn’t have told you the names of my state reps.” Following the jolt of Trump’s victory, “I had to do something…get involved somehow.”

Self-avowed Democrats are key participants in this new form of engagement, but many local groups have deliberately reached out to Independents and disaffected Republicans, and they often self-consciously adopt names and ways of operating that allow them to remain welcoming and inclusive across partisan lines. The Democrats among them are pragmatically inclusive as well. Unlike the ongoing factional battles at the Democratic National Committee and in some state Democratic parties, as well as on social media, in these local groups former Bernie and Hillary supporters—joined by others who supported neither—have spent little time rehashing the past. Shock at the November 2016 results and horror at the stances and rhetoric of President Donald Trump and the new Congress drove their start. But the time spent on venting was everywhere limited, as people asked what could be done to get democracy back on track, and found the answers were right in front of them.

More than a national movement, then, what is underway is a national pattern of mutually energizing local engagement. Sociologically, what we are witnessing is an inflection point—a shift in long-standing trends—concentrated in one large demographic group, as college-educated women have ramped up their political participation en masse . The visible collective protests they have joined in response to national events are just a small piece of a far more consequential rebuilding of the face-to-face structures of political life that the same people have ended up leading. The grassroots are leaning in, and their little-d democratic commitments are as important as their capital-D Democratic alignment.

Targeting Legislative and Local Elections

If you spend time around people like Nancy Reynolds, you will find it jarring to hear the national messaging from the Women’s March and Indivisible, which have only just began announcing the “time to turn to elections” as January 2018 loomed. In contrast, many of the local groups whose emergence was linked to Indivisible and the March a year ago are already ten months into an electoral “turn.” They have one election cycle under their belt and concrete targets in their sights for 2018, 2019, and 2020.

Although weekly protests—such as the “Tuesdays with Toomey” events across Pennsylvania, in which groups of activists gather with signs, chants, and song at the offices of Republican Senator Pat Toomey, to make their concerns known—may seem to be the simple enactment of a national “resistance” agenda, in fact these gatherings reinforce personal connections that speed proactive local engagement. Weekly protests turn out to provide the ideal setting for incubating electoral plans, as participants share knowledge about incumbents and potential candidates, discuss the strengths and weaknesses of organizational allies, and turn weak ties created through Facebook into strong personal bonds.

As a federal polity with multiple gerrymandered layers, the United States is maze of overlapping, oddly shaped jurisdictions that do not line up well with natural communities —and no one knows this better these days than the local activists trying to contact office holders or change electoral equations. “Pop up” groups have coalesced around the disparate geographic units that make up the elections system, from wards to townships to counties. In the greater Pittsburgh area alone, for instance, there are about three dozen such groups. This might seem a sign of disorganization or factionalism, but in practice it seems instead a reflection of their pragmatic focus on local elections. The need to contest “every seat, every election” is a new mantra among activists in red or purple communities, appalled by the range of elective offices they discover all around them for which Democrats stopped even fielding candidates over the last decade.

And they are making remarkable progress. As new activists expanded their knowledge of local politics with stunning speed in the tumultuous first half of 2017, they recruited and supported Democratic candidates for offices ranging from coroner to borough council member to state senator. At the Congressional district level, new umbrella groups—such as “PA 12 for Progress” and “PA 18 for Progress”—support and draw on the smaller groups. In turn, Pennsylvania Together, a state-wide coalition encompassing hundreds of new grassroots groups, holds periodic regional training sessions in different parts of the state and bi-weekly conference-call webinars in between.

Pennsylvania Together has identified more than 60 candidates who ran for local or municipal office in this state with new local groups’ support in November 2017. Most were first-time candidates; more than half were women; four out of five won. That last fact is all the more striking because the candidates were often running in places presumed to be so heavily Republican that Democrats hadn’t fielded campaigns there in recent memory. In Chester County, a large exurban and rural county west of Philadelphia, Democratic candidates swept row offices that Republicans had carried with an average 17-point margin of victory in 2015. School boards and township councils that had not had Democratic members in decades now do: sometimes, in the majority.

