This thesis sets out to test Thurbers (2020) reasoning behind the barriers he argues are the cause to why politically excluded ethnic groups launch nonviolent campaigns less often than non-ethnic groups. Pischedda (2020) has already begun this journey by showing that an ethnic movement's quantitative abilities are inferior to the quantitative abilities of a non-ethnic movement. I therefore aim to explore the differences in qualitative abilities between ethnic and non-ethnic groups. This is done by a set of correlation analyzes on the data from the Nonviolent and Violent Campaigns and Outcomes Dataset (NAVCO) 2.1 and from Wannefors (2020, tabel 6) list of violent and nonviolent campaigns launched by politically excluded ethnic groups. The results show no evidence of the barriers Thurbur (2020) are arguing for. However, movement initiated by excluded groups need to be of a higher quality to succeed.

This paper investigates the decline in success of nonviolent conflicts. While nonviolent conflicts are known to have higher efficacy compared to violent conflicts, this disparity has decreased since the 1990s. Previous scholars have divided the causes behind the success of nonviolent conflict into three categories: (1) mobilization; (2) resilience; and (3) leverage. The hypothesis is that one or more of these factors have changed and is the cause behind the decline. The research uses a largeN quantitative method, comparing the two time periods of 1945 – 1999 with 2000 – 2013. The resulting descriptive statistics, regression analysis, and likelihood ratio tests show that mobilization has decreased alongside a decrease in how successfully nonviolent campaigns utilize leverage over their opponents. These findings invite further investigation into why this decrease has occurred.

Abstract: What explains the use of violence in extra-institutional political campaigns? Domestic groups challenge host states using both nonviolent and violent tactics. While Gandhi’s struggle for India’s independence is perhaps the most famous example of nonviolence, many of today’s bloody civil wars also started out as nonviolent movements. In a world eager to support the self-determination of marginalized groups, both nonviolent and violent groups receive support from foreign actors. Despite this, theories on the use of violence by these groups remain untested empirically.  This paper uses panel data to quantitatively investigate the proposition that external support of extra-institutional political movements causes an increase in the use of violence. A logistic regression model finds no statistically significant relationship between the provision of external support and an increased use of violence in primarily nonviolent campaigns. An additional test on a sample of violent non-state groups finds that battle-related deaths increased when external support was provided in the previous year, a result significant at 99% confidence.