Smart Opposition Cooperation

The Play

Authoritarians thrive when the political opposition is divided. Competing egos, redundant candidacies, and split votes only strengthen their grip. That's why smart opposition coordination isn't optional when facing authoritarian risk—it's a democratic responsibility.

This play is about choosing a strategic path of cooperation over chaotic fragmentation. That doesn't always mean forming a coalition or running on a joint platform. Sometimes the smartest move is a quiet pact, a tactical withdrawal, or a coordinated message. It's less about uniformity than about synchronicity.

Smart opposition forces can share data, polling, and scenario planning to avoid cannibalizing their own strength. In doing so, they can agree on priorities, map competitive districts, and design the minimum viable alignment needed to beat the authoritarian threat—without pretending deeper differences don't exist.

This isn't about giving up political identity. It's about knowing when to step forward—and when to step aside—for the bigger fight. Coordination shows maturity, discipline, and a shared sense of purpose. Strategy wins elections. Chaos doesn't.

Why it works

• Targeted coordination stops the bleeding. By deciding where to compete and where to step aside, democratic forces concentrate their strength where it matters most.
• Synchronicity minimizes cannibalization. Aligning timing and priorities—without erasing identities—avoids turning off voters who distrust one or more players in a monolithic bloc.
• Flexible tools adapt to context. Primaries, pacts, or selective withdrawals can be tailored to different electoral systems and political cultures, making cooperation resilient.
• Don't be defeated by victory. Planning for the post-election scenario during the campaign prevents collapse once the shared enemy is gone.

How it works

1. Stay Distinct, Act Together

Coordination doesn't require merging forces or hiding differences—but it does require alignment on timing, strategy, and purpose. Smart opposition begins by bringing all relevant actors to the table to synchronize efforts around shared goals, not shared ideologies. Differences can coexist, as long as coordination is clearly defined and strategically paced.

2. Frame coordination as democratic responsibility

Don't let authoritarians frame coordination as a backroom deal or a sign of weakness. Explain it for what it truly is: a mature, strategic choice to defend democracy. Voters may not love it, but they can respect it when rivals recognize what's at stake and act accordingly. Publicly naming the reasons for coordination—avoiding vote-splitting, preserving institutions, ensuring fair elections—builds legitimacy and trust.

3. Design to Defeat Vote Splitting

Use structured tools like opposition primaries, tactical withdrawals, or vote pacts to prevent the democratic vote from fracturing. Share polling data, map competitive districts, and decide who's best positioned to run—and who should step aside. The goal isn't to eliminate competition but to make it strategic: compete where it matters, cooperate where it counts.

4. Harmonize the Messages

Embrace the pluralism of diverse voices and turn it into an advantage. Even without a joint platform, coherence in messaging signals readiness. When possible, use aligned narratives and complementary roles to present what is, in practice, a diverse front with credible options. Designate spokespeople, set agreed red lines, and rehearse potential controversies before they go public.

5. Track and Adjust Together

Pool resources to evaluate shifts in the race and adapt roles accordingly. Polling and data tracking require significant capacity and funding. To overcome this, share costs, combine research capacity, or rely on trusted local networks to monitor shifts on the ground. Schedule regular check-ins to review data, share intelligence, and address emerging tensions before they turn into public rifts. Real-time adjustments can prevent late-stage surprises.

6. Prepare for the Day After

Start informal conversations about post-election scenarios and possible areas of collaboration. Rather than locking in detailed agreements, outline principles, crisis protocols, or channels for dialogue that can help manage differences later on. As long as it doesn't interfere with coordination toward the primary goal, thinking ahead about how to navigate tensions once the common enemy is gone helps keep relationships functional when unity is no longer automatic.

Tips

A. Anticipate the Storm, Not the Sunshine

Building coalitions is always hard, often unpleasant, and never seamless—so don't expect it to be easy. Disagreements will come—plan for them now. Accepting this reality and preparing for it makes your broader strategy stronger. Appoint a small mediation group of respected coalition figures. Their job isn't to erase tension but to contain it before it spreads. A conflict resolved quietly can preserve unity better than a hundred public statements. In coalitions, disagreement isn't failure—it's the cost of pluralism.

