About the Report

On July 28 and 29, 2014, the PeaceTech Lab and the Academy 

for International Conflict Management and Peacebuilding at the 

United States Institute of Peace (USIP) brought together seventy 

civic activists, policymakers, technologists, nongovernmental 

organization leaders, and education professionals for an interactive 

workshop to identify the key challenges and opportunities in using 

technologies to support nonviolent civic movements in the twentyfirst century. This report presents some of the key points from the 

workshop discussions about how activists and external actors can 

use the full range of technologies to support the strategy and 

tactics of nonviolent civil resistance movements. 

About the Authors

Kelly McKone is a research consultant for USIP’s project mapping 

research initiative to understand how practice connects to theory 

in reconciliation programming worldwide. Dr. Maria J. Stephan 

is a senior policy fellow at USIP and a nonresident senior fellow 

at the Atlantic Council, where she focuses on the dynamics of 

civil resistance and their relevance for violent conflict prevention 

and democratic development. Noel Dickover is a senior program 

officer for the PeaceTech Lab, heading up the Open Situation 

Room eXchange (OSRx) project, a collaboration and 

data-sharing platform for peacebuilders. 

2301 Constitution Ave., NW • Washington, DC 20037 • 202.457.1700 • fax 202.429.6063

Special Report 357 January 2015

© 2015 by the United States Institute of Peace. 

All rights reserved.

Contents

Why Civic Mobilization? Why Technology? And Why Now? 2

Working Securely in Insecure Digital and Nondigital Spaces 2

Mobilizing with Appropriate Technologies 3

Elicitive Learning 4

Monitoring and Evaluation of Movement Building 5

Kelly McKone, Maria J. Stephan, and Noel Dickover

UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF PEACE www.usip.org

SPECIAL REPORT

Summary

• The past two years have been marked by new U.S. commitments to stand by civil society 

using new and existing technologies that can support the strategy and tactics of nonviolent 

movements around the world. 

• The demand and development of secure digital technologies is largely driven by companies 

in the developed world. Activists continually struggle to obtain the more tailored technologies required to support their context-specific capabilities and needs. 

• Digital security trainers need more support to meet the growing demand for continued 

training to deliver up-to-date information about security developments that could threaten 

activists’ ability to work safely on- and offline. Digital security trainers would benefit from 

more training on the conflict context, culture, and civil mobilization to help ensure that 

their services are appropriate for the specific needs of a given movement. 

• External actors often overemphasize the use and potential advantages of new technologies over basic technologies. Online and offline activism and organizing can and should be 

seen as mutually reinforcing components of movement building. Assistance from external 

actors should be guided by in-depth assessments of which technologies people are currently 

using, how they are using them, and what they are capable of using. 

• Elicitive training techniques in workshops are a powerful way for trainers to support movement building. These techniques help people feel valued for the skills and knowledge they 

have to offer and are good at uncovering the less obvious skills that movement members 

may have. Moreover, the fluidity of this education style helps ensure that people get the 

information they need from the training. 

• The adoption of any technology by a movement must be monitored and evaluated to help 

ensure that the technology is effectively advancing the movement’s tactics and strategy. 

Movements must have a plan for data collection and analysis. Both digital and nondigital 

technologies can be useful in supporting these efforts. 

Using Technology in 

Nonviolent Activism 

against Repression
2 USIP.ORG • SPECIAL REPORT 357

Why Civic Mobilization? Why Technology? And Why Now?

Today’s news headlines are filled with stories of governments cracking down on nonviolent 

activists who have mobilized to protect their rights and demand social and political change. 

In Tunisia, Brazil, Kenya, and Ukraine, among many other countries, ordinary citizens have 

demonstrated that they can make positive social change happen when they are organized and 

disciplined, using tactics ranging from consumer boycotts to public square sit-ins. On the other 

hand, the situations in Sudan, Syria, and Bahrain, among others, have shown how difficult it can 

be to build and sustain movements where the options for nonviolently resolving conflicts are 

diminishing under increased repression. Though nonviolent resistance between 1900 and 2006 

was twice as likely to succeed in challenging oppressive regimes than violent movements were,1

determining how to support people pushing for change is a key challenge for policymakers.