How did they do it? Relying organically on what social movement theorists call “relational organizing,” the newly active volunteers mobilized existing social networks to bring in newcomers and connect to expertise. They have also begun to work in alliance with organizations that have been at this far longer, including most prominently the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), who have opened to this new target audience their deep expertise in teaching the steps and skills that make collective action possible.

The fact that professional women from mid-life to early retirement years comprise the strong majority of new leaders and activists means that even those with no prior experience in political organizing have lifetimes of experience in working for change within existing systems. In contrast to some of the voices the media have embraced as national spokespersons of the “Resistance,” the actual grassroots are pervasively pragmatic. These are individuals who have honed their skills in the “slow boring of hard boards,” to use Max Weber’s definition of politics, over years of professional and community life—and are now bringing those skills to bear full-strength on local political action.

Democratic Party officials seem notably less sophisticated about how organizing works. Nancy Reynolds, the retired librarian, worked throughout the fall of 2017 with a tight network of women (their partnership forged on a chartered bus to the January 2017 Women’s March) to coordinate phone canvassing and door-knocking across Hampton Township. They elected three Democrats to a five-person township council that had been all-Republican as long as anyone could remember. As Reynolds tried to explain to a party strategist aggrieved that the party’s online calling tools went unused, “My friends won’t make calls for you. They’ll make calls for me.” In this exchange, as in many others we have witnessed, we’ve seen to what extent the ones needing education in political organizing are actually the nominal political professionals. The “amateurs” already get it.

In theory, the Democratic Party recognizes the importance of local relationships. The “Democratic Committee Member Handbook” distributed by PA Dems, for instance, suggests committeepersons should greet families moving in to their precinct and visit every Democrat in the precinct regularly, as well as before elections. But in recent years such steps have only rarely been carried out. Indeed, in many places, elective committeeperson slots remain empty year after year. Unlike those party officials who simply shrug and move on when confronted with such gaps, the new grassroots groups—in place after place—are setting out to reanimate, or create, the local party capacities they found missing.

The new umbrella groups with communications networks reaching all the way down to the local level make it easy for campaigns to connect with grassroots partners. Unsurprisingly, candidates are making eager use of these connections. In contrast, while some places local Democratic establishments have welcomed the new grassroots groups, others they have not. As one group leader in Pennsylvania responded on a questionnaire, “Local Dems are not very interested in us. Believe it or not.”

Revitalizing the Local Democratic Party

Although not all newly energized citizens identify as Democrats, as we’ve mentioned, most do—and all of them represent an opportunity for enlarging the party’s ranks. But what exactly is there for them to join?

Many Democratic Party insiders, political consultants, and national leaders seem strikingly uninterested in the evidence that a surge of hands-on, face-to-face organizing —not just “enthusiasm”—might have something to do with recent electoral victories, or could be relevant to future prospects. They still seem focused on monetizing popular energy and hoarding contact lists, treating volunteers as interchangeable labor for last-minute door knocking. Each of us has witnessed, or been told about, numerous conversations between party officials and grassroots leaders in which the officials trumpet new tools for digital “engagement” and then tune out entirely when grassroots groups describe their struggles to get even the most basic answers to simple logistical questions, including: when local party committees meet, how decisions are made, and who can participate in any ongoing way. It is as if the insiders and consultants see the interpersonal dimensions of political mobilization as a black box, about which nothing can be known or done.

This lack of curiosity from party insiders is mystifying, because organizations can do lots to help (or hinder) peer-to-peer bonds, as these women’s multiple victories have shown. Amway gets this. The National Rifle Association gets it. Academic sociology and political science recognize “relational organizing” and “social capital” as powerful drivers of political change. Yet Democratic Party professionals seem insistently unaware that structures facilitating sustained interpersonal engagement might matter for the short- and long-term success of their party and its candidates. In an era in which political consultants get big-ticket contracts to work with Big Data, as far as we can tell, the party is still not gathering even the most basic small data about local membership or the state or local party efforts that could nurture or leverage ongoing participation.

