Non-violence

Answer

Pursuing change and resisting injustice without physical force — through protest, civil disobedience and non-cooperation. It is an active strategy, not passivity.

Answer

Peaceful protest, marches, strikes, boycotts, civil disobedience (peacefully breaking an unjust law) and non-cooperation.

Answer

Deliberately and peacefully breaking an unjust law to challenge and expose it, usually accepting the punishment to highlight the injustice.

Answer

The belief that violence is always wrong, even in self-defence — a deeper commitment than tactical non-violence.

Answer

Its strength is mass participation and moral legitimacy: peaceful refusal is hard to crush, and violence against peaceful protesters exposes a regime.

Answer

It is active resistance — organising protests, strikes, boycotts and disobedience — that has toppled governments and won rights.

Answer

The Indian independence movement, the US civil rights movement, and 'people power' movements that toppled dictators.

Answer

It wins broad participation and legitimacy, so change is more widely accepted, and it avoids the cycle of revenge and militarised power violent revolutions create.

Answer

Against a regime willing to use hidden extreme brutality, or where there is no free press or outside pressure, it can be crushed.

Answer

When a regime attacks peaceful protesters, it exposes its own injustice and loses legitimacy at home and abroad.

Answer

It is usually more effective and durable, but its success depends on the opponent and context, so it is not guaranteed against every regime.