Excursion to the bizarre world of Trump: He's a monster but he's our monster

In one study of voter perception of the personality traits of presidential candidates--Trump and Biden--Democrats saw some narcissism and Machiavellian traits in Biden, but much greater levels of both in Trump, along with a clear predominance of sadism in Trump, none of that in Biden. Republicans, on the other hand, reported the narcissism and Machiavellian traits as about equal in both and had little concern over the question of sadism (Prusik, 2025). Other studies[1] have also looked at various voter emotions, including some that correlated men with weak self-image attracted to aggressive, dominating, authoritarian candidates, identifying Trump as such.

Indeed, sadism seems to be political theater[2] to Trump, showing his base that he is indeed their retribution, with tendencies toward both ethnic cleansing (e.g., move as many Hispanics as possible out of the US, utilizing false labeling of them as violent criminals) and genocide (support for the IDF slaughtering Gazan civilians). Firing or demoting most high-ranking women in the military seemed to be red meat to his MAGA base, possibly many of whom seemed to be resentful that a big strong man isn't necessarily the best leadership of a highly technical, complex organization tasked with keeping the US secure. That simplistic identification--I'm big and strong and I should have been promoted to lead when I was in the army--could help explain Trump's appeal and the positive feedback loop of support for increasingly brutal and unfair actions by Trump and by his handpicked hatchet actors such as Pete Hegseth (the one firing women from commands in the Pentagon and even ordering DoD libraries stripped of what he determines to be DEI content).

References

Prusik, M. (2025). Dark tetrad traits in politicians and voter behavior: Joe Biden and Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election. Journal of Research in Personality, 115, N.PAG. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.pdx.edu/10.1016/j.jrp.2024.104568

---

[1] https://www.psypost.org/the-psychological-puzzle-of-donald-trump-eye-opening-findings-from-20-studies/

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/feb/06/trump-sadism-judith-butler

Excursion to the bizarre world of Trump: It's all out of his depth

Donald Trump may be a shallow person (e.g., clearly obsessed with gold and glitz, naming everything after himself, pouts and perennially claims to be the victim, jokes about having sex with his daughter), but nowhere is he less able to make coherent conversation or decent decisions than in international politics, according to University of Limerick political scientist Scott Fitzsimmons (2022), in his examination of Trump's personality as it affected his processes or lack of processes in navigating international relations, agreements, and foreign policy decisions. 

Fitzsimmons parsed Trump's simplistic refusal to participate in trade agreements (pulling the US out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership), environmental stewardship (ending US participation in the Paris Accords), and nuclear weapons agreements both new and long-standing (no other US president blew up so many highly effective constraints on possession, proliferation, and prevention of nuclear war and nuclear arsenals, including many tough and effective deals that included Russia and including the complex and highly effective Iran nuclear deal). Fitzsimmons concluded: 

"Although Donald Trump’s foreign policy behavior is often characterized as erratic and unpredictable, he was remarkably consistent in his hostility toward international agreements. The president withdrew or threatened to withdraw the United States from several agreements and consistently characterized agreements as ‘horrible deals’ that ‘cheat’ his country" (p. 40).

Others have noted that his pattern seems to be that no deal ever made by any US president other than Trump deserved to continue to exist. Trump has been using the stick of tariffs to not only punish other countries, showing his overreliance on simplistic single tools rather than any actual ability to negotiate complex win-win outcomes; indeed, his sole tool of zero-sum approaches, absolutely adversarial and endlessly seeking dominance, has reached its zenith in some ways as the European Union and NATO seemingly capitulated to every one of Trump's whims, likely with the hope of outlasting Trump until the US can regain its senses and stability. 

While boasting relentlessly about his brilliance at deal-making, he first unraveled the Iran deal that took many countries years to finesse into existence, and then, out of some grandiose need to use huge explosive weapons, just bombed Iran's most protected uranium enrichment facilities. His childlike need to bomb a nation that was not capable at that point of building even one nuclear weapon was underscored by his sudden thanks to Iran for letting him know that they would strike a US base in the Middle East in response, and to actually say that he gave them permission to do that military strike. Trump's instant rage at anyone questioning him in any way may be preventing mainstream media from pondering what Trump and the Republicans might do or say if a Democratic president had given permission to another nation to blast a US military base.

