writer: Erica Chenoweth
Why are nonviolent revolutions becoming more common?
The first answer is that more people around the world are likely to accept the idea that nonviolent resistance is a legitimate and successful method for creating change.
Second, information technology has made it easier for people to access information about events that were previously unreported or suppressed. The elite can no longer control information as easily as they could in the past, indicating that finding news and information related to ordinary individuals may be easier nowadays.
Third, the market for violence is becoming stagnant. This is more evident due to the reduction of government support to armed groups, which largely subsided with the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Fourth, in the post-World War II era, a significant number of people care about and demand the protection of human rights, justice, and the elimination of violence.
But perhaps the most concerning issue is that people around the world may think that mass mobilization against oppression is now more necessary. Over the past decade, democratic governments have become more unstable and prone to authoritarianism than ever before. Statistics show that more than 50% of nonviolent revolutions from 1900 to 2019 have been successful. Meanwhile, although the success rate for nonviolent revolutionary campaigns has remained around the average or increased from the 1960s to around 2010, important changes have occurred over time. Since 2010, the success rate of all revolutions has declined. In fact, less than 34% of nonviolent revolutions in the past decade have been successful, compared to less than 9 percent of violent revolutions. Therefore, the past ten years reveal a concerning paradox: as civil resistance has become the most common approach of revolutionary struggles to challenge regimes, its effectiveness has also declined in the short term.
The most likely explanation for the decline in the effectiveness of nonviolent revolutions after 2010 refers to the changing nature of the global landscape in which these campaigns take place.
First, ongoing movements may be facing more difficult regimes. Regimes that have overcome their frequent internal crises by supporting local allies and supporters, imprisoning prominent members of the opposition or inciting popular movements to use violence. Some of these regimes have sought to delegitimize the protesters by spreading rumors that they are supported by foreign conspiracies or imperialism. Others – such as the regimes of Iran, Venezuela, Turkey, Syria, Hong Kong, China, and Russia – have relied on powerful international backers to provide diplomatic and sometimes military cover for the regime. There is no doubt that the activists who work in such fields are facing tough and inconsistent enemies.
Second, current governments may be learning and adapting to nonviolent challenges. Today, those in power have also come to a greater understanding that mass campaigns are a real threat to existing power holders. In addition, civil resistance has become so widespread that governments have engaged in more activities aimed at developing and standardizing smarter political approaches to repression. Many researchers refer to this approach as “smart repression,” which is one of the prominent strategies for suppressing and infiltrating movements, as well as creating divisions and discord within them. By doing so, authorities can incite nonviolent movements to use more militant tactics, including the use of violence, before they establish a broad base of popular support and consolidate power. This issue can discourage allies and moderates from joining the movement or question the movement’s policy.
Third, the increase in domestic and global resistance against United States imperialism has led the country to step back from the global stage as a superpower that seeks to promote its brand of liberal democracy abroad.
However, it seems that the main reasons for the decline in the effectiveness of nonviolent campaigns are related to the characteristics of the campaigns themselves. First, as explained in the previous sections, the most important indicator of the success of resistance movements is their size. In recent years, civil resistance campaigns have, on average, become smaller compared to the past. Since 2010, the average peak participation has dropped to less than 1.3 percent.
Second, current movements tend to overly rely on mass demonstrations without developing and organizing other non-cooperation techniques – such as general strikes and civil disobedience – which are more effective methods. Mass demonstrations are not always the most effective in exerting pressure on elites, especially when they are not sustained over time. Other techniques of non-cooperation, such as general strikes, can be very disruptive to economic life and therefore, often yield more immediate concessions.
Third, recent movements have increasingly relied on digital activism and organization, particularly through social media, which have strengths. On the one hand, digital activism is highly effective for contemporary movements in quickly mobilizing large numbers of people in a short period. This allows people to share their grievances widely. It also enables people to communicate and organize through media that are not controlled by mainstream institutions or governments. However, movements that rely on digital platforms to lead individuals may be less equipped with effective institutions that can plan, negotiate, and establish common goals. In addition, the dark side of easier communication over the Internet is easier surveillance and control. Those in power can use digital technologies to monitor, isolate and suppress dissenters or simply cut off communications and challenge the movement. Moreover, autocrats increasingly utilize digital technologies to spread misinformation, propaganda, and counter-messages.
Finally, the decline in the effectiveness of revolutionary movements may also be partially due to the development of more sophisticated repression techniques by governments. Authoritarian leaders have developed smarter methods to suppress internal rivals, including non-governmental organizations (NGOs), opposition leaders, reformist campaigns, and revolutions.
However, for the following four reasons, it seems that civil resistances can still challenge entrenched authoritarian powers:
- None of the actions of authoritarian governments in the direction of suppressing the opposition are without fault.
- Research indicates that public repression is not necessarily a reliable deterrent to collective action.
- Regardless of governments using smart repression tactics, there are manifestations of people’s power in many parts of the world.
- Activists have begun to adapt through various ways to cope with smart repression techniques.
What are the consequences of nonviolence campaigns?
One of the concerns expressed about nonviolent revolutions is that they may bring even more repressive governments to power than the ones they replaced or if nonviolent campaigns fail, armed revolutionaries will take over the struggle, leading to civil war.
According to the historical record, these concerns are valid. Especially since in recent years, many examples of civil resistance in countries such as Syria, Libya, and Sudan have led to civil war. But most research shows that these cases are exceptions rather than the rule. Numerous studies have shown that nonviolent resistance campaigns often lead to democratic transitions that lead to full democratic consolidation. Even in countries where nonviolent resistance have failed, compared to countries that experienced armed struggle, they were about four times more likely to transition to democracy within five years after the conflict’s end.
