Hands Off Rally by the Washington Monument, April 5, 2025. By G. Edward Johnson – Own work, CC BY 4.0.

In the lead up to the 2020 presidential election, the Democratic Erosion Consortium’s very own professors Robert Blair and Steven Rosenzweig wrote an article in The Boston Globe urging readers to “Get ready to protest like democracy depends on it.” The article was in anticipation of what, at the time, seemed like the real possibility that Donald Trump would refuse to resign even if he lost the election. Luckily, the worst case scenario was narrowly avoided; Trump would ultimately pass the baton to Joe Biden, albeit in a not-so-peaceful transition of power. 

Today, however, in a bleak reflection of America’s declining democracy, their call to action rings more true than ever. Following a brief four-year intermission, Trump has returned for a second–and possibly third–term. Marking a significant escalation yet, his administration is at “the cusp of outright defiance” against the Supreme Court. In addition, while meeting with President Nayib Bukele of El Salvador, Trump expressed his desire to deport U.S. citizens to the country’s mega-prison. The system of checks-and-balances, which many hoped could curb his executive overreach, is at the brink of collapse; fundamental civil liberties are under attack.

Thus, the call to mobilization no longer feels hypothetical. Given these circumstances, the remainder of this article will explore the strategic logic behind protesting, what we can learn from its historical success stories, and, finally, why a successful pro-democracy movement here in the United States requires us to embrace both the center and progressives alike.

Does Nonviolent Resistance Work, Anyway?

When it comes to explicit fights for democracy, we might imagine violent uprisings like the French or American revolutions. It’s important to distinguish here between the initial push for democratization and the eventual threat of backsliding. And, when it comes to the latter, scholars suggest that nonviolent resistance doesn’t just work–it’s more effective than taking up arms.

Maria J. Stephan and Erica Chenoweth combined qualitative and quantitative approaches in conducting their research. While strategies may vary–ranging from labor strikes, boycotts, to public demonstrations–they found that “major nonviolent campaigns [achieve] success 53 percent of the time, compared with 26 percent for violent resistance.”

The relative strength of nonviolence can be simplified into two key factors: 1) the greater political cost associated with repressing them, and 2) their advantage in reaching negotiated settlements. It’s quite intuitive that a regime will find it easier to justify cracking down on dissenters if they pose a concrete threat. Furthermore, adhering to a strictly pacifist policy reduces the barrier for those working under would-be authoritarians to reconsider their loyalties; one can imagine that especially those in mid to low level positions might choose to jump ship when they don’t have to fear for their safety in doing so.

From these advantages, we can also boil down civil resistance efforts to its underlying strategy: protests can provoke internal splits among members of the anti-democratic regime;  in our case, Trump’s enablers in the Republican party. By raising the cost of repression, nonviolent civil resistance efforts force would-be authoritarians into a corner where it becomes more politically expedient to abandon their policies.

The Key to a Successful Movement

Is to pitch as large a tent as possible–metaphorically speaking, of course. As Stephan and Chenoweth put it, “the political costs of repressing one or two dozen activists, easily labeled ‘extremists,’ are much lower than repressing hundreds or thousands of activists who represent the entire population.” 

Writing in the Journal of Democracy, Janette Yarwood illustrated the point with recent developments in sub-Saharan Africa. It started in Senegal, in 2011, when prominent rappers and journalists rallied citizens in the Y’en a Marre movement to oppose the corruption of President Abdoulaye Wade. Activists sparked mass protests that got Wade to back down from controversial constitutional amendments, and later defeated him electorally in his illegal bid for a third term. When a similar situation occurred the following year in Burkina Faso, organizers learned from Y’en a Marre to break Blaise Compaoré’s 27-year grip on power.

Both movements managed to mobilize large numbers of people, in part by activating the youth: a crucial demographic in a region where 70% of the population is younger than 30. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, too, a diverse “informal coalition” was formed between “university students, civil society activists, opposition-party members, and the Catholic Church” to oppose a controversial census that, critics say, would’ve made voting more difficult.

So, What Does This All Mean for America?

The bad news is that when it comes to presenting a united front, the current Democratic opposition has a subpar track record. Ideological rifts between the party’s moderates and progressives have weakened internal cohesion. Though little of it is remembered today, Democrats allegedly sidelined progressive star Bernie Sanders in the 2016 primaries. The tension was felt most recently when, in the aftermath of both the 2024 election and nationwide Pro-Palestinian protests, some in the establishment suggested the party should distance itself from its “radical” elements.

To be fair, the hesitance by moderates to embrace those at the margins is understandable. In many ways, finding the appropriate response to democratic erosion is like navigating a minefield in the dark: an attempt to disarm the situation could blow up instead, and it’s difficult to even get a full grasp of the situation–much less find the right tools. It’s possible that including progressives could harm democracy in the long-run by inflaming polarization and making it harder to reach across the aisle. But the status quo isn’t much better; constant compromise with a consistently anti-democratic opposition seems to have, quite predictably, resulted in democratic erosion nonetheless.

This sentiment seems widespread among those already in the streets, who are calling on the center to “fight back.”  Presented in events like the recent Hands Off! rally, which brought over 600,000 people in over 1,400 protests across the country, is a real opportunity to build the cross-cutting coalitions we need. The only question now is whether the democratic opposition to Trump is prepared to compromise within itself to prevent the gradual decline of American democracy.