For example, they should be asking themselves: How many state party constitutions provide for ways of joining locally that can be scaled up beyond the finite number of elected committee slots? How many elected committeeperson seats are currently vacant? How many elected ward or township committees meet regularly? How many people attend? In the battleground state that is Pennsylvania—and in light of all the research confirming the importance of participatory mobilization—you might assume some party official is gathering and tracking such numbers, or at least worrying about how to start. As far as we know, you would be wrong.

Indeed the private citizens we know seem much more convinced than party leaders of the importance of local elective party positions. With remarkable regularity, new activists mention unbidden that one or more of their group members will be running for committeeperson in the coming election. The party would be well served by further membership options as well. Although in some places chartered Democratic clubs, women’s and youth groups, and “associate member” categories allow for expandable affiliation, in many others no such structures exist. Maintaining an artificial scarcity of membership slots—as happens when the elective committeeperson seats are the only option open—means that each new entrant into the party has to kick out someone already there. That’s no way to build a movement.

There are other obvious steps leaders of party and umbrella groups can take to maximize the clout and staying power of the new widespread local activism:

Provide basic access and proven tactics. New local groups need training to access the Democratic Party voter database and opportunities to share best practices on how to pace and integrate voter-registration drives, deep canvassing, and get-out-the-vote activities, along with information on legal rules and potential local partners.

Share off-the-shelf templates and low-cost joint access. For example, to the documents and legal and accounting expertise required for campaign finance law compliance. Umbrella groups at the regional and state levels are currently working on providing such resources. This is an area where potential efficiencies and economies of scale are clear.

Create channels for egos and ambitions. This great organizing energy and enthusiasm to run for elective office can also become a source of predictable tensions—with multiple Democrats now running, even for offices previously uncontested. The trick will be to make sure their individual networks re-coalesce to work on behalf of the victorious candidate once the primaries are over. Grassroots groups need to figure out norms (and bylaws) that allow them to navigate the primary cycle with a minimum of bruising and attrition.

Raise and spend money in innovative ways. Clearly, paid professional organizers could play some useful roles within the emerging system, in particular as liaisons between grassroots groups and electoral campaigns. In practice, some of that resource allocation may be happening already. Some small donors may have shifted away from giving money to the DNC and other national organizations in part because there are now so many locals running for office, and politically engaged private citizens are now more likely to meet such candidates personally. Regular citizens may have begun funding not just a 50-state strategy, nor even just a 435 congressional district strategy, but an “every seat, every election” strategy. National and state party leaders could see the value in such developments and work in cooperation with them—for example, by melding party money and local contributions to ensure that each district has embedded organizers along the lines of the 2008 Obama campaign. Even in apparently red districts, such arrangements would be money well spent, as it could help build ties across many election cycles.

An Unstoppable Transformation

At the current pace, it seems likely that the pop-up leaders and grassroots groups of 2017 will, by 2019, have repopulated the local layer of the Democratic Party in much of the country. National media misperceptions to the contrary, this will not look like a far-left reinvention of Tea Partiers or a continuation of Bernie 2016. It will look like retired librarians rolling their eyes at the present state of affairs, and then taking charge. And it will happen first and foremost in the suburbs, those middle-class, Middle-American spaces that grew up alongside a generation—the Baby Boomers—whose last act of generational transformation may just have arrived.

This change will come smoothly and cooperatively in some places and through conflict and displacement in others. The change will move farthest and fastest outside of the metropolitan cores where local Democratic Party patronage structures still persist. Purple suburbs, mid-size cities, big towns in red regions—these are the unexpected epicenters of the quake underway. The cumulative result will be local Democratic Party leadership across much of America that is slightly more progressive and much more female than it was, although not much more socio-economically diverse. Everywhere, the renovated party locals will be passionate about procedural democracy: determined to fight gerrymandering, regulate campaign activities and finance, and expand and guarantee voting rights for all.

