Drawing on specific aspects of the readings from this module, offer your own view on this question: Will political nonviolence remain as effective in the future as it has been in the past? Why or why not?

Political nonviolence has been a stabilized sense of action taken by society in numerous parts of the world in the past 3-4 centuries. It involved many tough battles of one’s voice to ensure that rightful values were allowed, and a better life for all is comprehended. As the world embarks on numerous challenges in the present day and the future, political nonviolence comes into question many scholars that maybe it results in an idea and action that won’t be necessary for the future. I certainly believe that political non-violence will remain as effective in the future as it has been in the past, and I’ll go ahead and explain several ideas on why my idea is supported through many different acts.

Political nonviolence has been a form of showing the true perseverance of many people and society, It has demonstrated that ‘’Nonviolent resistance is a method of struggle in which unarmed people confront an adversary by using collective action including protests, demonstrations, strikes, and noncooperation to build power and achieve political goals.’’ (Chenoweth 2020) The world is growing significantly, and everyone understands what they’re capable of when matters are not in their favor because everyone deserves the chance to live happily with the hope to grow as a society, which leads to people will continue to revolt against dangerous regimes in how ‘’a successful revolt requires good strategists who identify a ruler’s weakness and devise effective methods of withdrawing popular support from the state.’’(Nepstad 2011)

In the 21st century, we have witnessed several moments that perhaps lives have changed and the world. But one thing has not changed, which is democracy. Democracy has continued to prevail through the challenges we all face but we become stronger from such situations as covid 19, ‘’There is no doubt that the covid-19 pandemic has been a sharp and sudden blow to the dozens of ongoing civil-resistance movements around the world.’’ (Chenoweth 2020) The pandemic certainly made it much stronger and broader with the full capacity to facilitate nonviolent revolutionary movements and acts to ensure what’s right is done for the future to come. Many people in terms of seeing processes of political opposition in which a ruling may be passer not in their favor may come to a deep of a successful nonviolent bemusement in how it can aim to the power of transformation, ‘’Nonviolent revolutionaries also aim to seize power and usher in political transformation, but they operate with an alternative conception of political power.’’(Nepstad 2011) Such ideas from nonviolence revolutionary counters many factors that correlate significance of how society takes into consideration. I believe that the world is stronger, and will use its will to undermine the thought of contradiction whether it’s a government official or not. This idea will become effective soon due to how its past had worked significantly, and most likely now the world will use it in more of a more significant way due to the level of complexity that has arrived in the world.

---

Political non-violence will remain as effective in the future as it has been in the past and may even become more effective at creating change in politics than violence and revolutions. The problem with revolutions is that they bring suffering and a new government that has to face its challenges. On the other end of the spectrum, non-violence brings political change without damaging the current government or physically harming any individual. There is also an increased stigma where violence is concerned and as time goes on it becomes more and more frowned upon as Erica Chenoweth states “The market for violence is drying up. This is most strikingly obvious with regard to outside state support for armed groups, which fell off sharply with the breakup of the Soviet Union.” (Chenoworth 72). Nonviolent movements are also much easier to spread in this digital age so the narratives that they create are more accessible than ever and can reach more people and garner higher levels of support. New levels of technology being able to reach a higher percentage of the population than ever allowing for widespread attention will make it a lot easier for these movements to attract supporters. This means that nonviolent movements are perhaps going to be more effective than ever before. Nonviolence was always more effective than its violent counterparts and as time progresses these movements will function more efficiently than ever before.

Sharon Nepstad provides quality empirical data in her writings showing that nonviolent protest is much more effective in causing changes to a regime than violent movements. She states “armed movements, which are not as dependent on widespread participation to achieve their goals” (Nepstad chapter 1). These violent protests are not nearly as effective at creating long-term widespread change because they do not rely on the majority of the population’s support just the armed class of citizens. This is what makes political non-violence so effective for Nepstad it relies heavily on the support of the people resulting in longevity and more effective change. Another piece of evidence that she provides that supports the claim that nonviolent protest is more effective is that foreign sanctions have no impact on the success of these movements. On the other hand, foreign sanctions double the success of violent movements making it seem as though violent movements need outside force help to achieve their goals while nonviolent movements maintain their power without outside influencers.

