The Future of Civic Power How Humanists Can Reimagine Democracy
At this moment in history, we have a clear challenge and opportunity. There is the long-term challenge of educating for expansive civic engagement, and there is the immediate challenge of responding to growing attacks on the very structure of democracy and an increasing disillusionment with the fundamental practices of democracy itself.
On June 12, 2025 the Ash Center at Harvard Kennedy School released a policy brief, “The 2024 Presidential Election: The Broken Bond Between Youth and Democracy” written by Melina Geser-Stark, a research assistant at the Ash Center who has a degree in politics and international relations.
Geser-Stark begins her analysis with a surprising finding—in 2024 there was the highest level of youth support for a Republican presidential candidate since 2008, with Donald Trump receiving 10% more votes among 18-29 years old than in 2020. Geser-Stark found that this support does not reflect increasing conservatism among Gen Z voters but rather reflects “a fragmented relationship between youth and democracy—one that must be repaired if the system is to survive.” Her analysis is straightforward and its implications are compelling:
Young people increasingly feel disillusioned with a political system they perceive as ineffective and disconnected from their lives. As a result, many are turning toward populist and anti-democratic actors who offer a sense of agency and the promise of radical change. Focusing solely on ideology overlooks a deeper longing for influence, participation and the possibility of being part of something transformative.
At the core of this discontent is a failure of the basic values that propel and sustain democratic systems: “Democracy is not simply a set of procedures or institutions. At its core, it rests on a relational contract between citizen, vote, and government.”
It is the deliberate cultivation of such a ‘relational contract’ that was at the heart of Zohran Mamdani’s 2025 successful New York City mayoral primary campaign. His campaign was focused on deep listening to people of all ages, all geographical locations, and across the political spectrum. In their June 26, 2025 article in the New York Times, Emma G. Fitzsimmons and Nicholas Fandos stated that “Mr. Mamdani…tapped into a current of anxiety around New York City’s growing affordability crisis. His joyful campaign brought new voters into the fold…[who] embraced an economic platform that included…free bus service and child care to publicly owned grocery stores.” He created an economic platform that addressed widely shared economic concerns and did so in a way that embodied “a different kind of politics…a democracy where New Yorkers can see themselves and see their concerns and struggles reflected back.”
Mamdani himself named what was at the heart of his campaign and what is being embraced by growing numbers of other political candidates: “Together we have shown the power of the politics of the future, one of partnership and sincerity.” There is a key role that humanists can play in expanding such a ‘democracy of partnership and sincerity,’ a generative democracy that is grounded in core humanist values and ongoing and new humanist practices.
In many organizations we find a call to an expansive and generative democracy based on acknowledging forthrightly the dangers that we are facing and the risks that must be taken, as well as the profound satisfaction, meaning and joy of working together for an expansive socially just and environmentally regenerative common good. To achieve these goals, the issue is not just authoritarianism or democracy, but whether we have a competitive or a deliberative and generative democracy. We can have much more than competitive democracy—asserting our positions and winning the vote—but can express a generative democracy of genuinely working with and learning from others about how best to address economic, environmental and social problems, and how to empower diverse groups to be part of this ongoing process.
The Role of Generative Democracy in Both Resistance and Construction
I learned of the distinction between competitive and deliberative and generative democracy through the exploration of the nature of the culture and processes of democracy as described by the Hong Kong pro-democracy leader, Benny Tai. Although Tai uses the term ‘deliberative democracy’ rather than ‘generative democracy,’ the process of mutual engagement for a greater good is the same.
Benny Tai is a professor of law at Hong Kong University, and was one of the founders of the nonviolent civil disobedience campaign for full democracy, Occupy Central with Love and Peace. In an essay published in 2018, Tai shares the lessons learned in this movement and their implications for ongoing work for genuine democracy in Hong Kong and throughout the world. Tai states that “what is ‘blossoming now’ in Hong Kong, in this Post-Umbrella Era” is that people are rejecting ‘hierarchical social relationships’ and finding a form of community that values not just individualism, not just community, but free individuals within community. Tai states that the goal of Occupy Central is and was deliberative democracy, not simply competitive democracy. In a deliberative democracy, people “[make] decisions after a detailed and well-designed deliberative process in which they receive adequate and balanced information on the options and are facilitated to understand the underlying ideas and viewpoints of people holding different opinions.” At this time, Tai has been convicted of subversion and there is an active suppression of Hong Kong’s democratic movement by the Chinese government. It is an ongoing challenge to find how to support the resilient and innovative activism of the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong.