References

Fitzsimmons, S. (2022). Personality and adherence to international agreements: The case of President Donald Trump. International Relations, 36(1), 40–60. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.pdx.edu/10.1177/0047117820965656

Excursion to the bizarre world of Trump: I'm Boss of everyone!

The first term ascendancy of Trump to power was accompanied by his overwhelming self-confidence, bragging about his power (e.g., claiming that Article 2 of the Constitution lets him do whatever he wants), and behavior described in the journal International Affairs as "possessing the maturity of a petulant child rather than a man in his seventies" (Dezner, 2020, p. 384). This immaturity and impulse-control failure, along with his childlike refusal to read normal presidential reading, such as the daily intelligence briefing, meant that his accomplishments in office in his first term were predictably few, mostly enabled by then-Senate leader Mitch McConnell, who drove through the tax cuts largely benefitting the über-rich and the stacking of the US Supreme Court.

That court gave Trump virtual immunity from federal prosecution no matter what he did, as long as it was done during his presidency. In addition, during the Biden years a highly detailed plan was developed for the takedown of the so-called deep state (the non-partisan guard rails structurally built into the US federal government that survived all elections and kept the government running), Project 2025. This has enabled the most impetuous Trump behavior, especially his raging revenge impulses toward any and all critics and those who have tried to hold him to account at any point.

Indeed, this sense of omnipotence is so utterly infused in Trump's thinking that he will make absurd commands to any and everyone, telling Harvard University what they can teach, even telling the head of the Federal Aviation Authority that all air traffic controllers must come from MIT because they all must be "geniuses[1]."

References: 

Drezner, D. W. (2020). Immature leadership: Donald Trump and the American presidency. International Affairs, 96(2), 383–400. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.pdx.edu/10.1093/ia/iiaa009

---

[1] https://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/new-email-reveals-trump-s-aggressive-new-claim-of-executive-power-tpm-233841733963

Excursion to the bizarre world of Trump: Tossed off Twitter, back on X

Before Elon Musk purchased Twitter and renamed it X, Donald Trump posted there incessantly, frequently to bully, harass, insult, name-call, demean, and harm his enemies--and he seemed to count anyone who may have failed to endorse all his claims and ideas as his dire threat enemy. Twitter blocked him, ending his account because of his bullying and provable lies. 

Features of cyberbullying include the targeted person's knowledge of both the permanence of posts and that the posts can be shared (Bingaman & Caplan, 2023). Thus, even if deep emotional harm is not the immediate intent of the sender, it operates as a harm to various degrees on its targets. For cyberbullies, that is either the endgame goal or an additional benefit, but for those who engage in this sort of cyber-behavior over time, it indicates a knowledge and even satisfaction from the targeted person's pain.

While it is true that cyberbullying as generally studied by psychological researchers is focused on adolescent bullies and adolescent targets, it is telling that Trump fits right in, with the possible research protocol anomaly that he seems to have so many transitory targets that his quantitative spread shows insufficient repetitive attacks on one target to classify him as an official cyberbully (Bingaman & Caplan, 2023). Unofficially and in real world analysis, his cyberbullying is unprecedented in many respects. Certainly no US president has ever communicated in such a fashion.

References

Bingaman, J., & Caplan, S. E. (2023). Cyberbully-in-chief: exploring Donald Trump’s aggressive communication behavior on Twitter. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 31(4), 342–353. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.pdx.edu/10.1080/15456870.2022.2047683

Excursion to the bizarre world of Trump: In the Twilight Zone

Is Trump in mental decline? How else can his performances during the 2024 campaign in particular be interpreted? For instance, at a campaign rally, he stood on stage for almost 40 minutes, saying nothing, just swaying during campaign music. And his interviews seemed to tell the same story. 