---

Political nonviolence has been around for many years, and in my opinion, will still be current. To keep initiatives moving forward, reaching consensus is an essential component. Aggression in an uprising runs the danger of breaking this agreement and might turn off people who would normally be sympathetic to a cause. Although the future is unpredictable, It is impossible to predict if social pacifism will be successful in the future. Furthermore, there are instances where the use of electoral pacifism has been demonstrated to be an effective strategy for ushering in economic and economic change. In particular, protests and strikes have shown to be powerful weapons for putting pressure on governments to change their policies to benefit most of the population.
On the other side, a number of governments have developed a dictatorial stance over time, which has led to increasing limitations on the liberties of open speech, the capacity to assemble, and various other freedoms. “Nonviolent resistance is a method of struggle in which unarmed people confront an adversary by using collective action including protests, demonstrations, strikes, and noncooperation to build power and achieve political goals.”[1] Cultural pacifism may not always be as successful as it can be if authorities are hesitant to grant compromises to those engaging in peaceful protests. Furthermore, certain regimes would respond harshly to social pacifism, which might spark further unrest and bloodshed.
Political pacifism’s effectiveness in the years to come will depend on a variety of factors, such as how severely authorities suppress their citizens, how willing they are to make compromises how readily accessible other forms of demonstration are, and how much support they receive from the broad public. “One way to undermine security force loyalty is to raise the political costs of crackdowns. To do this, civil resisters need to ensure that any repressive action against the movement is televised globally.”[2] The ability of activists to adjust to shifting circumstances and find novel means of achieving their goals will ultimately define the course of political nonviolence. The coming years of electoral pacifism will be largely influenced by this, which is the most significant element.
Consequently, even if social pacifism has been effective in times gone by, it is challenging to forecast how effective it is going to be in the years to come. For the cause to continue to be successful, activists must be able to preserve their sense of inventiveness and adaptability in their approach.

---

Analyzing political nonviolence today and foreseeing its future relies greatly on the context in which it is occurring. As Nepstad notes, the perception of state power is significant to political movements. However, this perception is significant in terms of more than just assessing why political violence or nonviolence are the chosen strategy. The perception of state power in a society is also important to how effective nonviolence can be. In states where there is a mutual relationship between government and governed, where the state relies upon the people, political nonviolence is more effective. This is because the state relies upon the people and when strategic nonviolence and civil resistance are executed properly, the state cannot survive without great changes. On the other hand, in states where the political structures are not reliant on its people to retain power, political nonviolence is less successful. With this dichotomy, political nonviolence may remain effective, at least to some end, in certain parts of the world while losing ground in others.

As Nepstad argues, the withdrawal of skills to promote or sustain government activities, most notably in the form of strikes, is a greatly impactful way of forcing political change. However, in rentier states and resource rich states, such as oil rich states in the Middle East, the state does not rely upon the people in this way, making strikes and other forms of civil resistance obsolete. These types of states are more often authoritarian, making revolution extremely difficult, especially through nonviolence. Nonviolent political movements likely will not be effective in these types of states.

In democratic states where political structures rely upon the people

Many argue political nonviolence will lose efficacy due to nonparticipation, but there is still some hope for states in which the political structures rely upon the people. Greater motivation from the people to take action will be needed, but with the polarization being seen in many modern countries, there likely will be more people willing to take up a cause. However, the results of political nonviolence in this context will likely result more in reforms and policy changes rather than substantial overall political or regime change. With that in consideration, political nonviolence will likely remain effective in many states, but not to the effect of revolution.

Overall, the outlook for the efficacy of political nonviolence depends partly on the perspective taken. If one views political nonviolence as effective only if it results in revolutionary change, then nonviolence will absolutely be less effective. However, if political nonviolence is seen as effective when resulting in reforms or policy changes, it is very likely to remain effective in more democratic parts of the world. Unfortunately, in less democratic states where the support of the people is not needed, political nonviolence is not likely to be successful.

---

After thinking about the readings for this module, I have come to the conclusion that political nonviolence will remain at least as effective in the future as it has been in the past if not become even more effective. I believe that in the future political nonviolence will become even more effective as new tactics are being created everyday through the use of technology and nonviolence is being adopted by a wider audience that has seen the effectiveness of it. The strongest argument for this belief can be found in Erica Chenoweth’s The Future of Nonviolent Resistance. She discusses how nonviolent resistances are becoming more commonplace with the last two decades having double the nonviolent campaigns than the last five decades.