For those wondering who is going to rebuild the foundations of U.S. democracy— assuming the national guardrails survive—the answer across much of the U.S. heartland seems clear. The foundation rebuilders in many communities across most states are newly mobilized and interconnected grassroots groups, led for the most part by Middle America’s mothers and grandmothers. They see the work to be done and are well into accomplishing it.

Read more about Donald Trump grassroots activism politics Resistance

Lara Putnam is Professor and Chair in the Department of History at the University of Pittsburgh. She is active in grassroots political organizing in southwest Pennsylvania.

Also by this author

Rust belt in transition.

Theda Skocpol is Victor S. Thomas Professor of Government and Sociology at Harvard University and the Director of the Scholars Strategy Network.

The Tea Party and the Resistance: No, They’re Not the Same

View comments.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Grassroot NGOs and Political Reform in Thailand: Democracy behind Civil Society

The Copenhagen Journal of Asian Studies

This article argues that behind the concept of civil society is a real opportunity for populist forces to drive democracy forward. In Thailand, the participatory role of non-governmental organisations, particularly at grassroots level, is very important. By advocating people's participation and empowerment, grassroots NGOs may be in a position to expand notions of democracy, from mere parliamentarism to genuine participatory democracy. In the Thai case, however, success will depend upon whether the grassroots non-governmental organisations (GNGOs) are able to establish a linkage between 'elite-urban' and 'rural-popular' elements in Thai civil society. The key question is whether these organisations are able to democratise Thai civil society and create an enhanced form of participatory democracy.

Related Papers

Barbara Orlandini

Naruemon Thabchumpon

Thai Politics, KPI Yearbook No 1, edited by Michael Nelson, Bangkok

Marco Bünte

Peter Yu-chi Wong

The authority of the network monarchy has been declining in Thailand since 1992. Despite a blooming literature on the Thai monarchy, no systematic study has emerged to explain the phenomenon. By process tracing, this dissertation aims to fill the gap by arguing that the declining monarchical authority in Thailand has undergone a three-stage development since 1992. The decline of the monarchical authority is treated as a historical process that ordinary Thais have been mobilised to challenge the despotic order. Both effects of historical developments and socio-economic changes of each stage contribute to the appearances of oppositions in the society to the monarchy. Therefore, the emergence of the 1997 constitution, rise of Thaksin Shinawatra and the Red-shirt Movements are perceived as the key for understanding the phenomenon. Thus, in this sense, with the fall of the monarchical authority in Thailand, the Thai democratisation has been advanced that Thais have had a wider political space for pursuing democracy.

Eli Elinoff

Naruemon Ju

Jaime Jimenez

Asian Review 2002

Tim Forsyth

Jakkrit Sangkhamanee

this essay focuses on the civil society organizations (CSOs) in Thailand and their involvement and influence toward political participation, especially the political events from 1932 to 2010.However the political crisis between 2013 and 2014 would still be mentioned shortly by insufficient academic references. Furthermore, the argument of this essay is CSOs in Thailand have been largely involving in and influencing the political participation and been successful someway according to some workable strategies.

RELATED PAPERS

Journal of Contemporary Asia

Theerapat Ungsuchaval (ธีรพัฒน์ อังศุชวาล)

Weera Wongsatjachock

Caroline Hughes

Environmental Movements and Politics of the Asian Anthropocene

Thannapat (Kan) Jarernpanit

Ganga Dahal

Ashok Swain

Journal of Political Ecology

Niti Pawakapan

Rapin Quinn

Kornchawan Namchaidee

Uthaiwan Kanchanakamol

Wahyudi Akmaliah

IDS bulletin

Asian Studies Review

bruce Missingham

The Asia Pacific Journal of Anthropology

Craig Johnson

International Journal of Asia Pacific Studies

Charles David Crumpton

Janjira Sombatpoonsiri

Mark R Thompson

Jan Servaes

South East Asia Research

The right to communicate in the midst of political violence: Media reform and social change in Thailand

