By Alem Tiedenecki – Media Officer – Canada, Latin America and the Sustainable Development Goals, World Economic Forum
Polarization is a major global risk affecting many other social and economic issues. Decades ago, the late American civil rights leader Jesse Jackson offered a path to coalition building.
His organizational philosophy was simple: Loneliness does not require similarity.
Loneliness and difference are often seen as opposites. Leaders are asked to choose between broad coalitions and clear identities, between inclusion and cohesion.
Forty years ago, Jesse Jackson rejected this hypothesis.
As a prominent civil rights activist, politician and U.S. religious leader, Jackson founded the Rainbow Coalition on a different idea: that sustainable solidarity can be shaped not by reducing differences, but by organizing on them.
A coalition of variants, not against their will
Today we talk about polarization as a new phenomenon -- but it's not. What's new is its size and its risks.
The World Economic Forum’s 2026 Global Risks Report identifies societal polarization as a risk that does not operate in isolation, but is linked to inequality, misinformation, and erosion of shared values. The report describes this dynamic as “values at war,” a sign that the divide goes beyond mere political differences.
Therefore, when looking for successful models of coalition building—not in theory but in practice—the Rainbow Coalition deserves attention.
When Jackson launched his two presidential campaigns in 1984 and 1988, the prevailing rule of political organization was simple: Build your strength within your base, address your audience, and don’t dilute your message. But Jackson did the opposite.
The Rainbow Coalition brought together racial and ethnic minorities, working classes, young voters, rural communities, and others who were systematically marginalized. These groups did not share the same history or grievances, but what they gathered was deeper: economic insecurity, a weak political voice, and a political system that went forward without them.
Jackson spoke frankly and in a clear moral tone, often without equivocation, to an audience that was not accustomed to hearing this speech. He campaigned in communities that were told—explicitly or implicitly—that their voices were marginal, and he made a convincing argument that they were not. This included explicitly naming gay and lesbian Americans as part of the Rainbow Coalition, and publicly calling for action on HIV (AIDS) at a time when most political leaders were silent.
The coalition did not ask people to give up their identities in the name of unity, but asserted that unity and difference can coexist, and that common interests can be the basis for a common force.
The results were tangible. In 1984, Jackson helped register more than 1 million new voters and received about 3.5 million votes in the primary. These new voters contributed to the Democrats regaining control of the Senate in 1986. By 1988, he had helped register an additional two million voters, won seven primaries, briefly topped the delegate count, and garnered nearly seven million votes.
Jackson did not win the presidential nomination, but that was not a condition for the coalition's success. As Illinois state Assemblyman Emmanuel Welch later said: "If it weren't for Jesse Jackson's candidacy in 1984 and 1988, we wouldn't have Barack Obama as president."
The principles still exist.
The core idea of the Rainbow Coalition was clear: unity does not require similarity.
This runs counter to two preeminent tendencies in today's mainstream political culture. The first is disintegration, i.e., lurching into narrow identities that make coalition building impossible because the differences seem vast. The second is forced consensus, i.e. pressure to reduce differences in the name of unity, which is often in the interest of those who already have power.
The Rainbow Coalition has offered a third path: publicly acknowledging differences rather than ignoring them, and making common interests the basis for a common force.
Jackson's legacy offers three practical lessons for today's leaders:
Starting from the common physical reality: abstract calls for unity do not last, while a clear recognition of common interests such as economic security, opportunity, and a sense that the voice is heard does.
Inclusion design rather than assumption: The Rainbow Coalition did not appear by accident, but required intentional communication, thoughtful structure, and a willingness to deal with difference rather than quickly transcend it.
Consider difference as a resource: Coalitions that bring together diverse experiences and perspectives are more solid than those that bring coherence through symmetry. The goal is not to agree on everything, but to have enough common purpose to move together in what is most important.
The Rainbow Coalition was not without tensions, was not always coherent, and Jackson's campaigns were not without controversy.
But the paradigm -- the deliberate choice of organization across rather than within differences -- went beyond campaigning. His conclusion is simple: unity is not discovered, but built.
Why does that matter now?
Today, polarization is not only cultural, but structural. Economic inequality concentrates power in fewer hands, and the decline of civic institutions reduces the spaces in which difference can be negotiated. At the same time, misinformation accelerates the loss of trust, and makes teamwork more difficult. And when polarization worsens in this way, it becomes more than just a political problem; it is a problem of governance, flexibility, and, ultimately, economics.
And this is not just an American story. From Europe to sub-Saharan Africa to Southeast Asia, the same pattern is repeated: when economic insecurity and political exclusion coincide, divisions deepen. The question of how to build sustainable coalitions across differences has become a question faced by all societies.
The Rainbow Coalition has not solved these structural forces—no single initiative is capable of doing so—but it offers what today’s leaders urgently need: practical evidence that broad and inclusive coalitions are possible even in times of acute division, and that building them is, above all, a deliberate choice.
comments