Sustaining Democracy From the Ground Up: Lessons From Activists Working Under Pressure

How do movements keep communities engaged when civic space is closing? What strategies work when formal democratic processes have failed or never existed? In early February 2026, Partnerships for Integrity (P4I) convened democracy activists from Myanmar, Palestine, and Serbia to explore these questions together.

Democracy does not erode uniformly, and it does not rebuild through a single playbook. From military dictatorships to occupation to electoral autocracy, activists worldwide face distinct challenges – yet they're often solving remarkably similar problems. P4I organized this closed-door exchange because learning happens best when practitioners share not just their successes, but their failures, pivots, and daily realities of working under pressure.

Youth Engagement When the Odds Are Against You

In Palestine, civil society organizations like Sharek Youth Forum have spent two decades navigating a complex landscape: no elections since 2006, restriction of movement under Israeli occupation, and the constant threat of violence from settlers and military forces. Their response has centered on creating parallel structures for democratic practice. With over 60 local youth councils established across villages and towns, young Palestinians gain hands-on experience with governance, decision-making, and civic leadership – even as formal political processes remain frozen.

"We focus on decentralization and enabling people in different governorates to be able to perform full programs by themselves," Sarah Anbar from Sharek explained. When Israeli settlers established an outpost near Sharek's Youth Village - a safe space for young people built in 2010 - the organization adapted by not publicizing activities in advance, coordinating with international partners for visibility and protection, and building networks across isolated communities so work could continue even when movement was restricted.

This resonated deeply with Myanmar participants. One activist noted that young people in Myanmar face a stark choice: leave the country, join armed resistance in conflict zones, or risk arrest for even small community gatherings. "Most of the young people are going abroad. In some villages, only women and children are left," she observed. "We're losing human resources. Sometimes we can't connect with each other easily.

"The question of whether to stay or leave surfaces differently across contexts. In Palestine, Sarah noted, leaving is "actually a privilege" most cannot access due to visa restrictions and economic constraints. "The resilience that we have is staying here, making things better here." But the underlying challenge is universal: how do you sustain a movement when your most active members are scattered, surveilled, or simply exhausted?

In Sri Lanka and Nepal, youth organizations have similarly focused on building inclusive movements that can weather political turbulence. These efforts –  from civic education programs to youth-led advocacy campaigns – demonstrate why investing in young people's democratic engagement matters: they become the institutional memory, the innovation engine, and often the moral force that keeps movements alive across generations.

When Democracy Declines: Documentation, Adaptation, Transparency

Serbia's experience illustrates how quickly democratic backsliding can accelerate – and how civil society must evolve in response. Ivan Ðuric from the Center for Research, Transparency and Accountability (CRTA) described his organization's journey from institution-building in the early 2000s to becoming a leading independent election observer as Serbia slipped into what many now call electoral autocracy.

Everything changed in late 2024 when a renovated train station collapsed, killing 16 people. Student-led protests erupted on an unprecedented scale. "All universities in Serbia, all faculties, decided to go on blockade," Ivan recounted. The movement was decentralized, leaderless, and mobilized people who had never protested before. It started as anti-corruption and evolved into a pro-democracy uprising.

CRTA had to adapt rapidly. They deployed drones to document protest sizes and counter government propaganda showing empty streets. They created daily newsletters tracking hundreds of gatherings nationwide – joining WhatsApp groups and Facebook pages to map a movement that was too diffuse for traditional monitoring. When government pressure threatened their funding and police raided their offices, they launched their first crowdfunding campaign. "We managed to get support from the citizens – public support and financial support at the same time," Ivan said. "That provided us with legitimacy.

"The Serbian example highlights a pattern visible across contexts: when governments tighten control, documentation becomes resistance. Whether it's CRTA's election observation, Sharek's reports on settler violence, or Myanmar activists recording military abuses, creating an independent record of what's happening serves multiple purposes. It counters propaganda. It provides evidence for international advocacy. It validates lived experiences. And it creates institutional memory for when political openings eventually come.

Common Threads: What Works Under Pressure

While each context demands specific strategies, several themes emerged across the exchange:

Decentralization as survival strategy. When central coordination becomes too risky or impossible due to restricted movement, successful organizations shift decision-making and resources to local levels. This isn't just about security – it builds leadership capacity and ensures work continues even when key individuals are arrested, exiled, or otherwise removed.

Creating democratic spaces when formal politics fails. Youth councils, student assemblies, community forums – these parallel structures let people practice democracy even when national institutions are closed, captured, or dysfunctional. They serve as training grounds and keep democratic culture alive during authoritarian periods.

Building legitimacy through transparency. Organizations working under pressure need both citizen trust and international support. Data-driven advocacy, public reporting, and financial transparency – like CRTA's crowdfunding or Sharek's documentation – build credibility that can provide protection when governments attack.

Partnership over confrontation, where possible. While maintaining independence, some organizations strategically engage with authorities to create space for their work. This doesn't mean co-optation; it means choosing battles carefully and building relationships that can provide some buffer against repression.

Adaptation over perfection. Every speaker described having to pivot quickly – sometimes within days – as circumstances changed. The ability to let go of plans, try new approaches, and learn from failure may be the most critical capacity for organizations working in unstable environments.

Solidarity as sustenance. Perhaps the most consistent theme was how isolation compounds the challenge of this work. Knowing others face similar dilemmas – even in very different contexts – provides both practical ideas and emotional resilience.

Why These Connections Matter

Democracy promotion often focuses on high-level policy reforms, election mechanics, and institutional design. But sustainable democratic culture is built from the ground up by organizations that keep civic engagement alive when formal structures fail, create spaces for participation when movement is restricted, document abuses when media is captured, and adapt strategies faster than authorities can shut them down.

Exchanges like this one matter because the people doing this work rarely have time to step back and learn from each other. They're responding to crises, navigating threats, and improvising solutions in real time. Creating space for practitioners to share experiences – not as experts lecturing, but as peers grappling with similar questions – generates insights that no amount of academic research or consultant reports can replicate.

As one Myanmar participant reflected: "I learned a lot about how we can build our resilience. The situation is different, but young people and women are oppressed in our country as well. This helps us think about how we can make our community more resilient in our democratic process."

Democracy isn't just preserved by those working in favorable conditions. Often, it's sustained by those working in the worst.

This exchange was organized as a closed-door event to protect participant safety. P4I facilitates peer learning among democracy practitioners working in challenging contexts worldwide. Approximately 25 Myanmar activists participated alongside speakers from Palestine and Serbia.