Vuka Solidarity Playbook
What Questions Will the Playbook Address?
Zero Draft
Solidarity is not new. It has been practised across generations, movements, and geographies as a fundamental expression of collective action and mutual support. Global solidarity actions and advocacy, from coordinated campaigns to diplomatic pressure and grassroots mobilisation, have long been central to how civic actors respond to repression and injustice. However, in the period following COVID-19 and within the current political climate marked by authoritarian consolidation, digital repression, and weakening multilateralism, the nature of solidarity is being tested. While many solidarity actions have remained familiar in form, there is growing recognition that they are not always sufficient or appropriate in today’s context. This moment calls for a more deliberate, risk-aware, and time-sensitive approach, one that continuously interrogates what solidarity should look like now, and how it must evolve in the years ahead.
The Solidarity Playbook, and the critical questions that shape it, are therefore grounded not only in present realities, but in an understanding that solidarity itself is dynamic, emerging, adapting, and requiring constant re-examination over time.
The Solidarity Playbook is structured around a set of critical question clusters that coalitions often leave implicit, unspoken, or unevenly understood. These questions are not academic. They sit at the heart of whether solidarity: protects or exposes strengthens or undermines coordinates or fragments supports or substitutes for local agency
How These Question Clusters Work
These clusters serve two core functions:
These question clusters will guide regional consultations and online contributions, ensuring that inputs are structured, comparable, and synthesis-ready across regions and thematic movements.
The final Playbook will be built directly from these clusters. Each cluster corresponds to a core component of the Playbook’s decision-making and coordination architecture.
By making these questions explicit, the Playbook addresses a key gap in civic space: solidarity is often practised, but rarely systematically interrogated.
Each cluster below includes: why it matters, what it surfaces, the key questions for consultation, and what it will likely inform in the final Playbook. New clusters and questions added in this revision are marked in green.
0. Recognising a Solidarity Moment
Why this matters
Before any solidarity decision can be made, actors must first recognise that they are in a situation that calls for solidarity. This is not always obvious. Many situations escalate gradually, and the Playbook risks being consulted only in acute crises if there is no shared framework for recognising earlier-stage solidarity moments. This cluster addresses the entry point into the entire Playbook.
What this cluster surfaces
How actors across regions identify and name solidarity moments The difference between a crisis requiring immediate response and an emerging situation requiring monitoring Early warning signals and how they are shared across the coalition
Key questions
How do we know when a solidarity situation is emerging, before it becomes a crisis? What are the early indicators that a coalition member or allied actor may need solidarity support? Who is responsible for raising the alert, and through what channels? What is the threshold between a situation that requires monitoring and one that requires active response? How do we share early warning signals across regions without creating unnecessary alarm or exposure?
This cluster will likely inform: early warning indicators, monitoring protocols, and alert mechanisms within the Playbook.
A. Decision-Making and Timing
Why this matters
One of the most consistent failures in solidarity practice is not whether to act, but when and how quickly. Premature action can escalate harm, while delayed action can signal abandonment.
What this cluster surfaces
How urgency is interpreted across regions The difference between reaction and strategy The role of timing in political risk
Key questions
When should solidarity action be taken? When is silence strategic rather than negligent? What are the activation triggers for the Playbook? How do we determine the appropriate level of response?
This cluster will likely inform: activation criteria, timing guidance, and thresholds for response.
B. Roles and Responsibilities
Why this matters
Solidarity often fails when “everyone does everything” or when the wrong actor leads. Power, visibility, and legitimacy are unevenly distributed across actors.
What this cluster surfaces
Role confusion vs role clarity Who has legitimacy to act in different contexts How responsibility shifts across levels (local → regional → global)
Key questions
Who should speak in a given situation? Who should amplify, support, or remain in the background? How do roles differ between local, regional, and global actors? Who holds decision-making authority in time-pressured situations?
This cluster will likely inform: role differentiation models, actor mapping, and coordination protocols.
C. Consent, Agency, Risk, and Care
Why this matters
Solidarity is never risk-neutral. The consequences of action are not evenly shared, and poorly designed solidarity can disproportionately harm those it intends to support. Critically, solidarity can be well-coordinated and still override the wishes of the person or group it is meant to serve. Consent and agency are foundational, not assumed.