The U.S. commitment to civil society strengthened when President Barack Obama held 

a high-level roundtable at the UN General Assembly on September 23, 2013.2 This meeting 

accelerated a worldwide discussion about international support to civil society at a time when 

governments around the world were imposing legal, bureaucratic, and physical restrictions on 

civil society activity and its ability to receive that support. Obama solidified the U.S. commitment to civil society in a memorandum on September 23, 2014, calling on all government 

agencies “engaged abroad...to take actions that elevate and strengthen the role of civil 

society; challenge undue restrictions on civil society; and foster constructive engagement 

between governments and civil society.” 3

Given the increased constraints from governments on civil society and the burgeoning 

of people power movements around the world, the U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP) convened 

activists and practitioners working around the world to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of different digital and basic technologies—ranging from advanced data encryption 

software to a can of spray paint—in bolstering nonviolent movements. Seventy civic activists, policymakers, technologists, nongovernmental organization (NGO) leaders, and education 

professionals came together for a two-day dynamic workshop at USIP to identify knowledge 

gaps and possible project ideas to fill these gaps to help activists and external actors to more 

effectively create political change through organized nonviolent action. Now is the time to 

create a better ecosystem for civil society, to coordinate diplomatic action, and to develop new 

tools and technologies to support civil society around the world. 

Working Securely in Insecure Digital and Nondigital Spaces

Civic activists are confronting new threats to their safety and security, and it is impossible to completely mitigate them, working either on- or offline. Technological advances in 

surveillance capabilities often create a development response from freedom-of-expression 

technologists to overcome the new surveillance. Nontechnologists often cannot keep pace 

with this rapid coevolution, meaning that activists are exposed to the dangers of new surveillance technologies without having access to the new technology that could be protecting them. Moreover, as the demand for and development of secure technologies is largely 

driven by large companies in developed countries, the secure technology market often does 

not meet the niche needs of activists. 

However, several organizations and technologists have had great success in bridging the 

digital security gap. One technologist developed the open-source uVirtus Linux software, 

which can serve as a fully encrypted computer operating system by simply plugging in a 

thumb drive. This software greatly mitigated the risks to people’s safety and a movement’s 

operations in the event of a computer being lost or stolen. Cryptocat is a software application for computer browsers and mobile phones that encrypts chat messages before the 

The views expressed in this report do not necessarily 

reflect the views of the United States Institute of Peace, 

which does not advocate specific policy positions.

To request permission to photocopy or reprint materials, 

e-mail: permissions@usip.org

About the Institute

The United States Institute of Peace is an independent, 

nonpartisan institution established and funded by Congress. 

Its goals are to help prevent and resolve violent conflicts, 

promote postconflict peacebuilding, and increase conflict 

management tools, capacity, and intellectual capital 

worldwide. The Institute does this by empowering others 

with knowledge, skills, and resources, as well as by its direct 

involvement in conflict zones around the globe.

Board of Directors

Stephen J. Hadley, (Chair), Principal, RiceHadleyGates, LLC, 

Washington, DC • George E. Moose (Vice Chair), Adjunct 

Professor of Practice, The George Washington University, 

Washington, DC • Judy Ansley, Former Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor under George W. 

Bush, Washington, DC • Eric Edelman, Hertog Distinguished 

Practitioner in Residence, Johns Hopkins School of Advanced 

International Studies, Washington, DC • Joseph Eldridge, 

University Chaplain and Senior Adjunct Professorial Lecturer, 

School of International Service, American University, Washington, DC • Kerry Kennedy, President, Robert F. Kennedy Center 

for Justice and Human Rights, Washington, DC • Ikram U. 

Khan, President, Quality Care Consultants, LLC., Las Vegas, NV 

• Stephen D. Krasner, Graham H. Stuart Professor of International Relations at Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA • John 

A. Lancaster, Former Executive Director, International Council 

on Independent Living, Potsdam, NY • Jeremy A. Rabkin, 

Professor of Law, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA

 • J. Robinson West, Chairman, PFC Energy, Washington, DC • 

Nancy Zirkin, Executive Vice President, Leadership 

Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Washington, DC 

Members Ex Officio

John Kerry, Secretary of State • Chuck Hagel, Secretary of 

Defense • Gregg F. Martin, Major General, U.S. Army; 

President, National Defense University • William B. Taylor, 

Acting President, United States Institute of Peace (nonvoting) 
USIP.ORG • SPECIAL REPORT 357 3

message leaves the device. Similarly, Open Whisper Systems created the RedPhone and TextSecure applications to encrypt phone calls and text messages for secure communication. 