B. Reward Cooperation Publicly

When coordination works—whether through a tactical withdrawal, a non-aggression pact, or a post-vote alliance—make it visible. Celebrate those who take risks or step aside for the greater goal. Public recognition builds trust, encourages imitation, and turns isolated moves into a broader narrative of democratic responsibility.

C. If You Can't Go National, Go Local

When the national stage is locked down, shift the fight to where the regime is weaker: local races, councils, and communities. These spaces allow new leaders to emerge, forge fresh alliances, and deliver tangible wins that improve people's daily lives. Every local victory builds networks, trust, and visible proof that the regime can be beaten. Treat each as a building block—link them together into a broader story that fuels momentum toward a national breakthrough.

Who's done it well?

Hungary: United for Hungary

Primaries to Build Trust

Ahead of the 2022 elections, six Hungarian opposition parties—from greens to conservatives—agreed to hold nationwide primaries to avoid splitting the vote against Viktor Orbán. Partnering with civic-tech group aHang, they created a secure online-offline voting system, trained 10,000 volunteers, and drew 850,000 participants. The two-round process selected joint candidates in every district and Péter Márki-Zay as the united PM challenger. Though the election was lost, the primaries proved that structured, transparent competition, organized entirely by civil society and with no funding from the state, could replace backroom deals and forge lasting channels of cooperation.

"What we built wasn't just a primary but was a new way of doing politics. Parties that had spent years shouting past each other had to sit down, listen, negotiate, and place trust in a process guaranteed by independents."

France: Republican Front

Anti-Le Pen Withdrawals

In France's 2024 legislative elections, Marine Le Pen's far-right Rassemblement National (National Rally) led the first round, with three-way runoffs in over 300 districts favoring their path to power. In a coordinated act under the Republican Front banner, 213 center-left and center-right candidates withdrew—131 from the New Popular Front and 82 from Macron's Ensemble—ensuring only one pro-democracy contender remained in each race. Civil society pressure, clear messaging, and public endorsements reframed these retreats as acts of democratic responsibility. The result: RN fell from first in round one to third in the Assembly, blocking a far-right government.

The impact of withdrawals:

- Head-to-head contests: In districts with just two candidates, pro-democracy contenders flipped 40% of races from the first-round leader.
- When votes stayed split: In 89 districts without coordination, the first-round leader —usually the National Rally— won 92% of the time.

Poland: Polish Democratic Opposition

Smart Opposition Cooperation

In Poland's 2023 elections, the democratic opposition rejected a one-size-fits-all alliance. Civic Coalition, Third Way, and The Left ran separate campaigns for the Sejm (Lower House), bound by a non-aggression pact, but united fully for the Senate. Through a "one candidate per district" Senate Pact, they eliminated vote-splitting in the upper house. Civil society groups like WSCHÓD and Polish Women's Strike amplified turnout drives while keeping their own voices. This hybrid model—strategic separation where it expanded appeal, strict unity where the rules demanded it—helped secure a democratic majority and end eight years of PiS dominance.

"We learned that building a coalition wasn't about ownership—it was about trust. By sharing knowledge, resources, and visibility, we built a network where success was collective. Parties did their job, civil society did theirs. The shift from isolation to alignment made all the difference."

Learn more

D-Hub Resources

• "Democratic Populism." Volume 8, Politics and Electioneering.
• "Big Tent Coalitions." Volume 5, Opposition Coordination.
• "Primaries: from Competition to Unity." Volume 5, Opposition Coordination.
• "Smart Coordination." Volume 5, Opposition Coordination.
• "Build a People-Powered Alliance." Volume 7, Institutions and Civic Space.

Other Resources

• D-Hub. 2024. "Poland Beats Backsliding." The Fight For Democracy Chronicles, Volume 1.
• D-Hub. 2024. "Defusing the far-right bomb." The Fight For Democracy Chronicles, Volume 8.