While the pathways to support the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong are not yet clear, we can continue to learn from their work and also foster the power of deliberative and generative democracy. The foundation for a thriving generative democracy is the cultivation of specific forms of belonging, cultures of reciprocal, accountable, collective efforts to address common threats, and support a thriving social good. As Stanley Deetz, professor of organizational studies and organizational communication, describes it in his analysis of generative democracy, at its core is a process in which difference and interdependence are honored and explored, and decisions are based in collaboration and reciprocity.
As we explore how to respond to the authoritarian threats in the United States, we can use the practices of generative democracy within our professions, civic organizations, educational institutions, and political organizations to explore where they are best equipped to protect the ecosystem, democracy, the rule of law and fundamental human rights. There are multiple levers of engagement to support an expansive and generative democracy and the key is to find where we each have specific roles that we can play in resonance with others.
In a comprehensive working paper published by the Harvard Kennedy School, “Pro-democracy Organizing against Autocracy in the United States: a Strategic Assessment and Recommendations,” the political scientists Erica Chenoweth and Zoe Marks laid out what can be done at a comprehensive level to contain the rise of authoritarianism in the United States and to lay the foundation for the restoration of a democracy that is open to ongoing expansion and self-critique. This work is grounded in their expertise in the study of nonviolent resistance and social movements throughout the world. They provide a careful analysis of what has been successful in the past in Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Finland, Poland, Chile, South Africa and in the United States.
This report proposes nonviolent resistance strategies and support systems that could be relevant for protecting local communities and subjugated groups, and for informing a broad-based prodemocracy struggle under a hypothetical authoritarian administration. . . .. An effective strategy will:
Build and maintain a large-scale, multiracial, cross-class, pro-democracy united front that continues to push for structural/institutional reforms and contest for power, even after authoritarianism has appeared to consolidate. The coalition should use ongoing local, county, state, and national elections as flashpoints by which to build a resilient and expansive pro-democracy movement, document election malfeasance, and promote antiauthoritarian platforms, reforms, and talking points for campaigns to take up at all levels of government.
Protect, hold, and build local and community power through alternative institutions to address urgent communal problems, protect minority rights and lives, reinforce an oppositional pro-democratic culture, develop leadership, and build capacity for collective mobilization when needed.
Build pressure to induce defections among those loyal to the autocrat or authoritarian alliance, including through widespread economic noncooperation and labor action.
Prevent, deter, and strengthen resilience to increased threats of state or paramilitary violence through strategic planning and organized and disciplined actions, including building a capacity to anticipate, induce, and exploit defections; broaden inclusive participation; document paramilitary networks; publicize abuses; and demand local accountability.
Chenoweth and Marks make three points that are essential for groups to consider as we shape our defenses of fundamental freedoms. First, the strategies are equally essential, yet they cannot all be done by single groups; it is important for organizations and communities to assess where they have existing strengths, and how those can be expanded to respond to immediate threats and lay the foundation for long-term gains. Second, one of the major challenges in such work is not only repression from autocratic forces, but struggles within groups working for change that lead to a debilitating loss of power rather than constructive critique that enhances our actions. Chenoweth and Marks describe these dangers and how we can engage with difference and ongoing critique in ways that are expansive and constructive. They are also clear about another major point: while the need for action is immediate, it will likely take years to contain the threats of authoritarianism now and return to a stable democratic system.
This analysis does not propose a quick fix for American democracy, nor an easy path to reform and renewal for its institutions. But maintaining a longer term mindset is key to building a resilient infrastructure for combatting authoritarianism in the US today and in the future. Over the past 122 years, the most robust and durable democratic transitions were brought about after nonviolent campaigns that lasted a decade or more. This is true of watershed pro-democratic reforms in American history, including the struggles to abolish slavery, to expand citizenship rights, to give women the right to vote, and to extend equal rights to Black Americans, among others.
The Values at Play in the Work of Generative Democracy
Within the world of political science there is a well-established analysis of what activates authoritarianism. This analysis is both challenging in what it discloses and profoundly evocative in what it fails to see.
First—what it discloses. Throughout the world there is a small part of the human population (roughly 25%) that remains authoritarian. Authoritarians value community based on hierarchy, order, and sameness, and respect leaders who are “simple, punitive and violent.” There is a larger subset of the population, roughly 50%, whose authoritarianism is episodic, not constitutive, evoked under conditions of extensive change and extreme fear.
Both forms are now on the rise throughout the world, and the verdict of one leading political scientist is grim. Karen Stenner argues that gains in civil rights, and increasing racial, cultural and religious diversity will inevitably produce authoritarianism. She goes so far as to conclude that the pace of social change must be curtailed and that democracy itself has to be limited in order to survive, and she asks us to forgo the “religion of democracy for the science of democracy.” (330)
While this political science is clear in its diagnosis of what activates the resurgence of authoritarianism, its findings are also fundamentally flawed and intrinsically limited—and here is our hope, here is our task.