Clinical psychologist Dr. Ben Michaelis told[1] PBS interviewer Amna Nawaz describes his analysis of Trump's speaking style over the years as decreasing in complexity, but more important to his thought patterns, he's becoming less linear, more tangential, and even into circumstantiality, which Michaelis describes as "losing the thread entirely."

Michaelis is clear that neither he nor anyone else can make a clinical diagnosis of dementia without face-to-face analysis, but he points to many suggestive signs of it, buttressed to some measure by the dementia suffered by Trump's father, Fred Trump. Nothing is definitive, yet the bizarre behaviors are at the least a legitimate concern. 

---

[1] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/trumps-rambling-speeches-raise-questions-about-mental-decline

Stop saying "Trust me", "Calm down," and "To be honest"

Some common expressions may help smooth disagreements and some may frequently introduce the opposite effect. 

When someone is agitated, the best way to make them escalate is to tell them, "Calm down." It usually seems to be received as an attempt to control without any knowledge of the reason the other is agitated. It can exacerbate a somewhat dysregulated state of mind in the person who is disrupted and trigger the amygdala hijack, that is, a loss of a degree of the reasoning, logical, executive functioning pre-frontal cortex. 

Another common expression that can backfire is "To be honest." The other person may hear that as, "I'm only honest at times, and this is one of those times," hardly helping to build trust.

Which brings us to another ill-advised expression, "Trust me." It may be received as a command to have faith based on little or no data offered. People frequently like to come to a conclusion about who to trust on their own, not on being told to do so.

How does this fit into an analysis of principled negotiation? 

Researchers into the methods of negotiation used by food producers and their retail customers show that trust improves the outcomes of those negotiations, tending to produce more win-win results (Rahmoune, Alsagaf, Abdeltawab, Azhari & Hofaidhllaoui, 2023). This may tend to also result in a positive feedback loop: more win-win outcomes produce more trust which produces more win-win results, and so forth.

Small edits to some of the expressions can reduce or eliminate the backfire. For instance, "Please, in this regard, trust me," or, "To be real," or "To be frank," can substitute with better effect for the simple "Trust me," or, "To be honest." 

"Calm down" needs much more than a small revision. It needs a deëscalation approach, which starts with active listening and can eventually produce the calm being sought, not demanded.

Reference

Rahmoune, M., Alsagaf, M., Abdeltawab, A. M., Azhari, A., & Hofaidhllaoui, M. (2023). Influence of Benevolence and Credibility on Conduct of Integrative Negotiation Behaviours. Marketing & Management of Innovations / Marketing ì Menedžment Ìnnovacìj, 14(1), 213–223. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.pdx.edu/10.21272/mmi.2023.1-18

Supermodels and saving the world

There are many paths to learning negotiation; the Trumpian adversarial model is a zero-sum, high conflict, no ethics, high cost, positional model, also sometimes referred to as transactional or distributive. The principled negotiation model is based on finding a fair outcome, wise decision based on serving the interests of the parties, not the original stated positions. It lends itself to collaboration toward an outcome of mutual gain.

Turns out that the principled negotiation model, sometimes referred to as integrative, tends to lead to a transformative process, that is, it often transforms a destructive conflict into a productive, constructive conflict. 

One might expect, then, for training done with students entering a Model UN simulation experience, they would be taught the different styles and be informed that using principled negotiation is more often the method used in successful negotiated outcomes toward, for example, peace, international agreements, global humanitarian processes, planetary environmental protection, and more.

Researchers have found, however, that, in general, students in Model UN simulations are not generally taught much about how to negotiate, but rather what the formal structures of the UN are and how UN business is conducted (O’Dell, Scott, Nealon & Franzino, 2024). 

Is it any wonder that it is so tough to create enforceable international treaties to protect people and the planet? Are there examples of such agreements that are in existence? 