The biggest reason for this disparity is seen in Nepstad’s Mutiny and nonviolence in the Arab Spring where he writes about Ukrainian protestors broadcasting live footage of the area where they were protesting knowing that the government would be less likely to use violence if they knew their actions were being recorded. Nepstad wrote “This strategy was effective because if troops cracked down, this could lead to international condemnation, the ending of diplomatic relations, the cessation of aid and trade agreements, and arms embargoes” (Pg. 339). People no longer want to use violence since they know that if they are nonviolent, any use of force by their government will only strengthen their cause and encourage other countries to punish the violent country which would help them even further.

Nonviolent resistances can also sometimes do much more damage than violence can as seen in a chapter in a novel by Nepstad. He writes about civil resisters in East Germany where “mass emigration led to a shortage of factory workers, health care providers, transportation operators, and communication specialists” (Pg. 127). He shows that these resisters were able to damage the country’s economy, public health, and infrastructure all without using violence. This form of resistance also shows the protested government how essentially these protestors are and makes them more likely to give in to their demands. All these factors explain why nonviolent demonstrations are occuring more frequently now than ever before.

Even during the Covid-19 pandemic when going out and protesting could prove deadly, movements in the U.S protesting racism and police brutality as well as movements in Israel and even Taiwan still were carried out. Some of these protests were in person and others utilized video conferencing technology and email/messaging services to contact the people they were protesting against. Chenoweth describes the different types of resistance that were created and used during the pandemic that could continue to be used afterwards like “mutual-aid pods, strikes, stay-at-homes, sick-ins, online teach- ins, and various expressions of solidarity with and collective support for frontline workers” (Pg. 80). She stays hopeful about the future of nonviolent resistance and talks about the strides the practice has made since it was first used all the to today.

---

I believe that political nonviolence will continue to be an effective strategy in the future, and it might be even better than in the past because civil resistance campaigns attract more absolute numbers of people. Nonviolent revolutions help level the political playing field after transition by creating a political environment more conducive to multiparty competition. These types of movements have a lower barrier to participation than picking up a weapon. According to Nepstad, condition and strategy matter for a revolution of civil resistance or nonviolence. Because it is important to understand when to take advantage when an event is approaching. “Certain events often trigger public outrage and escalate longstanding grievances, making people receptive to unarmed revolutionary movements.” (Preface, Nepstad) Because according to past cases such as Germany and other countries cited by the author, she points out that certain conditions and together with the strategy could facilitate the expansion of a non-violent revolutionary movement. “Social, economic and political conditions can facilitate or impede the emergence and spread of nonviolent uprising” (Preface, Nepstad)
However, not only does it depend on the actions of only one side, but also knowing how to handle the counter-response of the opposition. Since the movement must not only focus on its strengths and opportunities, but must consider very well the strengths, movements and strategies of the opposition. “Ignoring the strategies of the dictators…provides an incomplete picture as some well-planned nonviolent revolts have failed because the rulers outmaneuvered the resisters” (Preface, Nepstad) And the key point that Nepstad considers important is knowing how to confront “cunning counter-strategies”. As mentioned above, I believe that “Nonviolence is a practical and effective form of political struggle”  (Nepstad, Chapter 1) Because civil resistance can be as disruptive as an armed or violent revolution to erupt in public spaces “With the aim of overthrowing established rulers and transforming political institutions. Nonviolent revolts employ different “weapons”, such as non-cooperation, strikes, boycotts, and subversion of the loyalty of regime supporters “(Chapter 1, Nepstad)

In addition, technology has facilitated communication globally, has brought communities closer together and, without a doubt, has created movements that work hard to resist oppressive regimes to such a point that most of the population stops following the governor. The leader will be seen at a disadvantage and with such a risk of being overthrown. The belief that the only way to remove an authoritarian power is violence is increasingly less effective, due to the consequences it entails and because it mainly includes the working or peasant class. However, through the civil resistance, it has the capacity to involve some social classes.  Nonviolent resistance has been shown empirically to be twice as effective as armed struggle in achieving major political goals. it has changed the way people fight for social and political change.  According Chenoweth’s groundbreaking research shows that nonviolent resistance campaigns are 10 times as likely to result in democratic change. So it seems that political nonviolence will remain effective in the future as it has been in the past.