Lisa Brooten

ASIAN ALTERNATIVES FOR A SUSTAINABLE …

Raymund Habaradas

Pacific Review

Kevin Hewison , Kengkij Kitirianglarp

Supatsak Pobsuk

Patthida Bunchavalit

Junya Yimprasert

Inter-asia Cultural Studies

Francis Kok Wah Loh

Frans Tarmedi

Gertrud Buchenrieder , Thomas Dufhues

Thongchai Winichakul ธงชัย วินิจจะกูล

Yanuar Sumarlan

Asian International Studies Review

Daungyewa Utarasint

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Beyond Intractability

The Hyper-Polarization Challenge to the Conflict Resolution Field: A Joint BI/CRQ Discussion BI and the Conflict Resolution Quarterly invite you to participate in an online exploration of what those with conflict and peacebuilding expertise can do to help defend liberal democracies and encourage them live up to their ideals.

Follow BI and the Hyper-Polarization Discussion on BI's New Substack Newsletter .

Hyper-Polarization, COVID, Racism, and the Constructive Conflict Initiative Read about (and contribute to) the  Constructive Conflict Initiative  and its associated Blog —our effort to assemble what we collectively know about how to move beyond our hyperpolarized politics and start solving society's problems. 

By Michelle Maiese

October 2003  

Leadership at the Grassroots Level

Leadership at the grassroots level represents the masses, those ordinary citizens who form the base of a society. In settings of protracted and violent conflict, life at this level is largely characterized by a survival mentality.[1] People struggle daily to find adequate food, water, shelter, and safety.

Grassroots leaders include people involved in local communities, members of indigenous nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) carrying out local relief projects, health officials, and refugee camp leaders.[2] These leaders understand the fear and suffering experienced by the people, but also have extensive knowledge of local politics, and know the local leaders of government and their adversaries.

In many cases, what goes on at the local level is simply a microcosm of the larger conflict. Lines of identity often cut through local communities, splitting them into hostile groups.[3] The population typically experiences the violence and trauma associated with war with great immediacy, and must live in close proximity and interdependency with those they regard as enemies.[4] While leaders at the higher levels are typically removed from these tensions, grassroots leaders witness the deep-rooted hatred every day.

Approaches to Peacebuilding

Grassroots leaders face different challenges from those confronted by elite and middle-range leaders. In part, this is because there are many people at the grassroots level. Leaders working at the local level may find it relatively easy to establish points of contact with the masses, but developing a comprehensive program that effectively reaches the general population is far more difficult. In addition, many people at this level are engaged in a daily struggle to meet their basic human needs , and may view conflict-resolution efforts as an "unaffordable luxury."[5]

Nevertheless, important peacebuilding strategies can be employed at the grassroots level. The bottom-up approach to peace features several approaches targeted to the general population. In fact, many transitions toward peace are driven largely by pressure for change coming from the grassroots level.[6] One example is the case of Somalia in the 1990s:

• The Somali approach began with local peace conferences, which brought together elders of various sub-clans in an effort to move toward peace agreements. The meetings typically involved the creation of a forum of elders, and lengthy oral deliberations.
• These conferences not only dealt with immediate issues, but also helped local leaders to take responsibility for inter-clan fighting and identified the rightful representatives of the clans' concerns.[7]
• Once an initial agreement was reached, the same process was repeated at a higher level with a broader set of clans.

In Somalia, this approach was necessary because the formal political infrastructure of the country had collapsed.[8] Relying instead on clan and sub-clan structures and mechanisms to deal with conflict helped Somalia to establish a framework for peace.