I would point to the Montreal Protocol:[1]

"The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer is the landmark multilateral environmental agreement that regulates the production and consumption of nearly 100 man-made chemicals referred to as ozone depleting substances (ODS). When released into the atmosphere, those chemicals damage the stratospheric ozone layer, Earth’s protective shield that protects humans and the environment from harmful levels of ultraviolet radiation from the sun. Adopted on 16 September 1987, the Protocol is to date one of the rare treaties to achieve universal ratification."

Enforceable? How? Some country refuses to give up manufacturing ODS and the UN conducts a military campaign to force compliance? Shoots the soldiers of the country? Assassinates the leaders?

Nope. It's all economic sticks and carrots, with mutually beneficial outcomes for literally every country on Earth. I am not privy to the precise negotiation methods, but for the US the diplomats first under George H.W. Bush and then under Clinton operated in the interests of the US but apparently did not regard also serving the interests of other countries as a bad thing or a dealbreaker.

Getting to yes for each and every country on Earth is possible. Peace is possible. Human rights are possible. 

---

[1] https://www.unep.org/ozonaction/who-we-are/about-montreal-protocol

References

O’Dell, R. K. M., Scott, A. B., Nealon, M. J., & Franzino, B. N. (2024). Training for the United Nations in the Twenty-First Century; Professionalism Training on Leadership, Negotiation, and Gender for Model United Nations Simulations. International Studies Perspectives, 25(2), 246–264. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.pdx.edu/10.1093/isp/ekad011

My foe my friend: Skilling up labor negotiators

The basics of principled negotiation have been taught for many decades, with the first little edition of Getting to Yes published in 1981, yet as any observer of labor-management negotiations can easily conclude, those successful approaches are frequently--even typically--missing from the conduct of collective bargaining, which is often just practiced as straightforward adversarial processes.

Research into that phenomenon includes the finding that: 

"union negotiators are cautious about integrative negotiation, which could be due to a lack of belief in interested-based negotiation per se, as well as the fear of being taken advantage of by the management (adversarial relationship) or concern about how this negotiation approach might be perceived by constituents" (Mann, Warsitzka, Hüffmeier & Trötschel, 2024, p. 445).

The barriers to better practice, then, might involve more than cursory exposure to principled negotiation for those who engage in labor-management negotiations; rank and file should learn the basics and be exposed to both empirical findings of improved outcomes as well as a few salient case narratives.

Integrating the knowledge of the empirical research into relative success of nonviolent vs violent uprisings has taken years, but increasingly activists at more mass levels are aware. Presumably, the same could happen with rank and file, reducing the anxiety labor negotiators might have about the perceptions held by union members. When that knowledge become generalized, some less destructive and more transformative outcomes might be more common.

References

Mann, M., Warsitzka, M., Hüffmeier, J., & Trötschel, R. (2024). United we stand: a principle-based negotiation training for collective bargaining. International Journal of Conflict Management (Emerald), 35(2), 427–452. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.pdx.edu/10.1108/IJCMA-05-2023-0088

Now...or later?

When there are identity issues at play in conflict, and when an expressed view is really hard to handle, it is very legitimate, wise, even, to request a break. Re-centering, re-casting your compassionate curiosity in an environment of fear and anxiety, is tough. 

It is also critical to take the shortest break possible, the most brief time when you can reasonably process what is transpiring in a way that you can re-enter the conflict conversation with good balance. Asking for 10 minutes is right there for you; asking for 10 hours, 10 days, or more is not necessarily a healthy or helpful request (let alone demand). 

Gathering your sense of caring for all--including yourself--and then resuming dialog across difference is adaptive and can avoid a jumbled trainwreck of ineffective reactions to challenging information, ideas, assertions, or conclusions.

Pro-life: Seriously?

Ah, those pro-lifers. 

Walking, talking, shooting oxymorons.

You can tell the pro-life extremists. They're the ones who want their enemies--the women and men who support a woman's sovereignty over her own body--dead by any means at their command.

Mike Lee, the brilliant Republican US Senator from Utah, went on Elon Musk's social media platform, X, and posted about the fatal shooting of Democratic politicians in Minnesota over the weekend, that, “This is what happens When Marxists don’t get their way.”

