Quote:no campaigns failed once they’d achieved the active and sustained participation of just 3.5% of the population—and lots of them succeeded with far less than that.
Quote:Then I analyzed the data, and the results blew me away. From 1900 to 2006, nonviolent campaigns worldwide were twice as likely to succeed¹ outright as violent insurgencies. And there’s more. This trend has been increasing over time—in the last fifty years civil resistance has become increasingly frequent and effective, whereas violent insurgencies have become increasingly rare and unsuccessful.
3. Flexible & innovative techniques. Switching between concentrated methods like demonstrations and dispersed methods like strikes and stay-aways.
4. Loyalty shifts. If erstwhile elite supporters begin to abandon the opponent, remain silent when they would typically defend him, and refuse to follow orders to repress dissidents, or drag their feet in carrying out day-to-day orders, the incumbent is losing his grip.
(observations from article above)
Quote:The average nonviolent campaign takes about 3 years to run its course (that’s more than three times shorter than the average violent campaign, by the way).
Quote:The average nonviolent campaign is about eleven times larger as a proportion of the overall population as the average violent campaign.
Nonviolent resistance campaigns are ten times more likely to usher in democratic institutions than violent ones.
Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]