→ Democratising in its content and pursuit: A space can only qualify as a PoD if its members demonstrate commitment to democratic values and outcomes, both in how they conduct themselves and in what they seek to achieve, and in the means employed to do so. The methods and values practised by the pocket matter. It must be democratic in both form and outcome. Although the members of the PoD do not call themselves ‘democratic’, their practices, narratives and methods – such as dialogue, consensus, representation, inclusion, transparency, shared leadership and equitable participation – contribute to building a more democratic society. → A pathway for civic participation: Although a pocket of democracy is organised around a specific, necessarily narrow social and economic interest, it has the potential to connect with broader civic affairs. This does not mean that it must be overtly political. Rather, it should enable its members to engage with civic issues, starting with those directly linked to their interests. For example, a vendors’ association could participate in and influence the local municipality’s public budget processes and the delivery of public goods and services to vendors. It is unlikely that a space which remains entirely inward­looking and disconnected from community or public life will become a PoD, unless there is a clear pathway for connecting it to civic affairs. It must be capable of being linked to broader civic affairs. This enables the actors involved to engage, if only indirectly, in shaping public discourse, influencing policy or contributing to community problem solving in ways that foster collective agency. How can PoDs be supported, and is this a legitimate approach? PoDs can be characterised and evaluated in terms of their self-organisation and resilience over time. However, inviting external actors to support them might inadvertently weaken the pocket and create dependency. Once identified, pockets present both an opportunity and a challenge for those supporting democracy. For many democracy supporters, once a PoD has been identified, the instinct may be to fund, formalise or scale it up immediately. However, these approaches often negate the very qualities that made the pocket vibrant, self-sustaining and resilient in the first place. The challenge lies in supporting it without distorting, co-opting or weakening it. Even the most well-intentioned intervention can lead to over­formalisation, loss of autonomy or dependence on donors if it is not well thought through. Support must therefore be gradual, contextual and respectful, building on the pocket’s internal logic rather than imposing an external project logic. Furthermore, particularly in post-colonial contexts, the question of legitimacy must be raised and answered honestly. For example, what legitimacy does an international organisation have to support PoDs in a village in West Africa? In most cases, it does not, because questions of reciprocity could be raised, as well as the issue of negligence towards local civil society structures. Yet the equally important question is: who is asking this question, and who is answering it? Are they African governments, political parties and civil society organisations in Africa? Or is it democracy activists in Africa? Or is it civil society in the Global North? It is indeed important for international democracy supporters to remain self-aware, particularly in the context of ongoing decolonisation. However, retreating from the shared democratic values that international democracy supporters have with their partners on the ground, which are anchored in the host countries’ constitutions, would be fatal for the latter. This would undermine the credibility and legitimacy that many international actors, particularly non-state actors, currently enjoy in different countries and at various levels of society. Ideally, international democracy supporters should act on the basis of shared values of democracy, freedom, and social justice with their local partners rather than of the interests of their country of origin. These partners cannot always be states, given that the majority of governments today are autocratic. Therefore, support for PoDs must be guided by the principle of solidarity, not‘saviourism’, and must be based on strategic patience. Support for PoDs must adhere to the fundamental ethic of non-extractive engagement. Supporters must not exploit these pockets for stories, statistics or models. Instead, they should walk alongside these groups, amplifying their voices, defending their autonomy and connecting their agenda to broader opportunities and possibilities. Based on experience and emerging lessons, three interrelated engagement components are proposed: internal strengthening, facilitating dialogue and building alliances. It is important to keep an open mind and understand that PoDs are at different levels, so these interventions must be adaptable and tailored to the specific needs of each pocket. 1. Internal strengthening: In order for the pocket to become more effective and play a greater role within democratic spaces, it is often necessary to strengthen its internal capacity and competence in areas such as governance, leadership, strategic planning, organising, stakeholder mapping and skills training, as well as its operational capacity in terms of tools of the trade(equipment, materials, etc.). Support for internal strengthening should be based first on deepening what already works well. Rather than imposing external strategies, the goal should be to enhance the pocket’s internal logic and integrity without seeking to transform it. The goal is to amplify its own capacities and strengthen what is already working. 8 Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung e.V.