The Big-Tent Strategy Isn’t Working

Global lessons to build better coalitions

At nearly every conference or meeting of American pro-democracy practitioners, the concept and promise of a “big-tent” coalition takes center stage. What that phrase should mean is organizing a motley crew of individuals and organizations from across the ideological spectrum, who may hold different policy perspectives but are all dedicated to thwarting the rise of authoritarianism.

In practice, America’s big-tent effort is falling short. For far too many, “big tent” has become shorthand for “anti-Trump.” While the sheer volume of dangerously authoritarian actions coming out of the White House may logically provoke such a response, an effective pro-democracy coalition needs to stand for much more than being in opposition to any one leader. Global experience suggests that an effective American big tent must do two things: include people who agree with parts of the Trump administration’s policy agenda but still oppose threats to democratic norms, and articulate a positive vision for the future that goes beyond Trump.

Big World, Big Tents

Where the big-tent strategy has worked around the world, broad and ideologically diverse groups of people and parties have come together around shared democratic principles and goals.

For example, in the aftermath of World War II, the Christian Democratic Party in Germany became a big-tent party, uniting formerly disparate groups like Catholics and Protestants, and urban professionals and rural farmers, around the common goal of helping to rebuild the country.

Or in South Africa, the anti-apartheid movement included Black liberation groups, trade unions, Communists, white allies, and moderates—groups hardly aligned on many policy issues—in the quest to defeat Apartheid, and in an attempt to transition the country into a thriving, multi-racial democracy.

And in Chile, after the fall of the Pinochet dictatorship, a diverse coalition of parties known as the Concertación came together, spanning the Socialist party to the more center-right Christian Democrats. The coalition stood for a commitment to democracy, human rights, and gradual reform after dictatorship, and helped return Chile to democracy after the fall of Pinochet.

Unfortunately, more recent big-tent coalitions, after showing initial promise, have fallen short, because they were too focused on a single opponent and too ideologically narrow. For instance, there were early successes in Poland’s 2023 parliamentary elections, when three opposition parties won on a platform of restoring democratic norms weakened by the nationalist Law and Justice party, and in France’s 2024 parliamentary elections, when a coalition of left-leaning parties staved off Marine le Pen’s far-right National Rally party.

Similarly, in Zambia’s 2021 election, Hakainde Hichilema and his United Party for National Development (UPND) formed a broad coalition to unseat the long-ruling Patriotic Front (PF) of President Edgar Lungu. In response to strong-man tactics from Lungu, whose increasingly oppressive behavior sought to weaken the UPND and intimidate voters, Hichlema brought together a coalition of disaffected youth, former PF supporters disillusioned by rising corruption, and members of the business community to score a resounding victory.

Although each of these coalitions achieved immediate electoral victories, none secured lasting democratic gains. In Poland, the Law and Justice party-backed candidate recently won the presidency. Le Pen’s National Rally party continues to gain popularity in France and will be competitive in the next national elections. In Zambia, Hichilema has exhibited authoritarian tendencies, including arbitrary arrests of opponents and attempts to consolidate power through constitutional changes. These big-tent coalitions suffered after initial successes because they were built largely to oppose particular leaders and movements, without articulating a broader, unifying vision for governance, and they failed to sufficiently accommodate ideological diversity within their ranks.

What This Means for the United States

In its current formation, the American conception of a big tent to protect democracy risks falling short in ways which echo the failings in France, Poland, and Zambia.

First, because a big-tent coalition needs to be in favor of a broader set of ideas, rather than just against something or someone, America’s big tent cannot solely mean “defeat Trump.” Because of the overwhelming nature of the Trump administration’s anti-democratic behavior, from deploying the National Guard domestically to politicizing public institutions to targeting political opponents, it is logical to focus on the fight against Trump. But for the purposes of establishing an effective and durable big-tent coalition, an isolated anti-Trump strategy will fail.

Americans know Trump. Many are tired of or indifferent to his behavior. But the anti-Trump movement has spent nearly a decade highlighting his flaws, and he remains a central political force.

Frustration with the failure of governmental institutions to deliver real results, coupled with an increasingly fragmented media environment—factors that enabled Trump’s rise—have permeated American and global politics in a way that will outlive his administration. A viable coalition must offer a positive, appealing vision of American democracy that resonates with the broad public, including in a post-Trump era.

Second, America’s big-tent coalition needs to actually be ideologically diverse. Too often, democracy advocacy becomes entangled with a progressive policy agenda. Rather than a targeted focus on fighting for basic democratic principles like respect for the rule of law, pluralism, and the sanctity of elections, democracy becomes associated with an agenda which includes issues like economic justice, border policy, and access to health care. But a truly pro-democracy big-tent coalition needs to have participants who actually espouse a wide array of policy perspectives. This means including people with divergent views on abortion, taxation, immigration, and other policy issues, without administering litmus tests.

Likewise, “pro-democracy” cannot become synonymous with “the Democratic Party.” It can be considered sacrilege in some circles to call out violations of democratic norms by Democrats, many of whom fear accusations of both-sidesim. But whether it be Stacey Abrams’ non-concession in the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial race, Katie Porter declaring that her senate race was “rigged” upon losing her primary, the periodic propping up of MAGA candidates in Congressional primaries to boost Democrats’ chances, or even the reluctance of top Democrats to publicly criticize President Biden for running for a second term when the campaign was publicly claiming that democracy itself was on the ballot, members of the Democratic party often engage in their own form of anti-democratic behavior. This is not to equate such behavior with that of Trump and his faction of Republicans. But acknowledging this reality is important to the credibility of a pro-democracy big-tent movement.

Right now, the pro-democracy coalition is largely composed of the left and Never-Trump Republicans. But many Republicans who hold traditional conservative policy preferences still believe in democratic norms—including some who voted for Trump. Treating them as irredeemable only alienates potential allies.

In the short-term, it is vital to welcome Republicans focused on defending democratic institutions into the big tent. These conservatives exist in spades, working to defend elections, build trust in rule-of-law institutions, and deliver results for constituents. Many are working at the local level against extremists who hold power in their state legislatures and cities. For them, publicly calling out the Trump Administration for its excesses would not be effective strategically, and risks backfiring. These principled Republicans need moral and practical support. A genuine big-tent strategy should elevate principled politicians like them, while calling out excesses by either party.

Big-tent coalitions have been essential to democratic renewal in many countries, but only when they unite around a forward-looking vision, embrace genuine ideological diversity, and sustain strategic engagement beyond any single leader or election. Without those elements, America’s current big-tent effort risks becoming just another fleeting political alliance.

Scott Warren is a Fellow at the SNF Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins University. He is currently leading an initiative focused on exploring, researching, and convening a pro-democracy conservative agenda in the US, organizing convenings focused on bridging long-term and short-term fixes for democratic reform, and exploring ways the US can learn from global efforts to improve democracy (including helping to run Democracy Without Exception).