What this cluster surfaces
Power asymmetries within coalitions Uneven exposure to repression across actors The relationship between solidarity and care The right of affected actors to shape, limit, or decline solidarity Digital security risks specific to solidarity actions in repressive contexts
Key questions
Who bears the risk of solidarity actions? How do we ensure actions do not expose or endanger local actors? How do we account for power asymmetries within the coalition? How do we integrate care and wellbeing as solidarity infrastructure, not afterthoughts? What are the digital security dimensions of solidarity in repressive contexts? What does the affected actor or group actually want, and how do we ask? How do we handle situations where the affected actor’s wishes are unclear, contested, or where asking itself carries risk? What is the process for an actor to decline, limit, or reshape solidarity offered on their behalf?
This cluster will likely inform: risk assessment frameworks, safeguarding principles, consent protocols, and care and wellbeing integration.
D. Forms of Solidarity
Why this matters
Solidarity is often reduced to visible acts (statements, campaigns), but in many contexts less visible forms are more effective and safer. Financial and material solidarity is frequently the most concrete form of support available, yet it is the least systematically addressed in coalition frameworks.
What this cluster surfaces
The diversity of solidarity practices across regions and movements The limits of public-facing advocacy in high-risk contexts The value and complexity of non-visible support The distinct logic and risks of financial and resource-based solidarity
Key questions
What does meaningful solidarity look like beyond public statements? When are quiet or non-visible forms of solidarity more effective? How do we integrate legal, financial, narrative, and care-based solidarity? What forms of rapid financial solidarity exist, emergency funds, legal defence, relocation support, and how are decisions made about them? Who controls financial solidarity resources, and what accountability mechanisms are needed? What are the risks of financial solidarity in repressive contexts (surveillance, criminalisation, dependency)?
This cluster will likely inform: typologies of solidarity, action menus (non-prescriptive), multi-layered response options, and financial solidarity protocols.
E. Coordination and Escalation
Why this matters
Uncoordinated solidarity leads to duplication, contradiction, and sometimes escalation that outpaces context.
What this cluster surfaces
How coalitions coordinate under pressure When escalation is appropriate How decisions are made quickly but responsibly
Key questions
How do we avoid duplication or fragmentation of responses? What are appropriate escalation pathways? When does internationalisation help or harm?
This cluster will likely inform: escalation ladders, coordination mechanisms, and decision-making flows.
F. Regional and Thematic Grounding
Why this matters
Solidarity cannot be globally standardised. It must be shaped by regional realities and anchored in organised movements.
What this cluster surfaces
Regional differences in risk and political context The role of thematic movements as carriers of solidarity practice Points of convergence and tension across regions and movements
Key questions
How should solidarity be adapted to different regional contexts? How do thematic movements shape solidarity practice? How do regional and thematic approaches converge and where do they tension?
This cluster will likely inform: regional adaptation principles, thematic integration models, and convergence frameworks.
G. Conflict and Post-Conflict Contexts
Why this matters
Solidarity in conflict settings is highly sensitive. Misaligned action can undermine legitimacy, exacerbate tensions, or endanger actors. Many of Vuka’s regions include active conflict, post-conflict transition, or deeply polarised civic environments in which the usual solidarity frameworks require significant adaptation.
What this cluster surfaces
The limits of traditional advocacy in conflict contexts The tension between solidarity and neutrality The long-term implications of short-term action The particular complexity of solidarity across lines of division within civil society
Key questions
How should solidarity operate in highly polarised or conflict settings? How do we balance solidarity with legitimacy, neutrality, and long-term trust-building? What role should external actors play in sensitive political environments? How do we practice solidarity with displaced or exiled actors while maintaining connections with those who remain? When different factions of a movement make competing solidarity claims, how does the coalition navigate? What does solidarity look like during ceasefire, transition, or post-conflict moments, and how does it differ from conflict-period solidarity?
This cluster will likely inform: conflict-sensitive solidarity guidance, legitimacy frameworks, and external actor positioning.
H. Solidarity Within the Coalition
Why this matters
Most solidarity frameworks are oriented outward, toward actors being repressed by external forces. But coalitions themselves are not immune to pressure. For example when a Vuka member organisation faces targeting, disinformation, internal crisis, or funding collapse, the coalition’s capacity to respond inwardly is just as important as its outward-facing solidarity practice. This cluster has been largely absent from coalition solidarity frameworks and is a meaningful gap.
What this cluster surfaces
How the coalition responds when one of its own members is targeted The difference between internal solidarity and organisational interference How trust and confidentiality are managed when a member is under pressure
Key questions
What solidarity does a coalition owe its own member organisations when they face repression, targeting, or crisis? How do we respond when a coalition member is targeted by disinformation or smear campaigns? When a member organisation faces internal crisis (leadership dispute, financial collapse, co-optation), what is the coalition’s role, if any? How do we protect the credibility of coalition solidarity when solidarity actors themselves are targeted? What confidentiality and trust protocols govern internal solidarity discussions?