There are two significant defects in the current research on authoritarianism. The first is intrinsic to the ways in which our basic political values are measured. Authoritarianism is measured, not by political beliefs, but by childrearing values that are then correlated with specific political positions. Before we proceed further, I ask you to join me in an experiment. What are four childrearing values that you think are most important? After you consider these, let us turn to the choices that are posed in the existing research.
These are values that are set in opposition to each other, and people are asked to choose one over another. As I describe these, see if they include your values. This is the first—utilized by Marc Hetherington and Jonathan Weiler.
- Respect for elders / Independence
- Obedience / Self reliance
- Good manners / Curiosity
- Well behaved / Considerate
This is the second [utilized by Karen Stenner in her research:
- Obeying one’s parents / Thinking for oneself
- Respecting elders / Following one’s conscience
- Following the rules / Exercising good judgment
- Being well-mannered / Being responsible for one’s own actions
- Being neat and clean / Being interested in how and why things happen
Do you notice anything missing in both sets of choices? Are there other values that you hold central?
I have asked this of audiences throughout the U.S. since the fall of 2016, and the answers are clear. What is missing? Kindness, cooperation, a commitment to justice and fairness, empathy, compassion, service to and with others, delight in helping people and in helping others grow. I asked my daughters to respond to these scales, and one daughter, Hannah, pointed out a key gapchonesty in admitting our own mistakes and a willingness to make amends and learn from them. My daughter Zoe pointed out another. When asked to choose between respect for elders and independence she replied, “Respect for elders! Without them I could not be independent.” Here is a fundamental flaw—not only are key values left out, but what is set in opposition? Values that actually sustain and evoke each other.
Let me be clear. The fundamental flaw is not in the correlation of childrearing values and political beliefs. The flaw is in the limited range of childrearing values that are offered by these political scientists for consideration. With these scales, the choice is community or emancipated individualism, obedience and belonging, or independence and creativity.
The second flaw in this research is that the data is not broken down by race. This is significant because we find in much of the work of people who are Indigenous, African American, and Latinx a very different view of social order. Here we find traditions in which the real choice is not individualism or belonging, but of forms of belonging, and how to responsibly use our individual gifts in service to a wider and larger social good. Furthermore, we find in such communities a clear departure from what many people think is the norm, that strong in-group empathy means strong out-group hostility. In fact, in their analysis of understandings of group identity among people who are LatinX and Black, Seeing Us in Them: Social Divisions and the Politics of Group Empathy, the political scientists Cigdem V. Sirin, Nicholas A. Valentino, Jose D. Villalobos found just the opposite to be true!
In their studies that found that while it is true that
whites who identify more strongly with their ingroup display lower levels of outgroup empathy…ingroup favoritism/outgroup discrimination. But for minorities, the relation is instead positive….Our results show that higher ingroup identification is indeed associated with higher levels of outgroup empathy among both blacks and Latinos. . .Minorities who identify strongly with their ingroup—and thus embrace their collective histories, memories and experiences—are much more likely than low ingroup identifiers to develop empathy for other marginalized groups. . . Group Empathy Theory ….shows that ingroup identification can facilitate, rather than hinder outgroup empathy.
They found that some white groups also experience empathy for outgroups: “intergroup empathy has the potential to be fostered among members of every race and ethnicity. Members of dominant racial /ethnic groups can be socialized to take the perspective of even those very unlike themselves and to become motivated to care about the suffering of others.” They also explore the ongoing research on the role of educators and of political leaders, in doing just this.
With Group Empathy we have a different form of belonging—not domination and control but respect, continual learning and growth. What might it take to expand such alternative forms of belonging? The theological educator Dr. Willie James Jennings examines this phenomenon in his book, After Whiteness: An Education in Belonging. He describes the construction of whiteness as a form of identity in which what is elevated as the ideal is “white self-sufficient masculinity, defined by possession, control and mastery.” This racial construct has justified the violent exploitation of colonialism and slavery in the past and is justifying the defense and reassertion of such dominance in the present. Jennings calls all of us to a radically different form of being and of community. Rather than the colonial imposition of control and disregard for the social, political, and economic wisdom of Indigenous peoples of Africa, the Americas and Australia, he invites us into the gift of nonknowing—of being genuinely open to learning from and with other peoples.
