By Aisha Catena 

Syria, Venezuela, Iran. Around the world, military operations are ousting dictators who once seemed immovable. While some of those regimes remain in place for now, one can’t help but wonder: is this the new normal? Is military intervention the only way out of brutal dictatorships? Can nonviolent movements still be effective in restoring democracy?

From singing in the streets to pressuring for targeted sanctions, nonviolent movements across ideologies are united by the same demands: that authorities respect their rights, restore their freedoms, free their leaders, and stop murdering their loved ones. Whether you’re watching nonviolent movements play out on screen or marching among them, the courage of these people will bring tears to your eyes. 

Freedom fighters have used nonviolent resistance tactics in brutal authoritarian contexts for decades. The 1970s saw a decline in violent insurgencies linked to political unrest. Since then, nonviolent movements have grown increasingly common—the 2010s had the highest level of nonviolent resistance since the 1900s. 

Yet, their success rate has failed to keep pace. As authoritarianism spreads globally, nonviolent movements are increasingly crushed, silenced, and discouraged with violence. Regime power in isolation only explains part of this decline—collaboration between autocrats completes the picture. 

Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Anne Applebaum coined the term “Autocracy Inc.” to describe how autocrats have created their own network to bypass international pressure and evade national accountability. Autocrats co-invest in each other’s economic, technological, and military growth, reinforcing mutual power. Iranian military infrastructure is found in Venezuela, Chinese AI surveillance is used in Kazakhstan, and North Korean troops and weapons fuel Russia’s war against Ukraine. 

Autocracy Inc. reflects a rupture in the post-WWII international order. As traditional power structures fragment, autocratic alliances harden, and international willingness to defend democratic freedoms wanes. Larry Diamond, senior fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution, reflects on geopolitical changes between now and 25 years ago, when “color revolutions” toppled regimes through nonviolent means: “the global balance of power has changed… Russia and China are much more powerful, the US and Europe are less powerful but also less resolute in exercising the leverage they have to try and back societal actors and bring about democratic change.” 

Western nations that once championed democracy building and human rights now prioritize their own security and influence. Negotiating with oppressive regimes sidelines people’s basic rights, turning them into bargaining chips for strategic interests, economic ties, and the pursuit of stability over justice.

The absence of international pressure facilitates a tragic cycle of repression: People mobilize, endure, and sacrifice. Those in power then beat, imprison, exile, or kill them. In the end, the structure or modus operandi of these regimes barely change, even when they might appear to have done so to the international community. 

Uganda exhibits this paradigm, where Yoweri Museveni stole a seventh term against nonviolent opposition leader Bobi Wine. His fraudulent victory was followed by a sweeping crackdown, with 30 opposition leaders killed and roughly 2,000 people detained. In appeasing foreign audiences, Museveni periodically signaled the release of political prisoners, while rarely following through.

Museveni’s strategy is popular among authoritarians. The regime loosens its grip just enough to let people breathe, recover, and believe that something has changed. To the international community, these concessions signal progress. But they are mere illusions: Power stays untouched, accountability never arrives, and the dictator remains firmly in place.

Does this mean that fighting fire with fire is the only way to successfully disrupt oppressive regimes? 

Diamond counters this notion: “I think that we should not despair in thinking that the possibility [of nonviolence] has evaporated.” Instead, he argues that opposition movements need to “build for a moment where the legitimacy of the regime unravels and the international dynamics change because some international actors see it in their interest to bring about change.”

But as authoritarian power evolves, instigating change through nonviolence is increasingly difficult. Mu Sochua, President of the Khmer Movement for Democracy in Cambodia, says, “[The] struggle in Cambodia, like elsewhere, isn’t evidence that nonviolence is weak—it’s evidence of how entrenched modern authoritarian systems have become.” 

Sochua explains that violent resistance justifies dictatorial repression with a “security threat” narrative, leading to harder crackdowns. In contrast, nonviolent resistance “[attracts] broader participation, [is] harder to justify crushing completely, [and produces] more stable post-authoritarian resistance.” 

For decades, opposition movements successfully challenged autocrats through nonviolent movements coupled with international pressure. But disinterest in defending democracy, lack of international accountability, and Autocracy Inc have enabled regimes to deploy brutal levels of repression with total indifference toward international legitimacy. 

While recent military oustings of dictators—not always regimes— may tempt those in the safety of democratic nations to champion force, we must note that the governance outcome for Syria, Venezuela, and Iran has yet to be determined and the people of these countries are now enduring massive uncertainty. Amid oppression, nonviolent movements express the will of the people. These efforts build the civic infrastructure necessary to sustain a democratic transition; otherwise, the path to a lasting peace remains nearly impossible to find.