Indeed, democracy is not the only goal of many movements.Their demands often include social, economic, and racial justice that goes beyond democratic institutions such as elections, oversight, and civil rights. Yet democracy is often a necessary – though insufficient – prerequisite for achieving these broader goals. Also, besides transitioning to democracy, research has shown that countries that have gone through nonviolent resistance campaigns are less likely to experience civil wars in the following decade and have a better quality of life.
In general, the societies that used nonviolent resistance campaigns have experienced far less destruction, and power dynamics have often been transformed in them. Most of the power relations have changed in them. Higher levels of political participation and civil society organization generally have positive long-term effects on democracy, as civil resistance campaigns empower people with the experience of using nonviolent methods to demand and achieve government accountability. However, the important point is that if mass uprisings turn into violent conflicts (like in Libya or Syria), the prospects for the spread of democracy are almost zero.
It also seems that mass nonviolent uprisings rarely alone solve the problems of the governance system, such as the lack of independent institutions, deep-rooted corruption, and insufficient power-sharing mechanisms. This is because the consolidation of democracy requires creating new habits among citizens, investing in independent institutions, separation of powers, reforming the security forces, and the constitution so that it respects the rights of all citizens. This process of consolidation takes time (often at least one generation). However, the importance of mass civil mobilization in the immediate removal of obstacles to progress should not be underestimated.
Why is it difficult for people to accept civil resistance?
It is hard to understand why people stick to violent actions instead of accepting a wide spectrum of civil resistance tactics. The reasons for this may vary depending on context. Although awareness of the power of nonviolent resistance has increased over time, most people still do not realize that nonviolent resistance is a realistic alternative to creating social change. Everyday life is full of stories, movies, legends and other cultural narratives that glorify violence. This continuous glorification of violence serves to erase the extraordinary history of civil resistance and people power movements that have emerged over millennia of nonviolent struggles.
Even if people accept the premise that civil resistance works, they may lack precise information about how to plan, implement, and effectively participate in a nonviolent revolution. Part of the reason for this is that governments have made significant efforts to prevent people from becoming familiar with these techniques.
Others may refrain from accepting nonviolent resistance because they are convinced that it doesn’t work – or that it can’t work without violence. Based on their own experiences, for example, if they have been involved in a protest that went wrong, they may conclude that the entire technique of nonviolent resistance is pointless. Or they may perceive their enemies as deeply entrenched or complex or their movement’s goals as too ambitious, leading them to believe that they cannot overcome the situation without resorting to dramatic and destructive actions.
Some people, also, may actively invest in using violence for ideological, personal or commercial reasons. For example, while most religious texts advocate for peace and nonviolence, many interpretations of religious traditions also contain ethical justifications for violence. Additionally, some Marxist approaches to social changes justify the necessity of an armed uprising to separate the capitalist class from their wealth and property and redistribute it fairly, aiming to establish a new economic system of communal ownership among the masses.
Others believe that nonviolent resistance advocates promote a kind of dogmatism, preferring to put all options on the table as a way to resist hierarchy and domination in all its forms.
Recent studies have also shown strong personal motivations for supporting or participating in violence. In particular, despite public efforts to defend violence based on its efficacy, individuals personally tend to endorse or use violence out of revenge.
There are strong commercial reasons behind this perception that violence is the only way for people to achieve their desires. The arms trade is one of the most profitable industries in the world and these industries promote the message that violence is the only means to secure their interests.
With all these discussions, if activists come to the conclusion that nonviolent movements are an effective method, they should make it accessible to the general public. This is achieved through the following methods:
First, it must carefully dispel common misconceptions about nonviolent resistance, such as portraying it as passive, weak, or ineffective or that it requires the enemy to care about morality.
Second, people need to have a better understanding of why civil resistance has succeeded and failed in various fields and contexts. In particularEspecially, activists using nonviolent methods of action should not learn the wrong lessons from their contemporaries around the world. Instead, ordinary people should learn the right lessons from historical examples that provide some basic patterns and clear consequences for contemporary movements.
Some of the lessons learned from studying the movements that can be helpful to other civil resistance movements in the future include
1. Movements that involve precise planning, organization, training and coalition-building before mobilization mass participation are likely to attract more supporters than those that rush into the streets without developing a political program and strategy.
2. Movements that grow in size and diversity are more likely to succeed.
3. Movements that do not rely solely on protests, demonstrations and digital activism but build power through parallel institutions, community organizing and non-cooperation techniques are likely to build effective and sustainable followership.
4. Movements that anticipate and develop strategies to counter smart repression are more likely to succeed. This requires seeing and identifying repressive tactics.
5. Finally, movements that develop tools and strategies to maintain unity and discipline under pressure may perform better than those that leave these transformations to chance.
At the end, it is necessary to remember 5 points:
1. Civil resistance is a real and more effective alternative to violent resistance in most environments. Civil resistance does not mean being good or civil, instead, it refers to a form of resistance that is based on social action. Civil resistance is about fighting and creating new alternatives using methods that are more inclusive and effective than violence.
2. Civil resistance does not work by appealing to the enemy’s heart but by creating a deviation from their base of support.
3. Civil resistance goes far beyond mere protest and includes methods of non-cooperation tactics, such as strikes and the creation of new alternatives. These alternatives are similar to the proposal of a new system, such as mutual aid organizations, alternative economic systems and replacement political groups, providing people with the experience of a new way of life.
4. Civil resistance has been much more effective than armed resistance over the past century, both in advancing progressive changes and democratization and in doing so without creating long-lasting humanitarian crises in between.
5. Although nonviolent resistance does not always succeed, it is much more common than its opponents would like you to know.