Amnesty International also recently developed a panic button app for Android phones that, 

when pushed, sends a message to the user’s network that the user is in danger. These technologies exemplify the types of security developments that could better meet the needs of 

activists to operate safely online and protect their physical safety.

In addition, activists continually struggle to stay up to date with technology that could 

benefit—or threaten—their work. Policymakers and civic activists are not always aware of 

the risks associated with new technologies or significant architectural changes to the existing technologies on which they rely and may push to adopt a technology without properly 

accounting for security threats. Digital security trainers are needed who understand the 

local culture and conflict and who ideally have training in civic mobilization, a demand that 

currently far surpasses trainers’ capacities. 

Digital security trainers have tried to adapt to limited resources by focusing their workshops 

on the training of trainers, which both boosts their capacity and allows local technologists to 

adapt content to their specific needs and capabilities. Unfortunately, the short, reactive nature 

of trainings makes this model unsustainable and ill-suited to the ongoing needs of activists 

in rapidly changing environments. As time passes, the relevance of the training decreases. 

Changes in technology often alter the “right answer” the training provides. International 

organizations, NGOs, tech firms, and foreign governments could focus more on helping ensure 

that technologies for which training is given actually meet activists’ distinct needs. Some 

authoritative body should perhaps deliver ongoing information about technological developments and new digital security threats to local and international technologists.

Mobilizing with Appropriate Technologies

Though digital technologies can be effective in building movements, in some places a lack of 

infrastructure, technical skills, or prohibitively restrictive cyber-repression may make online 

activism difficult, if not impossible. Through numerous innovations, online and mobile interactions are leading to offline organizing and action. When thinking about the technologies that 

could advance the tactics and strategy of a civic movement, however, it is easy for external 

actors to overemphasize the use and advantages of these more advanced technologies. Given 

that nonviolent movements need unity, expanded participation, and tactical diversity to succeed, in some cases it may be more practical to turn to basic technology approaches, such as 

leaflets, community radio, graffiti, posters, or face-to-face signature drives. Egyptian activists 

had a fair amount of success using social media to organize people until divisions between 

the military and Muslim Brotherhood obstructed the ongoing dialogue with streams of propaganda. Online organizing, when combined with offline activism and organizing, can and should 

be mutually reinforcing. 

A key goal of movement building is to create pathways of engagement to facilitate widespread participation. Connection technologies are often most effective at engaging youth and 

educated populations. However, without complementary basic technology tools, this narrow 

approach could unintentionally exclude large portions of the population and undermine the 

widespread participation needed to effect change. The inability to use advanced connection 

technologies in low-tech environments does not change activists’ ability to mobilize people, 

but it does limit the technological options. In 2008, Zimbabwean activists created two versions of a radio program on cassette tapes and CDs to circumvent government censorship. They 

disseminated a twenty-minute version of the tape to urban cab drivers and a sixty-minute 

version to rural drivers to spread their message to community members. To reach their external 

audience, they hid the tapes in floral packages that could not be held at the border for long. 

Online organizing, when 

combined with offline activism 

and organizing, can and should 

be mutually reinforcing. 
4 USIP.ORG • SPECIAL REPORT 357

In Vietnam, prodemocracy activists developed sticker ads to post on walls. After several days, 

a fake top layer would fall off and reveal the true message underneath. In Egypt, people broadcasted their messages at coffee shops and over mosque speaker systems, while in Cameroon, 

activists soapboxed in community gathering places. In Serbia, people banged pots and pans 

to disrupt Slobodan Milošević’s 7 p.m. nightly news program—a tactic used similarly in Chile 

during the 1983 campaign against Augusto Pinochet. 

