Protest and Change in an Undemocratic Moment

In the first months of 2026, the headlines have been dominated by state violence, threats of war, and belligerent and corrupt politicians around the world, but also people protesting against them. At a moment of democratic erosion, hardening authoritarianism, and violent civil and international conflicts afflicting much of the globe, it is reasonable to question whether there are still possibilities for creating lasting change through nonviolent protests or unarmed resistance with limited, firearm-free violence.

There are many reasons for pessimism. Governments have greater capabilities for surveillance and repression than at almost any time in history. Despite hopes that the internet and social media would lead to more democratic societies, governments have figured out how to turn them against their opponents. Accountability for violence against protesters is rare. International pressures for human rights and democracy have diminished.

In Nicaragua, the optimism eight years ago that mass protests would restore democracy was dashed within months by a deadly government crackdown that has deepened over time. Daniel Ortega and Rosario Murillo have consolidated the most repressive dictatorship in the Americas—though Nicaraguans continue organizing in exile for democracy and human rights.

The toppling of the Assad regime in Syria could be viewed as a signal that taking up arms is the best path to major change. But Syria’s new government may yet turn authoritarian—most victories by rebel forces do, even when they initially deliver on some of their promises of liberation and a more inclusive state.

Armed rebellion is also no guarantee of an end to state violence or eventual victory. Armed resistance was more successful during the Cold War, while unarmed resistance was more successful on average in the 1990s and 2000s. Since around 2012, the effectiveness of nonviolence has declined. Iran’s recent wave of protests and mass repression shows the difficulty of forcing major change from an entrenched regime, let alone toppling it, through protests. Kenya and Nigeria’s democratic governments have responded to protests against inequality and police violence with brutal repression and little concrete policy change. After the Cold War, rebellions stopped receiving as much foreign support, while international pressures for democratization and human rights made it harder for unpopular regimes to repress protesters when they took to the streets. More recently, however, the United States and other countries have been less willing or able to hold violent governments to account as they turn new weapons, technology, and support from authoritarian states against their populations.

Ultimately the right path for a movement depends on its context. During Myanmar’s 2021 military coup, pro-democracy protesters facing harsh state repression turned to longstanding ethnic armed organizations for training and weapons, which led to a bigger, bloodier rebellion. Five years on, however, the tide appears to be shifting in the military’s favor, and some opposition fighters and supporters may be growing fatigued and disillusioned with armed struggle.

Despite threats posed by states and other anti-democratic forces, and the temptation to reach for guns or bombs, millions of people around the world continue to engage in unarmed protest and resistance, whether in the streets or through other means. And some of these protests are getting results. Governments have recently been toppled by youth-led protests in Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, and Madagascar. Despite state surveillance, people still found ways to organize using digital tools—Nepal selected an interim prime minister through a poll on a Discord channel—and in-person social networks. Recent elections in Bangladesh have made an establishment political figure the new prime minister, leading to some doubts about how much change will come. Nepalis, however, have turned to rapper-turned-politician Balendra Shah and his upstart party in the hopes of maintaining youthful momentum.

The challenge after a movement has achieved a win is what comes next, and how to ensure that gains are consolidated. Many major protest movements today are horizontally organized: instead of a group of leaders directing everyone, there is more autonomy and spontaneity among participants. This can be a strength in that it helps avoid “leadership decapitation” through arrest or cooptation, but it can also make it difficult to translate a movement’s popular support and participation into lasting institutional change. Often, coalitions are made up of people who strongly oppose a particular policy or government, but who disagree on what, exactly, they would like to see in its place. This can allow other more hierarchically organized and coherent actors—such as the military or undemocratic political leaders—to seize the moment, and power, for themselves.

Protest movements have sometimes generated new political leaders and parties that challenge entrenched interests. Syriza, which managed to win power in Greece from 2015–19, grew out of protests against economic austerity measures, as did Spain’s prominent Podemos party. Chile’s outgoing president, Gabriel Boric, was a leftist former student leader who came to power after 2019–20 mass protests that had highlighted a lack of change since Augusto Pinochet’s military dictatorship fell in 1990.

Ensuring that the gains of peaceful protest last requires maintaining mobilization after initial protest waves subside and continuing to challenge politics as usual through institutional and other means. This is harder than it seems. In Chile, for example, the COVID-19 pandemic brought street protests to an end and popular focus gradually shifted to economic issues and the rise of violent crime. Six years and two failed constitutional reform processes later, far-right leader José Antonio Kast has now replaced Boric as Chile’s president.

Given these struggles to achieve durable national-level changes, people may get discouraged. Local-level, in-person organizing and accountability, however, remain some of the most important, impactful, and neglected aspects of building protest capacity in the first place and ensuring that protests can have lasting effects. Both authoritarian and democratic governments are seeking to insulate themselves from protests and other popular pressure. So, whether at the local, national, or transnational level, it is even more important to continue building—both online and offline—the social, political, and technological means to ensure that governments stay responsive to the people they claim to represent.

Kai Thaler is an assistant professor of global studies at UC Santa Barbara and a member of IGCC’s Steering Committee. This blog post is a revised version of remarks delivered at the Tufts University Institute for Global Leadership’s 2026 International Symposium “Risk and Resilience in an Uncertain World” on February 21.

Thumbnail credit: Wikimedia Commons