---

As modernity encroaches upon the contemporary and drapes the goals and challenges of civil movements in reflective colors, it can certainly be argued that in recent decades the action of nonviolent organization has found itself in an uncertain state. Indeed, what was once a unique and collective challenge to oppressive power, supported by genuine followers rallied around moral obligations; ready to act, has in my opinion, become subtly watered down with the consolidation of a techno-centric society. In this argument, I mean to emphasize the significance nonviolence has, in terms of developing a meaningful foundation, on the Homefront of America. When we view past examples of these types of movements, if it is Indian independence, East German unity, or the Philippine revolution what we find are peoples genuinely united behind a large cause that directly affected their individual lives(Nepstad, Ch.8). The masses being collectively under the boot of injustice, or negatively effected by it, in general, such as elites, led them to grow focused on ridding the land of unfairness without, might I add, large numbers of half-hearted or false supporters prancing under the “change” facade. However, in the United States, the growing pace of technology and the rapid-fire normality of present movements had made this collective unity seen in historical examples consistently half-baked. This is largely due to three critical reasons each of which presents an insight into how the decadence of modernity has led to a lazy, lukewarm, and divided youth that only rallies, might I say, to nonviolent action when it’s “in fashion”.

 

Firstly, the growing domination of social media in the lives of young Americans has what I think resulted in an individual disconnect with the reality of current events, has exacerbated their ignorance surrounding the tactical side of nonviolent revolution, and increased the divide between them and the issues occurring to others near them. We see ads for marches, videos and pictures of injustice, and calls to action by organizers but the reality is for the far-reaching effects the programs have, it can be safely said that out of millions of likes and shares, only a handful will appear at a gathering. This is because what is being advocated does not or more importantly HAS not affected their lives individually. In other words, it’s largely difficult for a person who has never experienced police brutality or Cuban poverty to attend a rally in Miami protesting their presence. Moreover, those that do attend have only been exposed to the snippets and clips of large gatherings which to them translate to change and meaningful action (Chenoweth, Pg. 77-79), by which governments end up remaining unaffected. They misunderstand what nonviolent revolution is and swell movements up with false followers who prevent momentum from increasing due to their inability to comprehend the sacrifices needed in order for one to be called a “revolutionary”. Secondly, the collapse of collective morals among the masses and an increase in individualism which has been further facilitated by the sectionalist tendencies of social media has prevented large numbers of people to sympathize and grasp the pain of their fellow man in order to band in their cause. Being exposed to the web has enabled people to find their own niches and groups of people that they find affectionate towards, resulting in attachment to one’s interests rather than the collective interests of the populace. This can be backtracked as far as the “cultural revolution” of the Vietnam War era that diminished the idea of an “American people” and led to dispersed interest groups; i.e. hippies, war hawks, etc. Thirdly, involvement in large nonviolent demonstrations appears to be mostly light-hearted without any sense of long-term mainstay due to the brief high of collective frustration. However, as seen with mainstream news, the eyes of the nation almost instantly divert their attention to new matters that crop up and steal the limelight. At the same time, taking part in the brief weekends of traffic obstruction, picket signs, and celebrities rousing up crowds to chant for change only swells into enormous numbers because of the peer pressure from others. Any Miamian that has recently witnessed the Cuban protests will see that by the following week, it was as if the movement had never occurred.

 

I am willing to say that for the most part, not many Americans are the “revolutionaries” they paint themselves to be or align themselves to be. In essence, it is simply a trait to gain the attention of others, but in revelation, not many are willing to make the sacrifice necessary. This is why non-violence has a troubled future in my eyes as if a movement does not grow on the affected individual, its highly difficult for them to voluntarily lose income from a mass strike in order to gamble change; more or less risk their well-being from the truncheon of an officer. The “individual” construct I am focusing on regards that injustice must affect all individual groups not some. The term acts as a homonym. Nonviolence still holds water in the modern world, however, I do think that without a massive injustice or threat to the individuals such as a defensive war, draft, or outright obstruction of all rights, not some, then there can’t be a rallied mass. In other words, the population foundation from which these movements grow is rotting.