At the same time, none of the above means that new technologies cannot be used 

effectively in developing countries. Innovative approaches with existing technologies can 

create new pathways for activists in organizing and in action. In West Kalimantan, Indonesia, 

destructive practices by palm oil companies threatened the livelihoods of local farmers. To 

combat the industry’s harmful activities, farmers partnered with Ruai TV to raise awareness of 

the issues. The farmers adopted FrontlineSMS, an open-source mobile software that uses short 

message service (SMS)—that is, text messages—to feed local media information about the 

companies. Ruai TV then verified and broadcasted the reports to a wider television audience, 

sparking government involvement and shaming companies into changing their practices.4

External actors seeking to help local civic campaigns need to assess which technologies people 

are currently using, how they are using them, and what they are capable of using. This information should guide assistance decisions. 

There are key challenges to donors assisting nonviolent campaigns and movements. Donors 

are often enticed by technology but fail to adequately connect the technological approach 

with the expressed needs and contexts of the activists they are looking to support. Outsider 

expectations about what technologies can or cannot do for a movement are often not aligned 

with the needs and abilities of activists themselves. Moreover, external actors too often understand digital technologies as part of a transitional process, in which basic technologies are the 

starting point and advanced technologies—which typically require significant infrastructure 

investments—are the end goal. The heavy emphasis on technological innovation has created a 

perception that advanced technologies are superior to basic technology approaches. But innovation can take various forms, such as using carrier pigeons or drones for human rights support. 

The use of various technologies must be understood as being integral to movement building. 

Civic action is about building broad coalitions and increasing popular participation by innovating tactically, the specifics of which drive technology choices—not the other way around.

Elicitive Learning

Incorporating elicitive training techniques that employ a diverse array of technologies could 

be a particularly powerful way for outside actors to support movement building.5 First, elicitive training creates pathways for participation in the training itself and can make people 

feel valued for the skills and knowledge they have to offer. In this learning environment, 

everyone can be both a learner and teacher. Facilitation of elicitive trainings can be challenging because there is no set curriculum. However, the fluidity helps ensure that people 

get the information they need and that education is not a strictly top-down interaction. The 

facilitator’s role is to help create strong networks of peers who can benefit each other, offering a “buffet of skills” from which activists can pick to benefit their needs and to structure 

the conversation so participants can trust and openly share with one another. 

Digital security training in particular is seen as critically valuable for activists working 

in harsh environments. LevelUp, an organization working to increase the capacity of digital 

security training worldwide, explains that “the most experienced digital security trainers are 

often overworked, overbooked, and under-resourced. ...In addition, a number of individuals 

are being asked to become digital safety trainers with little to no support, guidance, training 

External actors seeking to 

help local civic campaigns need 

to assess which technologies 

people are currently using, how 

they are using them, and what 

they are capable of using. 
USIP.ORG • SPECIAL REPORT 357 5

experience, or ethical framework.” 6 Trainers often lack the ability to do sustained follow-up 

trainings, and the short duration of the trainings they do hold prevents them from delving 

into the material enough to ensure that it meets the target audience’s needs. Moreover, language barriers, trust, and contextual knowledge greatly limit the number of trainers able to 

work effectively in a given context. Up-to-date online resources, which includes lessons on 

strategic nonviolent action and which trainers could then localize in specific countries and 

cultures, could help address these challenges. In addition, organizations should work closely 

with local counterparts to identify key workshop participants who could themselves become 

trainers—ideally, those with experience in both technology and civic mobilization—to 

encourage greater sustainability and effectiveness.

Monitoring and Evaluation of Movement Building

A crucial question when a movement adopts any technology is whether or not it is effectively advancing their strategic objectives. Peter Ackerman and Hardy Merriman offer a set 

of six factors that characterize successful nonviolent movements.7

• Ability to unify people. Movement building requires that activists unite people around 

shared goals, methods, and leaders. Movements have used both basic and digital 

technologies to develop and disseminate mission statements with a clear, inclusive 

vision. They have coordinated intra- and intergroup actions with varying risk levels to 

increase movement participation. They have developed mechanisms to pool resources 

and win endorsement by key stakeholders. Online organizing leading to offline action 

is a key approach. 

• Capacity to choose and sequence tactics to advance the strategy. Planning is 

one of the most difficult aspects of movement building, but also one of the most 

important. Developing a well-articulated strategic plan—linking means to ends—based 

on power and stakeholder analyses, incorporating lessons learned from past actions, 

and alternating between methods of concentration (e.g., protests, rallies, sit-ins) and 

dispersion (e.g., consumer boycotts, stay-aways, go-slow actions) are hallmarks of good 

planning. Engaging in online or mobile planning requires giving significant thought to 

internet security in order to have protected dialogue on organizing. People Power: The 

Game of Civil Resistance is a new computer-based simulation tool that could greatly aid 

activists around the world (http://peoplepowergame.com).