Allegedly, the shooter in Minnesota left a notebook that included some of his "reasoning," and also a list of future targets of his, 100 percent of whom were Democrats if they were elected officials.

Mike Lee, explain how this relates in any way to Marxists (sorry, Mike, nobody likes the Marxists, so just cut it out), to Democrats, to anyone except Trump-supporting Republican anti-abortion zealots like the shooter.

Yes, there are plenty of abortion opponents who do not include murdering anyone on a different side of that question as an enemy who qualifies for assassination. Swell. Is the bar really that low in our Trump era?

I am on a peace team. We do some accompaniment work occasionally. We've helped escort for Planned Parenthood. They had folks on the shooter's list too. It has never computed for me. Kill in the name of being pro-life?

Then again, there are many other threats to life that "pro-lifers" frequently either ignore or outright support the life-threatening side. I'm thinking about: 

·       Radioactive material, all of which causes cancer, as well as mutagenic and teratogenic harm. This applies to the nuclear material in power plants, bombs, and waste.

·       Petrofarming with biocides that cause cancer.

·       Big Oil, which causes and is accelerating climate chaos, taking more and more lives every year.

·       Assault weapons.

·       War.

Of course there are many more such anti-life threats that many "pro-life" people support. Am I being a radical idealist here, or just asking us to try to hold what the late Jesuit priest, Fr. Daniel Berrigan named a "seamless philosophy" about it all?

Dan was pro-life. He opposed abortion, war, industrial practices that cause great harm, and he repeatedly went to prison for his lack of hypocrisy. His late brother Phil, a Josephite priest and then a radical anti-racism, antiwar nonviolent resister, also held a set of values that were for life without exception, and went to prison even more than his little brother Dan.

Few can live lives of complete adherence to values and principles that do not effectively contradict each other. It is basic decency, however, to at least attempt to practice our places in the world that are not ethically or morally mutually exclusive, to the best of our abilities. 

I'm waiting for our "leaders" begin demonstrating such golden rule lives. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you is one version of the Golden Rule. He who has the gold rules is, of course, the opposite other golden rule. 

Back in the day, zealots would preach that you need to follow their moral practices or go to hell. I hope we've begun to evolve to teach our children that doing right by everyone, practicing nonviolent conflict transformation, is its own reward, right here, right now.

How to transform autocracy to democracy: Learn the inside game/outside game strategy

When I consider the interplay between nonviolent civil resistance and a negotiated end to a most foul regime, I think about several luminaries and their wisdom. 

First, Dr. King, who wrote in his canonical Letter from Birmingham jail: 

"You may well ask, "Why direct action, why sit-ins, marches, and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are exactly right in your call for negotiation. Indeed, this is the purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and establish such creative tension that a community that has consistently refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. I just referred to the creation of tension as a part of the work of the nonviolent resister. This may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly worked and preached against violent tension, but there is a type of constructive nonviolent tension that is necessary for growth."

Then, I turn to Bill Ury and the authors of Getting to Yes, who first taught me about the BATNA, the best alternative to a negotiated agreement. It's something a party to a conflict should be quite transparent about. For example, "Okay, ruler, we need you to either honor all human rights and civil rights or step down, and if you cannot manage to do one of those two things within the next four weeks, we are going to begin a deep national nonviolent resistance campaign that will impose some serious costs. This is your choice." In other words, Ury and Fisher might have called what Dr. King wrote about as a perfect example of the use of a BATNA. Dr. King and the movement didn't stop nonviolent civil resistance until they were invited to the White House to negotiate, which ultimately resulted first in the 1964 Civil Rights Act and then the 1965 Voting Rights Act. 

The third scholar activist who comes to mind in this is Mary Frances Berry, especially her 2018 book, History Teaches Us to Resist, in which she cogently explains all this as the inside game/outside game. The synthesis of them can look exactly like the above Civil Rights Movement example or any number of other uses of nonviolent civil resistance (the outside game) to drive actual policy or even regime change (inside game). 