---

There are many forms citizens “fight” back when there is an unjust or don’t agree with certain laws. There are protests, sit-ins, marches, etc. and they all involve being nonviolent. In these cases, they are permitted since they are peaceful. I do think that political nonviolence will remain as effective in the future as it has been in the past. When there have been protests that have been peaceful, no one is harmed and its morally looked up on because of the respect. Doing the opposite in rooted in the thought that it is immoral and unjust. Nonviolence resistance is more effective and more likely to lead to democratisation than violent resistance. There have been many movements that are successful and have been nonviolent resistance. For example, the Freedom Rides. They were nonviolent and were more effective than a violent protest could have been. Sometimes nonviolent resistance can deliver better results because you are acting rational and with thought and not just with anger or violence. In the long run this could even benefit when it comes to legal matters. I believe that when protests or marches or whatever type of resistance becomes violent, the government responds back with even more violence and that never solves anything. Violence can only triumph power but it does nothing to help the situation. For example, when the Black Lives Matter movement was happening, there were peaceful protests going on everywhere in the United States. I remember also seeing videos on social media of protests that were not so nonviolent. There were stores, businesses, shops, restaurants, establishments, etc. being broken into and vandalized. This caused so much chaos. The government and states sent in police officers and in some cases even some military personnel to control the situation. Citizens were injured and this angered everyone even more! This real life example goes to show that violent resistance isn’t the best approach when wanting to protest against the government or anything in general. Kill them with kindness and respect is the best motto to go by because eventually there is negotiations or reevaluation of situations or laws.

---

I really liked Erica Chenoweth’s paper “The Future of Nonviolent Resistance”. Though we are currently living through these changing dynamics of nonviolence/civil disobedience it’s often to place them in a historical context and analyze the subtle shifts that are occurring while developments are being reported on on the news and the matters have a substantial influence on your present life (and if not then your current morals). Chenoweth’s paper was also a nice juxtaposition to the other papers in terms of nonviolence before 2019 and after. In that regard, I believe political nonviolence will remain as an effective tool for change towards the future.

As was said by Chenoweth “over the past decade, more and more democratic governments have faltered and reverted into authoritarianism” (pg 72). Later on in page 75 she states that of the successful revolutions that have occurred since 2010 nonviolent movements have a wider chance of success. With the new additions of information sharing and higher rates of education on a global level, this kind of notable difference between the success rate of one over the other improves its appeal. Another point in favor of the durability of nonviolence is the way it has adapted within the last couple of years to counter measures carried out by the government “movements have gained civic strength when they have developed alternative institutions to build self-sufficiency and address community problems that governments have neglected or ignored” (pg 81).

Also, we can see in Nepstad’s “Mutiny and Nonviolence in the Arab Spring” and Chapter 8 her book “Nonviolent Revolutions” how effective the messages of nonviolent protest carry and how they have the ability to appeal to the rational thoughts of the armed forces. In Mutiny and nonviolence […] , an example of this can be seen with President Mubarak of Egypt and his troops that decided to turn on him (pg. 342). In Chapter 8 it’s highlighted in the Philippines with how religious sentiment was persuasive in causing troops to defect from President Marcos. Though it may not always be the case, as explained on page 76 of “The Future of […]” on how governments are adapting to the changing rules of access to information and the ease of social mobilization.Even taking this into account, I think it’s clear to see just how much more compelling in a border sense, and the fact that it attracts more people only propels it’s success further.

---

Any theory of revolutionary success or failure must therefore include an assessment of both structural conditions and revolutionary strategy. Nonviolent revolutionaries also aim to seize power and usher in political transformation, but they operate with an alternative conception of political power. As the 1980s began, few anticipated that nonviolent revolutionary movements would instigate significant political changes throughout the world. ” Structural conditions and changing political circumstances are important because they can generate widespread dissatisfaction with a regime or strengthen the belief that change is now attainable. This, in turn, creates a large pool of potential civil resisters, making it possible to launch a revolt,” (Nepstad, Chapter 8). It is difficult to predict with certainty whether political nonviolence will remain as effective in the future as it has been in the past. However, there are several factors that could influence its effectiveness. “Nonviolent resistance is a method of struggle in which unarmed people confront in an adversary by using collective action —- including protests, demonstrations, strikes, and noncooperation — to build power and achieve political goals,” (Chenoweth, page 70). Contrary to popular belief, it is not the case that nonviolent campaigns emerge or win out mainly when the regimes they confront are politically weak, incompetent, or unwilling to employ mass violence. The most tempting explanations for the decline in effectiveness of civil-resistance campaigns center on the changed environment within which they now operate. “First, movement may be facing more entrenched regimes —- ones that have prevailed against repeated challenges by shoring up support from local allies and key constituencies; imprisoning, prominent oppositionists; provoking opponents into using violence; stuck in fears of foreign or imperial conspiracies; or obtaining diplomatic, cover from powerful international supporters…..second, governments may be learning and adapting to nonviolent challenges from below…… Today, given the ample historical record of successful nonviolent campaigns, state actors are likely are to perceive search movements as genuinely threatening…. One prominent strategy is to infiltrate movements and divide them from within…. third, with the election of Donald Trump in 2016, the United States has accelerated its retreat from its global role as a superpower with a prodemocracy agenda,” (Chenoweth, page 76). Therefore, upon deeper inspection, although it may be that states have begun to better anticipate and suppress nonviolent resistance, the two structural arguments have a little support in the historical record. Instead, the most compelling explanations for the declining effectiveness of nonviolent campaigns lie in the changing nature of the campaigns themselves