Promoting peacebuilding at the grassroots level might also be advanced through programmatic peace efforts. These efforts might be launched either before or after formal peace structures have been implemented.[9] In Mozambique, for example, the Christian Council of Mozambique (CCM) initiated a program that brought church representatives from all of the provinces together for a national seminar.[10] These representatives were then assigned the task of implementing local seminars, which discussed topics such as religious perspectives on war and peace, family involvement in conflict resolution, land reform, public health, human rights, and the impact of war on children. Seminars typically involved 30 to 50 participants, included pastors and lay people, and lasted for two weeks. Several of the seminars were held in refugee camps, and over the course of 16 months, more than 700 people participated.[11]

Conflict-resolution approaches can also be integrated into broader community and public-health programs for dealing with postwar trauma. Integration might include training in dealing with community conflict and violence, and workshops aimed at reducing prejudice . In many cases, such workshops are conducted as part of a country's health-delivery system, and draw on resource teams made up of conflict-resolution trainers, public-health officials, and psychiatrists.[12]

These approaches enable grassroots leaders to work at the community or village level on issues of peace and conflict resolution. Programs often work through existing networks, such as churches or health associations, and attempt to deal with the trauma brought about by war. This is not a matter of political accommodation among elites, but rather a matter of repairing the interdependent relationships in the daily lives of ordinary people. Action taken at the grassroots level is crucial to reducing a conflict's destructiveness.

[1] John Paul Lederach, Building Peace: Sustainable Reconciliation in Divided Societies . (Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace Press, 1997), 42.

[2] Lederach, 42.

[3] Lederach, 43.

[4] Lederach, 55.

[5] Lederach, 52.

[6] Lederach, 52.

[7i] Lederach, 53.

[8] Lederach, 52.

[9] Lederach, 53.

[10] Lederach, 54.

[11] Lederach, 54.

[12] Lederach, 54-55.

Use the following to cite this article: Maiese, Michelle. "Grassroots Actors." Beyond Intractability . Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Information Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: October 2003 < http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/grassroots >.

Additional Resources

The intractable conflict challenge.

Our inability to constructively handle intractable conflict is the most serious, and the most neglected, problem facing humanity. Solving today's tough problems depends upon finding better ways of dealing with these conflicts.   More...

Selected Recent BI Posts Including Hyper-Polarization Posts

• Crisis, Contradiction, Certainty, and Contempt -- Columbia Professor Peter Coleman, an expert on intractable conflict, reflects on the intractable conflict occurring on his own campus, suggesting "ways out" that would be better for everyone.
• Massively Parallel Peace and Democracy Building Links for the Week of April 28, 2024 -- New suggested readings from colleagues and the Burgesses.
• Attack the Problem, Not the People -- "Separate the people from the problem" might be the most often violated fundamental conflict resolution principle, even by people who know better. And it is hurting us.

Get the Newsletter Check Out Our Quick Start Guide

Educators Consider a low-cost BI-based custom text .

Constructive Conflict Initiative

Join Us in calling for a dramatic expansion of efforts to limit the destructiveness of intractable conflict.

Things You Can Do to Help Ideas

Practical things we can all do to limit the destructive conflicts threatening our future.

Conflict Frontiers

A free, open, online seminar exploring new approaches for addressing difficult and intractable conflicts. Major topic areas include:

Scale, Complexity, & Intractability

Massively Parallel Peacebuilding

Authoritarian Populism

Constructive Confrontation

Conflict Fundamentals

An look at to the fundamental building blocks of the peace and conflict field covering both “tractable” and intractable conflict.

Beyond Intractability / CRInfo Knowledge Base

Home / Browse | Essays | Search | About

BI in Context

Links to thought-provoking articles exploring the larger, societal dimension of intractability.

Colleague Activities

Information about interesting conflict and peacebuilding efforts.

Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Beyond Intractability or the Conflict Information Consortium.

Beyond Intractability 

Unless otherwise noted on individual pages, all content is... Copyright © 2003-2022 The Beyond Intractability Project c/o the Conflict Information Consortium All rights reserved. Content may not be reproduced without prior written permission.

Guidelines for Using Beyond Intractability resources.

Citing Beyond Intractability resources.

Photo Credits for Homepage, Sidebars, and Landing Pages

Contact Beyond Intractability    Privacy Policy The Beyond Intractability Knowledge Base Project  Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess , Co-Directors and Editors  c/o  Conflict Information Consortium Mailing Address: Beyond Intractability, #1188, 1601 29th St. Suite 1292, Boulder CO 80301, USA Contact Form

Powered by  Drupal

production_1