Jennings urges us to take up the task of naming the way colonialism failed to see the integrity of others, and then to move ourselves to accountable and resilient forms of learning with and working with other peoples. Once freed, oppressors can participate in a deeper reality of engagement with others, what Jennings calls entanglement. Entanglement is the “cultivation of a new sense of shared habitation,” no longer seeking mastery or possession, and instead, genuinely learning from and with others. Jennings states that at the core of this radical entanglement is the “glorious energy of not knowing,” the ability to genuinely listen and learn from others.
We also find in Indigenous Peoples a radically different view of the social contract, one of ongoing accountability for damage done, and rather than domination of the many by the few, an expansive form of community shaped by working with and learning from the wisdom of all. As we expand the practices of generative democracy, we can learn from the centuries-long practices of such forms of democracy by Indigenous peoples. In other books and essays I explore the work of contemporary Indigenous scholars and activists who are living out a democracy that is deep, inclusive, and creative. Vine Deloria Jr. (Standing Rock Sioux) for example, claimed that “forces of reconciliation and reparations do indeed exist,” and these forces “continually present us with the opportunity to get involved in the creation of a society more in tune with human needs and highly compatible with the best of Indian and non-Indian beliefs and practices.”
We can learn from Indigenous traditions about the attitudes and commitments that can bring us closer to a just social contract and the practice of generative democracy. We can choose to engage in democratic practices because of our grateful participation in particular communities and particular histories of connection, respect, self-critique, and virtuosity. What we find in many Indigenous communities now and in the past is a very different understanding of belonging that provides creative alternatives that are grounded in an awareness of deadly mistakes and sustained by practices of gratitude and responsibility.
It is clear what is at stake—we are nurturing processes of community belonging that are self-critical and generative rather than hierarchical, exclusive and violent. What we seek and what we embody at our best are beloved communities of generative interdependence. These are communities that live for justice, and say no to hatred, exclusion and violence.
Friends, colleagues, in taking up this work, we are not alone. There is a growing movement throughout the world of communities that are nurturing the delight of ongoing learning and experimentation, the gifts of an ethic of risk, of learning both from unexpected failures and successes, all grounded in the joy of connection with and gratitude for the complexity and diversity of the human world and of the natural world that sustains us.
Civic Learning and Democracy Engagement Coalition (CLDE)
There is rigorous long-term work that is being done to foster the practice of deliberative and generative democracy in pre-k-12 education, in higher education in the U.S. and internationally, and for all sectors of society. Colleges and universities throughout the United States are taking up the task of fundamentally reshaping civic learning in order to confront the threats to democracy worldwide. For example, in 2022 and 2023, The Karsh Institute at the University of Virginia and the Civic Learning and Democracy Engagement Coalition (CLDE Coalition) presented six forums on just this issue. The CLDE Coalition provides a succinct description of their goal, that of “Democracy Engagement:”
Engage students with democracy’s future in a diverse United States, in U.S. communities still struggling to reverse inherited disparities, and in a globally interdependent world where authoritarianism is on the rise.
On February 6-7, 2023 the forum hosted by the Karsh Institute and the CLDE Coalition was attended by around 233 academic leaders, faculty, staff, presidents and members of governing boards and focused on including all students in ‘high-impact civic learning pathways.’ The purpose of the conference was direct. The greatest threat now to the security of the United States is the decline of democracy. There was also a clear admission that one cause of the decline of democracy is that universities have failed to educate students on how to participate in democratic systems. There is a clear need to add catalytic forms of civic education to college education and to fundamentally transform all of higher education to teach the skills essential to constructive democratic engagement. Although the participants did not use the terms ‘deliberative or generative democracy,’ the practices and values are the same. The conference directly addressed the challenge of “civic and democratic learning for a polarized world” and explored how students could come together to explore the economic, social, environmental and political challenges that we face; the role of democratic institutions in responding to these threats, and the skill sets necessary for inclusive and expansive civic engagement.
To meet this goal of inclusive civic engagement, they concluded that there is a clear need for required civics courses that enable students to thoroughly understand the founding documents of the U.S. government and the fundamental processes of democratic governance. To take up the practice of generative democracy requires, however, far more than learning the basics of this history and forms of governance. At the core of generative democracy is the embrace of mutually empowering, catalytic community engagement, collective problem solving based on working with and learning from others.
The goals of the February 2023 conference were far-reaching, and in the fall of 2024, the results of that work were released in the report, Every Student, Every Degree: College Civic Learning for Today’s Students and Tomorrow’s Democracy, and were discussed in two conferences on September 4 and October 1. As of October 2024, 77 universities have made this central to all majors and for all students, and 14 state associations are exploring this for all of higher education, community colleges, colleges and universities.
