As governments from Budapest to Brasília experiment with new forms of authoritarianism, the language of human rights is increasingly under siege. Yet amid book bans, anti-protest laws, and crackdowns on civil society, one movement has not only survived but, in many places, advanced: LGBTQ politics. How has a community so frequently enough cast as a target of “illiberal” agendas managed to carve out space, build coalitions, and even influence policy in an era of democratic backsliding?
A new initiative from King’s College London, “Illiberal Times, Inclusive Strategies: What LGBTQ Politics Teach Us About Navigating Crises in Human Rights,” sets out to answer that question. Drawing on case studies from across the globe, the project examines how LGBTQ activists operate under pressure-how they reframe rights claims, negotiate with hostile institutions, and leverage unexpected allies. In doing so, it argues that LGBTQ politics offer a revealing stress test for the resilience of human rights norms more broadly.
Rather than treating LGBTQ struggles as a niche concern, the research positions them at the center of contemporary debates about democracy, authoritarianism, and global governance. In this view, what happens in battles over gender and sexuality is not a side story but a key to understanding how rights are defended-or dismantled-when political systems tilt away from liberal ideals.
Illiberal currents and resilient communities How LGBTQ movements are rewriting the human rights playbook
Across continents, the same pattern repeats: governments invoke “traditional values,” “national security,” or “family protection” to roll back hard-won rights. Yet LGBTQ movements have learned to turn this headwind into strategic clarity. Rather than relying solely on abstract appeals to universalism, activists are reframing rights around everyday security-access to housing, healthcare, work, and safety in public space. They are building intersectional alliances with migrants, women’s groups, labour unions, disability advocates and climate justice networks, making it harder for illiberal forces to isolate and target any one community. These coalitions are held together not just by shared vulnerability, but by shared infrastructure: encrypted digital networks, community legal clinics, mutual aid funds and locally rooted media channels.
- Reframing rights from identity claims to shared material needs
- Embedding resilience in neighbourhood-based support and digital safety
- Exporting tactics that other human rights struggles can rapidly adapt
| Tactic | Illiberal Challenge | Community Response |
|---|---|---|
| Legal micro-strategies | Hostile courts, vague morality laws | Targeted test cases, shadow documentation |
| Cultural storytelling | State propaganda, media capture | Podcasts, grassroots festivals, zines |
| Mutual aid networks | Welfare cuts, policing of NGOs | Community funds, informal care circles |
This evolving playbook is less about heroic legal victories and more about infrastructures of endurance. When parliaments close their doors, LGBTQ groups pivot to city councils; when national media silences them, they occupy cultural spaces, classrooms and digital platforms. Their successes are frequently enough small and local, but cumulative: a safer clinic, a sympathetic employer, a school that changes its policy before the law does. In an era when democratic norms are under pressure, these movements are demonstrating that human rights can be defended not only by courts and constitutions, but by the slow, deliberate work of building communities that will not collapse when illiberal currents rise.
From backlash to blueprint Lessons from queer organising on building coalitions in hostile climates
Across regions where illiberal currents have surged-from Budapest to Brasília-queer activists have quietly rewritten the rulebook on survival.Rather of retreating into single-issue silos, they have treated backlash as political data, mapping where alliances can be forged and where risks multiply. This has meant reframing LGBTQ rights as part of broader struggles around housing, health, digital surveillance and labour, making it harder for governments to isolate queer communities as a “special interest”. In practice, organisers have leaned into strategies such as:
- Issue bundling: connecting anti-discrimination demands to welfare, policing and democratic oversight.
- Shared risk analysis: co-developing security protocols with migrant,racial justice and feminist networks.
- Narrative cross-pollination: swapping spokespeople, slogans and visual symbols across movements.
- Decentralised leadership: distributing decision-making to withstand repression and co-optation.