Nonviolent resistance is not necessarily working outside the system, in other words. It is a legitimate tool for the goals that have temporarily exhausted all the available legal inside game avenues.

How to transform autocracy to democracy: Build an active website

How many times have you missed an event because no notice of it came to you? How many other people also had no notice and missed it?

Your website should have a notification list sign-up pop-up so that any visitor can easily enter their email or text # and get advance notices of all your events. A passive website with announcements for those who take the time to visit is utterly inadequate. 

As all the research shows, numbers matter. Recruitment via active outreach is a big help. 

If you have a complex array of events, published reports, and other possibilities for outreach, it may help to allow people to choose what categories of notices they want. For instance, if you are ramping up event after event, a list of types of notifications that subscribers can choose might be only events, not analysis, reports, interviews with experts, etc. Making it possible to tailor what they receive might make them more inclined to sign up and to read all messages you send them. If they are deluged by you with all the other categories, they may skip reading most or even all of your outreach. 

A brilliant and dedicated web manager is a massive key component these days in successful organizing against an autocrat. As we found in Arab Spring, they can make all the difference, even devising workarounds when the government attempts to block access or outreach capacity. Techies are as crucial as anyone to your leadership and effectiveness. 

In a somewhat dated, but still valuable, analysis[1] of the value of tech, Dan Shannon notes: 

"Today’s technology strengthens the powers of networks in three important ways: 

·       It allows for networks that are global in nature. Online or mobile-based organizing is not limited by geography, only by access, which even in developing countries is increasing rapidly.

·       It allows for networks with fewer barriers to entry. Lowering the entry point from attending a meeting to signing an online petition opens up networks to exponentially more people.

·       It allows for networks with more decentralized power. Today, a movement entrepreneur with a vision and an internet connection has the tools to create networks, launch campaigns, and organize millions."

---

[1] https://www.bsr.org/en/blog/how-can-new-technologies-strengthen-social-movements

How to transform autocracy to democracy: Maintain fierce nonviolent discipline

During the Vietnam War many of the protests turned to violence, factions of the antiwar movement identified or fetishized Che Guevara, Ho Chi Minh, the Black Panthers, and even, God help us, Mao Tse Dong. This strand of the antiwar movement was pathetically easy for agents provocateurs to infiltrate and promote violence. 

Why would an agent of the police seek to convince a campaign to commit acts of violence?

Every time a campaign throws things at cops, or roughs up a corporate official of a war profiteering company, or tosses a brick through a war-voting politician's office, the media of course covers it. When the public sees such destructive actions they react in these understandable ways: 

·       They fear for their safety and decide not to participate in any public displays of opposition to the leaders or policies they don't like.

·       They begin to shift their point of view away from whatever the protesters advocate. 

·       They stop trusting the word of the protesters. 

·       They begin to shift toward understanding of, and even support for, the violent crackdown on the protesters. 

These reactions, of course, are exactly what hawkish politicians, war profiteers, and any police in league with them, want. This is how you destroy a campaign. It is how the Black Panthers were destroyed. It is how the peace movement failed for years to make progress to end the brutal slog of war in Vietnam. 

This is a predictable sequence of negative outcomes of campaign violence or what the public feels is violent.

My question to those who advocate violence is, "Since you should know that these are the actions conducted by agents provocateurs, why would you advocate for them?"

The late Rev. James Lawson referred to the Civil Rights Movement discipline as "fierce." He was America's first nonviolence trainer, and Dr. King called him the "architect" of the Civil Rights Movement. There is no substitute for that fierce discipline.

How to transform autocracy to democracy: Establish momentum

Rising up against dictators, autocrats, and aspiring authoritarians is virtually impossible when all organizing and focus is on achieving a primary goal in a huge outpouring. The birchbark fire is bright with blazing flames--and quickly dies out. A movement to overthrow a wannabe dictator needs a sequence of events over time, each aiming to achieve as much as possible in a few weeks so the victories can be felt and lauded--even as the next goal along the path to the final overarching goal is announced. 