At the core of this work is changing the norms of all education to include the skill sets central to generative democracy. This commitment to civic engagement and democratic processes includes working across disciplines to address social concerns, working in teams with diverse groups of students and community members to address social issues and empower local communities in ways that are socially just and environmentally regenerative. There are four components of “The CLDE Framework for College Civic Learning and Democracy Engagement:” Democratic Knowledge and Levers for Change, Bridge-Building and Problem-Solving Skills, Practical Experiences and Projects, Career-Related Civic and Ethical Learning.
The first component is fairly straightforward, “Democratic Knowledge and Levers for Change.” All students will take courses that explore “constitutionalism and the political systems that frame democratic governance, founding and freedom texts for the U.S. democratic republic.” In addition to this basic information, there are other key objects of study that show that the practice of the systems cannot be taken for granted. Students also explore “authoritarianism and other anti-democracy movements and historical and comparative knowledge of U.S. and global freedom movements.”
In addition to understanding democratic principles, students explore “civic inquiry and public good questions related to students’ career, and the levers for change in society and specific career fields.” A final element of this educational component has the potential to be fundamentally transformative: “student’s experience and views of democratic principles and practices.” This addresses head on what is a growing challenge among many people within the U.S.; the past and current practices of democracy do not directly acknowledge or address their needs.
The next three components provide direct involvement in generative democratic practices that do meet the needs of students and the communities to which they belong and with whom they are engaged. In general education courses and in career and technical studies, students develop “Bridge-Building and Problem-Solving Skills.” This is accomplished through “productive engagement with diverse views and experiences” and “problem solving with diverse partners.” In this form of guided problem solving, students develop the key skills of “ethical reasoning about alternative approaches to problems, communication skills: written, oral and intergroup dialogue, and critical inquiry and evidence-based reasoning.”
There is also a focused engagement with what is increasingly disturbing such collaborative problem solving with diverse partners, “digital data, and media literacy, including disinformation.” The result is the development of “purpose and agency grounded in a strong sense of identity.”
The third component, Practical Experience and Projects, gives students the opportunity to directly apply these skills in research and action projects. All students participate in “individual and group work on public good and justice questions.” This is done through “collaborative service learning projects in course, community-based problem solving with diverse partners, and research projects with and for community or government organizations.” This type of engagement is still sometimes called ‘service learning’ but is now more often named community engagement to acknowledge the equitable sharing of power and learning from and with the experience, insights, and skills of community partners.
For example, at Augsburg University, first-year students participate in the Engaging Minneapolis project in which they are involved in the maintenance of a Community Garden. This project has four goals: ‘provide space for the community to come and learn together; beautify the neighborhood, growing space for those without it; provide a healthy diet to the community.” Another example is the Creative Inquiry initiative at Lehigh University, a community mapping for environmental justice project where students work the community to identify pressing environmental concerns and ways of addressing those concerns.
The fourth component of the CLDE Framework, “Career-Related Civic and Ethical Learning,” brings these skills directly to students’ major field of study and future professional lives. Here students expand what they have learned and apply it to “civility, fairness, and collaborative problem solving in work contexts, career-related ethical principles and standards for practice, civic, ethical and fairness questions raised through practical problem solving, public policy and public good issues related to chosen or likely careers.” In all of these, there is at the core of their professional lives what is central to the political practices of generative democracy, “collaborative reflection—with mentors and peers – on civic, ethical and fairness issues related to careers.” What we find in this fundamental change in civics education is an immersion in the types of reasoning central to expansive civic engagement—an openness to critique, to new ideas, and the willingness to learn from failure and see even that as a gift, an opportunity to do more, and do better with others. This is a process of continual learning and preparing students for that life- long process. As Jay Perman, Chancellor, University System of Maryland stated,
Democracy is hard work. It’s supposed to be. It’s the work of continually remaking our nation. Our job at the USM is to make this hard work easier—to educate students for civic life, engage them in their communities, and secure our American democracy for generations to come.
Democracy is under attack and a catalytic form of generative democracy is on the rise. There are organizations throughout the world that are taking up this work, among them the Community-Based Global Learning Collaborative, Habits of Heard and Mind: How to Fortify Civic Culture and the initiatives led by Danielle Allen. In all of this work we find a creative embrace of core humanist values of compassion, reason, critical thinking, honest confrontation with mistakes, and ongoing growth and exploration for an expansive common good.
I am grateful to be part of this movement for a generative democracy of freedom, justice, creativity, compassion and wonder with all of you. May our work together continue to expand in all sectors of society, and draw on our collective memories, strengths, and forms of catalytic community.