Before we talk about what nonviolence is, let's destroy what it isn't. Every one of these myths is wrong — and believing them makes you less effective.
Nonviolence is a category of action, not inaction. Researcher Gene Sharp cataloged 198 distinct methods of nonviolent action — from boycotts and strikes to civil disobedience, parallel institutions, and strategic non-cooperation. Doing nothing is not on the list. Doing nothing is what the bystander effect produces. Nonviolence is the cure for that.
Chenoweth's dataset includes campaigns against some of the most brutal regimes in modern history — Pinochet's Chile, apartheid South Africa, Marcos' Philippines, Milošević's Serbia. Nonviolent campaigns succeeded against all of them. The strategic advantage of nonviolence doesn't depend on the opponent being reasonable. It depends on the movement maintaining discipline and attracting broad participation.
This is backwards. Nonviolence is strategically superior. The moral argument is a bonus. The data is unambiguous: nonviolent campaigns are twice as likely to succeed as armed conflicts. They attract four times as many participants. And their outcomes are more durable — countries that transition through nonviolent resistance are significantly more likely to remain democratic afterward.
In Chenoweth's entire dataset of 323 campaigns from 1900–2006, nonviolent campaigns had a 53% success rate compared to 26% for violent campaigns. There is no category of conflict — not the most repressive, not the most intractable — where violent campaigns had a higher success rate than nonviolent ones. "Violence is the only option" is a feeling, not a finding.
Nonviolence doesn't work because it's nice. It works because of three structural advantages that violence cannot replicate.
Violent movements require young, physically capable fighters willing to risk death. Nonviolent movements can include anyone — grandparents, teenagers, disabled people, professionals, parents with children. This is not a feel-good point. It's a mathematical one. The larger the participation pool, the easier it is to reach the 3.5% threshold. And the more diverse the participants, the harder it is for the regime to dismiss or demonize the movement.
The most critical moment in any resistance is when members of the pillars of support — security forces, bureaucrats, business leaders, judges — begin to defect. Nonviolent movements make defection psychologically easier. When unarmed people are met with violence, the moral calculus becomes obvious. Security forces hesitate. Officers refuse orders. Bureaucrats leak documents. Business leaders distance themselves.
Violence reverses this dynamic. The moment a resistance movement uses violence, it gives the regime a threat narrative. Security forces have a reason to crack down. Bystanders have permission to look away. Moderate supporters pull back. The loyalty shifts stop — or reverse.
Even when violent campaigns succeed, they tend to produce unstable outcomes — often replacing one authoritarian with another. Countries that transition through nonviolent resistance are significantly more likely to remain democratic five, ten, and twenty years later. The broad coalition-building that nonviolent movements require creates the foundation for pluralistic governance afterward.
Gene Sharp, the political scientist who spent his career studying nonviolent resistance, identified 198 distinct methods. They fall into three categories. This is a taste of what's available to you.
Actions that communicate opposition and attempt to persuade.
Actions that withdraw consent, participation, or support.
Actions that directly disrupt the status quo.
The point is this: when someone says "what can we even do?" — the answer is 198 things. And counting. The menu of nonviolent action is vast, adaptable, and proven. You are not helpless. You are under-informed about your options.
This is the hardest part, and the most important. Nonviolent discipline means maintaining nonviolent behavior even when provoked. Even when agents provocateurs try to start violence. Even when the police use force. Even when you're angry. Especially when you're angry.
"Nonviolent discipline is not about being passive. It's about being disciplined enough to deny your opponent the one thing they need most: a justification for crackdown."
— From the civil resistance training traditionWhy is this so critical? Because any violence from the resistance is a gift to authoritarian power.
In every large movement, there will be individuals who break nonviolent discipline — sometimes out of genuine rage, sometimes as planted provocateurs. The movement's response determines whether a single act defines the whole.
You don't need to be at a protest for nonviolent principles to apply. The spirit of nonviolent resistance shows up in how you talk, what you amplify, and where you put your energy every day.
It is force — applied with discipline, backed by evidence, and proven by history to be the most effective tool for change that human beings have ever developed. Print the guide. Share the evidence. Choose your method.