This paper aims to react to the scholarly works of Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan in their article “Drop Your Weapons: When and Why Civil Resistance Works,” Dana M. Moss’s paper on “Transnational Repression, Diaspora Mobilization, and the Case of The Arab Spring,” as well as “The Power of Nonviolence” by David Cortright. The authors collectively provide a profound analysis of why civil resistance and nonviolent movements succeed and how these movements affect social and political change. They draw their arguments from a historical context and the current relevance of civil resistance with a distinct approach to power dynamics that challenge oppressive and authoritarian regimes.
According to Chenoweth & Stephan (2014), nonviolent resistance is not only more likely to succeed against authoritarian regimes but also enhances the chances of promoting peace and democracy in the aftermath of the conflicts. These authors build on empirical case studies from Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Ukraine, and Syria. The strength of this paper lies in providing the historical data set gathered for 323 campaigns from 1900 to 2026, maintaining that nonviolent resistance movements were twice as likely to succeed as violent ones. The authors mainly argue that civil resistance movements are distinct from each other, but those that succeed have three common characteristics: “They enjoy mass participation, they produce regime defections, and they employ flexible tactics. Historically, the larger and more diverse the campaign, the more likely it was to succeed” (Chenoweth and Stephan 2014, 96). It is obvious that nonviolent movements also succeed because of diversity, which includes different community members, such as youths, women, faith leaders, and professionals. This makes it difficult for security forces to respond violently for fear of harming their own relatives or neighbors who might be part of the movement (Chenoweth and Stephan 2014).
In this piece, the authors logically approach the effectiveness of nonviolent resistance movements in challenging authoritarian regimes and promoting democracy. However, the idea that nonviolent movements not only succeed more often but also contribute to long-term peace and democratic transitions is interesting and debatable at the same time. For example, the Libyan and Syrian cases present situations where nonviolent resistance did not contribute to peace or social change. This could be one of the reasons why the authors contrast the protection of civilians with military force, as in NATO’s Libyan intervention. Instead, they suggest policymakers prioritize a “responsibility to assist” nonviolent activists and civic groups (Chenoweth and Stephan 2014). Even though this research provides empirical and evidentiary bases to support the author’s stance on when and how civil resistance works, its potential weaknesses would be the inability to explore more on unsuccessful nonviolent campaigns.
Moreover, Cortright (2009) focuses on the effectiveness of challenging oppression and tyranny and promoting social change. He mainly discusses contrasting views on nonviolence, represented by Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X, and examines cases where violence has been estimated necessary for liberation movements. For example, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a religious leader who ultimately resorted to violence to combat Nazism. Cortright also mentions the debates on Gandhi’s philosophy of nonviolence, particularly in response to the Nazi Holocaust and Hitlerism, as Gandhi advocates for nonviolent resistance even in extreme situations.
This paper builds on empirical cases and highlights examples of successful nonviolent resistance, such as the Rosenstrasse protest in Berlin during WWII, demonstrating that nonviolent action can be effective even in the most challenging circumstances. He poses the question of whether strict nonviolence is always feasible in the face of extreme tyranny, conceding that while nonviolence has its limitations, it has been proven successful in various historical contexts. The strength of Cortright’s argument also bases itself on the historical perspectives on nonviolence and its efficacy in promoting social change, even in the face of extreme tyranny, and offers a distinct understanding of resistance movements. But it would have been better if Cortright had developed the discussion on the challenges that nonviolent movements face in their pursuit for change.
On the other hand, Moss (2016) brings a slightly different approach that explores how authoritarian states deter dissent among diaspora populations through various oppressive measures like violence, exile, threats, surveillance, and targeting dissidents’ relatives in their home countries. Moss builds his arguments on examples from Libyan and Syrian activism in the United States and Great Britain to explain how transnational repression inhibited public anti-regime mobilization before the Arab Spring but was overcome during the 2011 revolutions. Her research clearly identifies key factors that enable diaspora activists to challenge their home regimes, such as changes in circumstances due to violence at home, expanded solidarity among activists, and perceptions of the regime’s incapacity to fulfill threats.
Indeed, Moss’s article is coherent and accurate as it contributes to understanding transnationalism by illustrating how states exert coercive power across borders and the conditions under which diasporas mobilize to challenge home-country regimes collectively. The account of Libyan and Syrian activism and the hurdles they overcame during the Arab Spring reveals the resilience and strategic adaptations of diaspora movements (Moss 2016). Still, Moss’s argument seems limited to the case studies of Libya and Syria but tends to generalize the same arguments to diaspora communities, and this could be a source of contention, as each authoritarian regime and diaspora community might differ from each other within different contexts or timeframes.
In conclusion, Chenoweth, Stephan, Cortright, and Moss all together offer a comprehensive examination of the dynamics of civil resistance, nonviolent movements, and transnational activism in challenging oppressive regimes. They employ historical analyses and contemporary case studies, elaborating on the power of mass participation, regime defections, diverse community inclusion, and strategic adaptability in driving successful movements for social and political change. Their work not only underlines the effectiveness of nonviolent resistance in promoting peace and democracy but also highlights the complexities and moral dilemmas inherent in choosing nonviolent paths in the face of extreme tyranny. Chenoweth, Stephan, and Cortright emphasize the power of nonviolent movements and how they succeed and contribute to peace, democracy, and social change, while Moss’s scholarship enriches the readers’ understanding of how states engage coercive power across borders and how diasporas navigate and overcome oppressive measures to collectively challenge home-country regimes.
Chenoweth, E., & Stephan, M. J. (2014). Drop Your Weapons: When and Why Civil Resistance Works. 93, 94-106.
Cortright, D. (2009). The Power of Nonviolence. Gandi and Beyond.
Moss, D. M. (2016). Transnational Repression, Diaspora Mobilization, and the Case of The Arab Spring. . doi: 10.1093/socpro/spw019