Essentially, the message after the first success is, "Wow! We did it--great work, everyone! We won! That sets us up to do some wider work--join the movement if you've only been admiring it and pivot now to this next campaign if you have been one of the winners today!"

This doesn't mean choose easily done interim goals; they should be all you can accomplish in a few weeks, using your wisest hive mind. Some know history; some are intuitive social movement winners, some feel the state of the available media, some know the influencers and what mood they are in. Everyone is an expert in some facet and a strategic planning group attempts to incorporate the wisest intersectional thinking.

Like any plan, it needs reëvaluation periodically and adjustments as necessary--speed up, slow down, alter a subgoal, change the frame, or any other adaptation needed.

How to transform autocracy to democracy: Reject authoritarian's claim of "unity"

When aspiring autocrats seek power they frequently claim to be working to unite citizens, whereas once they have consolidated power that "unity" becomes an imposed set of practices that often exclude self-determination for the people who are now subjects, no longer citizens. This is clearly the case in dictatorships, such as the Karimov regime in Uzbekistan (Tutumlu, Önemli & Rustemov, 2025). Karimov's assertions are not unlike those that used to come from dictators like Saddam Hussein and Moammar Qaddafi, claiming a cultural indigenization of democracy even while ruling by brutal oppression and fear.

Academics and activists sometimes analyze such claims of a special form of democracy as anti-neocolonial, seeming to justify repression in the name of rejecting "Western" models of governance. Other academics and activists hew to a more benign indigenization paradigm that, for example, stresses indigenous concepts such as African ubuntu, a variant of empathic humanism that has a much more unconditional positive regard for all.

To promote a kinder gentler form of governance, be very aware of the duplicitous claim of unity that is leading toward a unity based on giving more power to the leader and none except forced obeisance to subjects of that leader. 

For instance, claims that it was liberating to strike down Roe v Wade and return the power to make laws about reproductive rights back to the states is a false unity assertion, not one that frees people or bolsters self-determination--ask women in states where abortion is basically outlawed. 

Clarity on claims of democracy as an aspiring autocrat defines it are either roundly rejected or that leader takes another step toward being a ruler.

Reference

Tutumlu, A., Önemli, B., & Rustemov, I. (2025). Deciphering dictators’ discourse on Indigenous democracy: a case of Karimov’s Uzbekistan. Central Asian Survey, 44(1), 64–84. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.pdx.edu/10.1080/02634937.2024.2393386

How to transform autocracy to democracy: Fight fraudulent electoral processes

There are generally two forms of fraudulent electoral practices: blatant fraud and electoral engineering (Szmolka, 2024).

Blatant fraud includes the easily identifiable abuses such as lying about "dead voters," ballot theft or destruction, obvious gerrymandering, targeted voter disqualification, polling place intimidation, and more.

Electoral engineering is less visible and includes more subtle but equally fraudulent practices such as patronage (which can burst into occasional high visibility and blatant fraud when a campaign donor is awarded an unelected government position, e.g. Elon Musk clearly linking his massive financial support for Trump's election to his desired DOGE). Some of the less visible but ethically dubious practices also include rewards for opposition party members remaining the loyal opposition, that is, nominally opposed but not fighting for much.

Pushing everyone who is elected to get much more active and effective is one way to fight the fraud and prevent, take down, or roll back autocracy.

References

Szmolka, I. (2024). Electoral engineering in autocracies: Effects of the 2021 electoral reform on Morocco’s parliamentary elections. Mediterranean Politics, 29(5), 700–728. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.pdx.edu/10.1080/13629395.2023.2194153 

How to transform autocracy to democracy: Protect refugees

How does protecting refugees help defend democracy? After all, research shows[1] that, in most cases, democracies permit the fewest entrance of refugees and autocracies permit the most.

However, as the International Refugee Assistance Project[2] and others point out, when refugees are denied due process and can be simply deported by autocratic fiat, the rights of all are correspondingly threatened, which means democracy itself is under direct threat.