This cluster will likely inform: internal solidarity protocols, member support mechanisms, and coalition integrity safeguards.
I. Narrative Integrity and Information Threats
Why this matters
In high-repression contexts, solidarity responses are increasingly met with narrative counterattacks, disinformation targeting the coalition’s solidarity action, smear campaigns against individual actors, and coordinated inauthentic behaviour designed to discredit or fragment solidarity. The information environment is now an active dimension of solidarity practice, not a backdrop to it.
What this cluster surfaces
How solidarity actors protect their own credibility when under information attack The relationship between narrative coordination and solidarity effectiveness The risks of public solidarity in high-disinformation environments
Key questions
How do we protect the credibility and integrity of solidarity actors when they are targeted by disinformation? What narrative preparation is needed before a solidarity action is taken publicly? How do we coordinate narrative responses across coalition members without homogenising them? When solidarity actions are misrepresented or weaponised by repressive actors, what is the response protocol? How do we assess the information environment before deciding on the visibility of a solidarity response?
This cluster will likely inform: narrative coordination frameworks, information risk assessment, and pre-action communication protocols.
J. Solidarity Under Resource Constraints
Why this matters
The current global funding environment for civil society is increasingly constrained. Many coalition members are themselves under financial pressure. Solidarity obligations do not disappear when capacity shrinks, but they do need to be recalibrated. This cluster surfaces a real-world tension that is rarely named explicitly in solidarity frameworks.
What this cluster surfaces
The relationship between organisational capacity and solidarity commitments How scarcity affects solidarity decision-making and role distribution The risk of solidarity fatigue and burnout across the coalition
Key questions
When organisations are themselves financially precarious, what solidarity can they credibly offer and sustain? How does the coalition manage solidarity commitments when collective capacity is constrained? How do we prevent solidarity fatigue, the gradual erosion of capacity caused by repeated, under-resourced solidarity demands? How should solidarity responsibilities be redistributed when some members have significantly more capacity than others? What minimum viable solidarity looks like when full response is not possible?
This cluster will likely inform: capacity-aware solidarity design, solidarity sustainability principles, and resource distribution frameworks.
K. Future of Solidarity
Why this matters
The global civic landscape is shifting rapidly. Solidarity must evolve accordingly.
What this cluster surfaces
Emerging forms of solidarity practice The declining centrality of multilateral systems The need for long-term infrastructure rather than episodic response The growing role of technology, both as enabler and threat, in solidarity practice
Key questions
How must solidarity evolve in a world of weakening multilateralism? What new forms of solidarity are emerging or required? How do we build solidarity as long-term infrastructure rather than episodic response? How do AI, surveillance technology, and digital transnational repression change what solidarity needs to look like? What does solidarity look like when the state is no longer the primary actor of repression, and corporations, platforms, or non-state actors are?
This cluster will likely inform: forward-looking design principles, innovation areas, and long-term positioning of the Playbook.
L. After the Action: Reflection and Learning
Why this matters
The existing clusters are oriented toward decision-making before and during solidarity moments. This cluster addresses what happens after. Without structured post-action reflection, the Playbook cannot function as a learning instrument, and the same mistakes will be repeated across cycles. Accountability to affected actors is also a solidarity value, not just an organisational improvement tool.
What this cluster surfaces
How the coalition assesses whether solidarity was effective and appropriate How affected actors are invited to evaluate the solidarity they received How learning is captured, stored, and fed back into the Playbook over time
Key questions
After a solidarity action, how do we assess whether it was effective, appropriate, and aligned with the wishes of those supported? How are affected actors invited to evaluate and give feedback on the solidarity they received? What mechanisms exist for capturing lessons and feeding them back into the Playbook? How do we handle situations where a solidarity action caused unintended harm, and what accountability processes follow? How often should the Playbook itself be reviewed and updated based on accumulated experience?
This cluster will likely inform: post-action review protocols, Playbook revision cycles, and accountability mechanisms.
Closing Note
Together, these question clusters ensure that the Solidarity Playbook is not built from abstract principle, but from lived experience, political complexity, and regional diversity. They provide both the structure for consultation and the foundation for a Playbook that is usable, adaptive, and grounded in real-world solidarity practice.
The clusters are not exhaustive and will be refined further through team review and regional consultation. They are designed to be granular enough to generate comparable data across regions while remaining open enough to surface unexpected insights and locally specific knowledge.