How can movements effectively utilize international solidarity and global public opinion to support domestic protests against democratic backsliding toward authoritarianism?

There was a friend who told me once of a protest she’d joined—hands joined across oceans, the kind of thing that drums up attention, raises the principle of unity to the level of poetic theater. But the autocrats, predictably, had learned to look away. She talked about Rachel Corrie, dead under machinery, how quickly the world turned its gaze, how fast, after outrage, came forgetting. We spoke late into the night about how easily brutality slipped from abnormal into regular channels, becoming background noise. "Humans," she said, stirring her tea, "have such a remarkable talent for folding darkness neatly into everyday life."

Buckminster Fuller once spoke of a "new metaphysical initiative," something vast enough—universal enough—to stitch us together beyond anger or sympathy or even common interest. Something deeper, incandescent, spiritual even: a shared belief that human beings should be more expansively free, not just politically but spiritually, emotionally. I picture that initiative as points of brilliant intensity, unpredictable and recurring—the kind of activism that brings foreign eyes to bear on local injustice in a way that forces both oppressor and oppressed into reevaluation. To break the monolith of the audiovisual world, Jacques Ellul advised. To interrupt certainty, the way foreign bodies standing quietly before soldiers once unsettled power’s easy exertion.

But when the taboo is broken, what then? After Rachel Corrie died, her foreignness gave no more protective shield, moral outrage faded, became brittle. The bitter truth is that conventional tactics falter before regimes willing to defy the consensus of decency. International solidarity must become more than a momentary disruption; it must enter the bloodstream of the global imagination, becoming creative, adaptive, ideologically transformative. It has to touch that elusive thing—global consciousness, an idea we rarely grasp unless we sense imminent danger, imminent possibility.

In a world where domestic backsliding of democracy has become frighteningly mundane, this solidarity cannot afford to stop merely at protest. I imagine it woven through with clarity, precise messages threaded universally enough to hold meaning across borders—a shared language so immediate, so human, that it lands with startling urgency. I think about those millions who marched simultaneously in protest of war, holding that simple phrase—"Together we can stop this war"—above their heads. Such brutal clarity, such elegant simplicity.

Yet fatigue sets in when methods become rehearsed; Occupy, my friend remembered, became too easy to replicate, to commodify, too simple to suppress. Movements need constant reinvention, she argued—new tactics, unexpected acts of art, theater, and performance to evade the slow grind of official indifference. But can spectacle alone really change things? Something deeper than spectacle is needed; something that can infiltrate the consciousness of global media, creating a collective unease powerful enough to unsettle regimes that rely perversely on our quiet complicity.

Digital communication offers immediate connection, intimacy even. But intimacy without street-level action soon feels false, my friend had learned from watching revolutions fail, movements collapse. She mourned the internet’s promise turned sideways, worried about digital idleness, about tapping "like" and scrolling down.

We spoke about establishing footholds—smaller communities, scattered, local autonomous zones where dissidents are organized enough to make solidarity actions meaningful and coherent. Spaces that extend hands across borders while remaining individually resilient, creative enough to reproduce themselves in myriad variations—their own private worlds, yet open enough to blow apart imposed nationalist narratives. And a friend wrote to me from across an ocean, telling how protesters make vivid the contradictions of global powers—to shame hypocrisy publicly, openly, to demonstrate how nations loudly proclaiming democracy elsewhere stifle it at home. Such transparency splinters official narratives, illuminating moral failure plain enough for everyone to see—even those who resist looking.

My friend spoke of spiritual insurrections—how oppressive regimes don’t only steal elections or silence critics, but rob us of stories, of meaning. Can solidarity on global scales restore something of what’s taken? She hoped activists could become the bearers of a fierce counternarrative—the shared truth of our common humanity, fragile, grand, never quite lost.

And ultimately, protest alone cannot survive; there must be a bridging from activism to power. Movements must ask not just how to resist, but how to govern. Hybrid structures—parties born from protest, crossing from public squares to policy-making chambers, blurring rigid lines between demonstration and legislation. What would that mean? Grassroots infused into governance? Perhaps something worth trying—a different kind of politics, local yet global, intimate yet expansive.

My friend wrote down the honest rules activists follow: "Never broadcast inaccurate news, never conceal a defeat, never exaggerate a victory." I transcribed these carefully—not only should they guide communicative honesty, but are touchstones, simple prescriptions against the human propensity toward convenient deception.

And in those final hours, near morning, we pondered this possibility: What if international solidarity wasn’t merely tactical, or moral, or intellectual, but actually spiritual—a reclaiming of complex inner freedom, something that pierces through the totalitarian impulse of redefinition, normalization, forgetting? Something transformative—capable of shattering the barriers of limitation, compelling us toward a deeper realization of our collective stakes, persuading us finally, relentlessly, toward a shared imperative of action.

The sky began to lighten outside the window, ordinary, relentless, pink-clouded. "Maybe," she sighed, folding her notebook closed, "effective resistance doesn’t just disrupt authority. Maybe it reinvents how we see each other—forces us toward love, solidarity, curiosity in action. Perhaps what changes regimes ultimately isn’t outrage, but our own decisive refusal to accept suffering as inevitable."

• • •

One historical case study providing a valuable context for understanding the potential and complexity of international solidarity in protest movements is the mobilization that occurred in Grenada from 1979 to 1983. The Grenadian Revolution began with the swift and coordinated action of a relatively small opposition group, the New Jewel Movement (NJM), which rapidly took control of military barracks and media outlets, rallying the population into civil demonstrations and quickly establishing the People's Revolutionary Government (PRG). Its leader, Maurice Bishop, articulated universal ideals such as "work, food, shelter, and a bright future for our children," appealing across national and international lines. Despite the revolution's small geographic scale, its ideological resonance connected it to larger postcolonial revolutionary waves erupting around the globe during the late 1970s, sharing powerful similarities with parallel movements in Iran and Nicaragua. Each of these movements capitalized on a political "window" created by post-Vietnam reluctance on the part of the United States to intervene militarily. Nonetheless, the Grenadian Revolution highlighted the vulnerabilities that arise from internal divisions, eventually leading to tragedy in the murder of Bishop and key allies amid a violent internal power struggle. Its collapse underscores the complexity of achieving sustained revolutionary change, especially under the threat of external interventions from great powers. Despite its failure, Grenada's political upheaval illustrates how international solidarity can amplify ideological resonance and provoke geopolitical attention, but it also demonstrates the essential need for coherent strategies that address internal as well as external vulnerabilities.