How does a coup relate to forced migration in most cases? It depends. 

A coup that results in autocracy or a coup by democratic parties that fails to overturn an autocracy will likely send people fleeing the country. 

A coup that results in democracy, whether by a successful coup overthrowing an autocracy or a failed coup attempt to overthrow a democracy by autocrats, tends to produce no forced migration (Celestino, Lee & Kivimaki, 2025).

Protecting democracy is protecting refugees and protecting democracy prevents the emergence of a flight of refugees.

Reference

Celestino, M. R., Lee, S., & Kivimaki, T. (2025). Coups and refugee flows in autocracies and democracies. Journal of Ethnic & Migration Studies, 51(1), 159–178. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.pdx.edu/10.1080/1369183X.2024.2410775

---

[1] https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/democracy-and-its-paradox-forced-displacement-reimagining-us-refugee-resettlement-program

[2] https://refugeerights.org/news-resources/100-days-of-defending-refuge

How to transform autocracy to democracy: Women's rights are primary

From Margaret Atwood's Handmaid's Tale to the Rivera Sun Ari Ara series and in many more fictional examples, we come across the idea that women who have rights tend to enter into social struggle more and likely more effectively. 

In reality, researcher Susanne Schauftenaar (2017) finds that fiction to be fact, in general, citing previous research in her study of women's rights as a factor in the onset of civil society struggle. The previous examinations focused largely on outbreak of violent insurgency; she included nonviolent struggle, using data from the groundbreaking Chenoweth and Stephan study that produced the Nonviolent and Violent Campaigns and Outcomes (NAVCO) data set. 

Indeed, she found, great rights for women tended to be associated with more likelihood of the launch of a nonviolent campaign to achieve a maximal goal--overthrowing an autocrat, driving a foreign armed forces out, or seceding and founding a new sovereign nation.

Overthrowing an aspiring autocrat is going to be more often associated with a country with greater rights for women. Women's rights are drivers toward freedom for all.

References

Schaftenaar, S. (2017). How (wo)men rebel. Journal of Peace Research, 54(6), 762–776. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343317722699

How to transform autocracy to democracy: Respect all identities in how you frame your messaging

In her 2023 analysis of the case of Thailand campaigns to rise up against the brutal defense of the Thai monarchy, researcher Janjira Sombatpoonsiri found a clear correlation between frames that seemed to inflame and the likelihood of mass countervailing civil society campaigns. Carefully crafting messaging to avoid the appearance of attacking another ethnicity, religion, political party, or cultural identity group is a crucial factor for any campaign hoping to dislodge an autocrat of any stripe.

References

Sombatpoonsiri, J. (2023). “A lot of people still love and worship the monarchy”: How polarizing frames trigger countermobilization in Thailand. Journal of Peace Research, 60(1), 88–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/00223433221142932

How to transform autocracy to democracy: Build teams

Looking at the history of nonviolent campaigns we often presume a charismatic leader is enough; once we have our golden guy it's a done deal. There are two problems with that assumption. 

One, some of the most successful takedown campaigns in history have no charismatic leader. 

Two, a charismatic leader is not an expert at everything; there must be experts leading the necessary work teams in order to accelerate the pace of gain and move it swiftly to victory. Assessing is crucial and assessing about who is expert enough to assess is the work before the work. Identify team leaders: 

·       adaptive management, that is, evaluating steps taken and adjusting to improve next steps

·       logistics--event planners, team support and care

·       finances and fundraising, keeping the organization "street legal"

·       media--develop contacts and strategies, when to broadcast, when to narrowcast, how to incentivize best coverage

·       legal--organize both civil (lawsuit) and criminal (defending nonviolent resisters, develop stable of both lawyers and germane expert witnesses

Develop teams as needed and do not miss out on expertise that sometimes is modest and not visible. Inquire, negotiate, and coordinate. Teams can both bond--almost become foxhole buddies--and bridge--connect between and amongst teams. New campaign members can self-direct toward an existing team or be recruited once a skill-set inventory mechanism indicates valued expertise.