Research framework and broader academic knowledge base
Serbia: documented application of the same framework
Why are nonviolent campaigns often more successful than violent ones - and when are they not?
“Peaceful campaigns often take precedence because they can involve many more people employees, the elderly, families, experts and people who would not accept armed risk.
Wider participation brings information, skills and social connections, makes it difficult for the authorities to present all participants as dangerous and increases the possibility that the police, officials or business allies refuse to cooperate with the regime. Violence, in contrast, often narrows the circle of participants and the authorities give justification for a stronger force. But non-violence is not a magical protection or guarantee success. Small and isolated group, extremely rich government, strong external support to the regime or interference tactics can show.
Campaigns choose their tactics according to the conditions in which they operate, so comparison is not a perfect experiment. The result is a strong historical pattern, but it is not a promise of success.
Works supporting this answer, with their evidence type and an explanation of how they relate to the claim.
data from a large number of countries
Chenoweth, E. i Stephan, M. J. (2011), Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict, Columbia University Press.
- Contribution to this answer
- Chenoweth and Stephan find that large nonviolent campaigns between 1900 and 2006 have historically succeeded significantly more often than violent ones. Their main advantage is not “moral superiority”, but a lower barrier to participation: they can involve much more and more diverse people, use broader repertoire tactics and more easily challenge the transition of people who have supported the regime until then.
critical review of more research
Chenoweth, E. (2023), „The Role of Violence in Nonviolent Resistance“, Annual Review of Political Science 26: 55–77.
- Contribution to this answer
- Chenoweth shows why this finding should not be turned into a simple rule of “every violence destroys the movement”. The survey finds that organized armed violence generally reduces the chances of an otherwise nonviolent campaign to succeed, while the effects of unarmed collective violence and disorder are much more vague and depend on the context, intensity and way the public sees them.
data from a large number of countries
Manekin, D. i Mitts, T. (2022), „Effective for Whom? Ethnic Identity and Nonviolent Resistance“, American Political Science Review 116(1): 161–180.
- Contribution to this answer
- Manekin and Mitts show that the advantage of nonviolence is not equally available to everyone: the protest of the ethnic minority can be perceived as more violent and dangerous even when using the same nonviolent tactics as the majority group. In their data, nonviolence significantly increases the success of dominant groups, while this advantage is much weaker for marginalized minorities.
data from a large number of countries
Kirisci, M. i Demirhan, E. (2021), „Resource Wealth as Leverage: Natural Resources and the Failure of Non-Violent Campaigns“, Government and Opposition 56(1): 102–120.
- Contribution to this answer
- Kirisci and Demirhan show another limit: nonviolent campaigns are more likely to fail in countries with high revenues from natural resources, especially oil. Such money from the authorities gives the opportunity to neutralize potential domestic and external support to the movement, so tactics that are more successful on average are not equally successful against every opponent.
research that checks more closely what the cause is
Wasow, O. (2020), „Agenda Seeding: How 1960s Black Protests Moved Elites, Public Opinion, and Voting“, American Political Science Review 114(3): 638–659.
- Contribution to this answer
- Wasow shows how much the outcome depends on the reaction of the audience: non-violent protests of the civil rights movement, especially when the protesters were the target of repression, moved media and political attention towards civil rights; violent protests moved it towards order and control. The tactics thus change and what people think the protest is actually a story about.
Is a relevant source missing? Send it to us.
Suggest a source or report an error in this answer →