These experiments have produced practical templates for coalition-building under pressure that other human rights actors can adapt. Rather than chasing a grand alliance overnight, queer organisers have prioritised small, durable solidarities that can flex as the political weather changes, frequently enough starting with concrete, winnable goals-legal clinics, safe housing networks, or rapid-response funds-that anchor trust. The aim is not consensus on every controversy but a clear, minimal contract of cooperation, frequently enough captured in lean memoranda or joint statements. In many countries,this has given rise to compact yet influential platforms like the ones below:
| Coalition Focus | Key Queer Contribution | Resulting Leverage |
|---|---|---|
| Anti-violence networks | Documenting hate crimes and police abuse | Stronger oversight of law enforcement |
| Social welfare campaigns | Evidence on homelessness and health gaps | Expanded access to shelters and clinics |
| Democracy and rule-of-law fronts | Litigation and strategic use of regional courts | Legal pressure on illiberal reforms |
Policy in the pressure cooker Practical strategies for safeguarding rights when institutions are under strain
As courts are packed,watchdogs defunded and public broadcasters bullied,the politics of rights moves from marble halls to the streets,union rooms and encrypted chats. LGBTQ movements have long treated formal institutions as only one arena among many, pairing litigation with grassroots coordination and rapid-response advocacy. In moments of democratic backsliding, this agility becomes a survival skill.Activists prepare “plan B” venues for events likely to be banned, train volunteers to document abuses in real time, and cultivate sympathetic insiders within civil services who can quietly flag hostile draft regulations. They also develop simple, shareable tools-template complaint letters, pocket legal guides, and emergency hotlines-that allow non‑experts to intervene when police overreach or local authorities weaponise bureaucracy.
- Decentralise leadership to prevent crackdowns from silencing entire campaigns.
- Embed legal expertise in community groups so rights arguments travel faster than court dates.
- Pre‑negotiate protection with ombuds, bar associations and medical councils that can resist political pressure.
- Use cultural platforms-art,nightlife,sports-to keep inclusion visible when parliaments turn hostile.
| Pressure Point | LGBTQ-Inspired Tactic |
|---|---|
| Court delays | Strategic use of soft-law guidelines and professional codes |
| Media smears | Pre‑built coalitions with journalists’ unions and fact‑checking hubs |
| Local bans | Shifting events to allied municipalities and cross‑border venues |
Beyond visibility toward structural change Reinventing advocacy, funding and legal tools for the next wave of crises
Once symbolic visibility has been achieved-parades, rainbow logos, diversity statements-the real contest begins over who controls institutions, budgets and laws. LGBTQ movements facing hostile or backsliding regimes have learned to shift from campaigning for recognition to quietly re‑engineering power structures: embedding anti-discrimination clauses in public procurement rules, hard‑wiring inclusive criteria into grant-making, and leveraging municipal bylaws when national parliaments are closed to dialog. This recalibration treats rights not as one-off concessions but as infrastructure to be built,defended and constantly upgraded. It also demands new alliances: queer groups working with trade unions on workplace protections, with housing activists on shelter access, and with migration lawyers on safe pathways for those fleeing persecution.
- Move funding from short-lived campaigns to long-term, core support.
- Recode legal tools through strategic litigation and local ordinances.
- Safeguard data so visibility does not become a surveillance risk.
- Back frontline intermediaries such as shelters, legal clinics and community media.
| Tool | LGBTQ Insight | Use in Wider Crises |
|---|---|---|
| Strategic funds | Rapid grants to respond to crackdowns | Support protesters,journalists,HRDs |
| Shadow lawyering | Test cases to set protective precedents | Expand civic,digital and refugee rights |
| Municipal pacts | Cities as sanctuaries when states regress | Local safety nets during democratic erosion |
In this architecture,advocacy is less a spectacle and more a continual process of system design. Funding models are reimagined to reward resilience rather than media impact; legal strategies prioritise survivability in hostile courts; and movement organisations experiment with federated structures that can withstand targeted attacks on key leaders. Borrowing from LGBTQ politics under illiberal regimes, human rights actors can prepare for the next wave of crises not by shouting louder, but by ensuring that when the spotlight turns away-or is forcibly switched off-the frameworks that protect the most vulnerable remain firmly in place and difficult to dismantle.
Final Thoughts
As governments from Budapest to Brasília test the limits of liberal norms, the experience of LGBTQ movements offers more than a niche case study; it provides a working playbook for defending rights when institutions wobble and protections fray. The lessons are not about heroism or inevitability, but about strategy: how to build unlikely coalitions, frame claims in ways that travel across borders, and keep pushing when the public mood turns hostile.
In illiberal times,it is tempting to treat human rights as fragile relics of a fading order. This research from King’s College London suggests the opposite. Rights endure not as they are written down, but because citizens learn how to re-argue them, re-own them and re-build them in difficult conditions. LGBTQ politics, forged in the crossfire of culture wars and legal backlash, shows how that can be done.
The challenge now is whether other embattled causes – from migrants’ rights to gender equality and racial justice – will draw on these inclusive strategies, rather than retreating into their own silos. If there is a final message from this work, it is indeed that the future of human rights will not be secured by nostalgia for a lost liberal consensus, but by the hard, pragmatic work of coalition-building in a world where consensus was never guaranteed.