---

If nonagression has been effective thus far, I can’t imagine why political nonviolence wouldn’t continue to succeed in the future. Civil disobedience has safely forwarded progress more than any violent acts of sanctioned terrorism have. As noted in Chenoweth’s essay, “among the 565 campaigns that have both begun and ended over the past 120 years, about 51 percent of the nonviolent campaigns have succeeded outright, while only about 26 percent of the violent ones have” (Chenoweth, 74). The gap between achievements through political nonviolence and defeat under violence are major – civil disobedience has triumphed over war time and time again. By modes of protests, sit-ins, and mass demonstrations, it’s clear that passive resistance has forced change throughout history. Achieving social change can be completed socially as we’ve seen in the past with Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi’s pragmatic principles of truth, equity, peaceful defiance, and justice overall. While some may believe that actions speak louder than words, words elicit the actions needed to implement change.

 

Prominent from the late 20th century until today, there’s power in numbers and unity holds the power to transform institutions. Like Nepstad said, revolutions occur when five widespread circumstances are present: “grievances against the state, national elites shifting allegiance from the state to the opposition, people growing angered by regime injustices with a will to act, opposition groups’ ideology of rebellion, and the necessity of mobilizing organizations (Nepstad, Chapter 1). All of these conditions can be completed with a pacifist approach. I feel that we could reframe the question of whether or not civil disobedience will remain revolutionary in the future since it depends more on society’s conscious choice to continue choosing solidarity in uprisings.

 

As seen in Table 8.2 of Nepstad’s book, we can identify the forms of pacifism that prove most effective over 6 different countries. The foolproof techniques are refusal to acknowledge regime authority, refusal to cooperate or comply with laws, and challenging mentalities of obedience (Nepstad, Chapter 8). The common theme of these successful strategies is noncooperation. The less successful approaches are withholding skills, withholding material resources, and undermining states’ sanctioning power (Nepstad, Chapter 8). There’s a pattern of materialistic focus instead of behavioral changes. The choice to disobey authority isn’t something that can be taken away or given away unlike depriving resources. The choice to practice civil disobedience is something that everyone already possesses within themselves. Challenging unwanted norms is an accessible form of defiance since it’s an entirely mental technique. So as long as society continues to make the conscious decision to unite, political nonviolence will always remain successful.

---

Non-violent resistance is a type of struggle whereby an unnamed group of people confront an adversary using collective action like protests, strikes and noncooperation to realize political aims. Armed struggle was the way in which movements struggled for change against the political system however today, campaigns whereby people rely heavily on non-violent rebellion have done away with armed struggle as the most common way to improved action globally. Chenoweth (2020, 70) states that violent uprisings have decreased since the 1970s while nonviolent resistance campaigns have become much more common. Chenoweth (2020, 70) states that people have turned to non-violent resistance as they perceive it as a right and successful way for bringing change and although the concept of nonviolent resistance is not yet globally comprehended or accepted, its preference has grown significantly, in recent years. 

As the 1980s started, few people were hopeful that the nonviolent revolutionary movements would bring about major political transformations globally. Cold war animosities and the arms race were used to justify all forms of totalitarian moves yet surprisingly, citizens came out to challenge those authoritarian movements (Nepstad, 1966). Most people challenged thosetotalitarian measures using non-violent measures such as “embarking on hunger strikes, filling the streets with protesters and withdrawing their support of unjust leaders (Nepstad, 2013‘first chapter’). Some of these revolts brought about significant changes removing long-standing dictatorship regimes in a short period while others failed to bring about any change sometimes ending tragically (Nepstad, 2013 ‘first chapter’). 

