From Burma to Belarus, one question keeps surfacing: Does nonviolent action still work? The authors argue that the theory hasn’t failed, but rather that the field has fallen behind. Authoritarian regimes have modernized repression while movements have reduced strategic nonviolent struggle to street protest, mistaking visibility for leverage. That gap helps explain why organizers facing lethal repression have turned to arms, even though nonviolent campaigns still outperform violent ones. The authors also challenge how success gets measured: Leader-centric, single-cycle standards obscure real gains. What the field needs now isn’t new doctrine but investment in countering smart repression, rebuilding noncooperation, and sharing lessons across movements.
About the Authors
Breza Race Maksimovic
Breza Race Maksimovicis program director at CANVAS. Her work with prodemocracy activists and external partners includes strategic planning, implementation and evaluation of programs, and using nonviolent creative activism to achieve positive change.
Jamila Raqib is executive director of the Albert Einstein Institution and a specialist in the study and practice of strategic nonviolent action. Her current work focuses on how authoritarian regimes and resistance movements adapt, and on translating emerging knowledge into trainings and resources for practitioners.
From Putin's Russia to Chávez's Venezuela, regimes that claim to be democracies but act like autocracies are emerging as a major long-term threat to freedom.
Attitudes toward democracy in Latin America vary from country to country, and within countries between left and right. Public opinion is strongly affected by the success or failure of political…