In the past fifty years, non-violent civil resistance has overwhelmed armed struggle as the typical form of mobilization utilized by revolutionary movements. In 2019, the world saw the largest wave of ass, nonviolent antigovernment movements in history (Chenoweth, 2020, 72). Huge protests and demonstrations exploded in many countries. Although 2011 was referred to as the year of protest, 2019 claimed the title more. Since 2017, the United States has had its own period of movements fighting for racial justice, immigration justice, gun control, defunding of police, women’s rights, climate justice, LGBTQ rights (Chenoweth, 2020, 76). However, within a few months all these movements came to a halt due to the global COVID-19 pandemic and the State’s response to the global pandemic which forced people to abandon mass protests(Chenoweth, 2020, 77). During that time, governments across the world took advantage of the unexpected lapse to push laws ranging from suspending free speech, banning immigrant admissions. The interruption caused by COVIID-19 brought with it significant challenges that have crippled mass movements in the past few years. (Chenoweth 2020, 79) states that although non-violent resistance campaigns grew in popularity in the past decade, their ability to achieve spectacular results had started to decrease even prior to the pandemic.

From these, I think that nonviolent resistance will remain as effective in the future as it has been in the past because of certain factors. First, technology is making it easier to get information about events that were not reported and because the internet will continue to expand, more people will continue consuming news on online platforms like newspaper websites and social media. For instance, people in Kenya can read about and get inspired and learn from the deeds of people in the United States. In addition, with open access to new communication channels, people get to and will continue to connect with others who they view as likeminded and because elites cannot control information as easily as they once did, information about regular people may be found easily on these online platforms. Lastly, many people in society have come to value fairness, safeguarding of human rights an avoiding unnecessary violence. This shift has increased popular interest in civil resistance as a method to champion for human rights and can only continue to do so making nonviolent resistance to remain as effective in the future as it has in the past.

---

In my opinion, political nonviolence will continue to maintain its efficacy in the future, although this may vary depending on specific contexts and circumstances. This is due to its proven track record of success. Erica Chenoweth analyzed nonviolent movements between 1900 and 2006 and found that they were more likely to succeed than violent ones, with double the probability (Nepstad 342). Furthermore, nonviolent movements had a greater chance of promoting democratic transitions and achieving lasting transformations. Therefore, nonviolent resistance offers inherent advantages over violent resistance.The effectiveness of nonviolence can be influenced by various factors. According to Sharon Erickson Nepstad’s research on the Arab Spring, the success of nonviolent movements depends largely on the loyalty or defection of the military. For instance, military defections played a crucial role in removing Mubarak from power in Egypt, but in Syria, the military stayed loyal to Assad’s regime and suppressed nonviolent movements (Hinnebusch et al., 477). In Bahrain, the lack of complete success for the peaceful protests could be attributed to internal divisions among the armed forces. Therefore, the attitudes and actions of key actors, specifically those in the military, can significantly impact the effectiveness of nonviolence.

The level of repression that a nonviolent movement encounters could impact its effectiveness. According to Nepstad’s research on Syria, movements that face brutal oppression from regimes such as Assad’s might resort to violence instead of nonviolence, which could hinder their success (Nepstad 340). The success of nonviolent resistance could be influenced by the extent of repression and the methods employed by those in power to suppress dissent.The future effectiveness of political nonviolence could be impacted by shifts in power dynamics and changing political conflicts. However, the success of nonviolent resistance movements can be sustained through adapting strategies and tactics, as discussed by Erica Chenoweth in an article that addresses the challenges of rising state repression and technological advances. For instance, social media and other innovative approaches can be employed to mobilize and maintain nonviolent resistance movements.

Erica Chenoweth stresses in her article on the future of nonviolent resistance that the adaptability of movements is crucial in navigating evolving political conflicts and power dynamics. Given today’s technological advancements and increasing state oppression, nonviolent resistance faces both unique challenges and opportunities. Strategies such as social media mobilization and digital organization are effective means of sustaining nonviolent resistance movements in the future. Political nonviolence can be enhanced with the aid of social media platforms and technological innovations. Social media platforms possess the ability to enable communication, coordination, and mobilization efforts, making them a potent tool. Activists use these tools to disseminate information and organize campaigns on a large scale (Groshek et al. 345). The use of social media enables nonviolent resistance movements to rapidly circulate messages and images to generate global support. The Arab Spring witnessed the efficient use of social media in mobilising and coordinating protests, which also increased global awareness about these movements.