• Commitment to nonviolent discipline. Maintaining nonviolent discipline, often in the 

face of violent provocation, is key to successful civil resistance. Training in methods 

of discipline, development and enforcement of a code of conduct, use of solidarity 

language (often seen through humor, satire, music, arts), and devising tasks for 

would-be armed elements have all contributed to nonviolent discipline in movements. 

Social media have been very effective at creating swarms of responders hitting at the 

credibility of regimes restricting nonviolent mobilization. 

• Growing participation in the movement. Increasing the scope and diversity of 

participation is perhaps the greatest indicator of a movement’s success. Evidence of 

progress include increased support from influential leaders, increased participation from 

worker and professional sectors, increased participation by minority groups (e.g., women 

or marginalized religious or ethnic groups), increased number and higher quality of social 

media subscribers, and sympathetic or defensive statements from regime officials. 

• Diminishing effects of repression. Strong movements can remain resilient against 

repression and increase the costs to the opponent of using it. Examples of resilience 

Online organizing leading to 

offline action is a key approach. 
6 USIP.ORG • SPECIAL REPORT 357

include the existence of parallel social, political, and economic institutions to support 

a movement’s self-sufficiency, increased capacity to document human rights violations, 

evidence of solidarity funds or legal aid mechanisms to support imperiled activists, and 

evidence of growing participation despite repression. 

• Increasing defections from movement’s opponent. Loyalty shifts within key 

organizations and institutions toward a movement strongly indicate a movement’s 

power and legitimacy. Examples include security force members refusing to obey orders 

to shoot at protesters, defections by diplomats and ambassadors, increased information 

leaks, and the flight of foreign businesses and investors. 

Evaluating progress on each of these six items requires that activists have the infrastructure 

to collect and analyze data on the indicators of their progress. Both digital and basic technologies could be useful, and mutually reinforcing, in data collection and analysis. Leaflets, 

paper petitions, satellite imaging, geographic information system mapping, simulation gaming, social media analytical softwares, and SMS crowdsourcing softwares, among countless 

other technologies, have all supported the real-time assessment of movements’ efforts. USIP 

PeaceTech Lab’s Open Situation Room Exchange (OSRx) offers another platform for local activists to develop and use data to guide their strategic planning and to connect them to outside 

experts and activists from other struggles. But much more work is required to develop tools 

and resources to help nonviolent activists navigate restrictive environments and ensure that 

their on- and offline activities are strategically conceived and mutually reinforcing. 
USIP.ORG • SPECIAL REPORT 357 7

Notes

1. Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan, Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict 

(New York: Columbia University Press, 2011).

2. The White House, “President Obama Holds a Civil Society Roundtable,” September 23, 2013, available at 

www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2013/09/23/president-obama-holds-civil-society-roundtable 

(accessed December 3, 2014).

3. The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, “Presidential Memorandum—Civil Society,” September 23, 

2014, available at www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/09/23/presidential-memorandum-civil-society 

(accessed December 3, 2014).

4. Frontline SMS, “Mobile Networks and Citizen Journalists Empower Communities,” May 8, 2012, available at 

www.frontlinesms.com/2012/05/08/mobile-networks-and-citizen-journalists-empower-communities/ (accessed 

December 3, 2014).

5. John Paul Lederach, “An Analytical Approach to Training,” in John Paul Lederach, Preparing for Peace: Conflict 

Transformation across Cultures (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1995), 37–46.

6. LevelUp, “About LevelUp,” available at www.level-up.cc/about (accessed December 3, 2014).

7. P. Ackerman and H. Merriman, The Checklist for Ending Tyranny (Washington, DC: Atlantic Council, Future of 

Authoritarianism, 2015).
8 USIP.ORG • SPECIAL REPORT 357

United States 

Institute of Peace

2301 Constitution Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20037

www.usip.org

@usip

Of Related Interest

• Syria’s Socially Mediated Civil War by Marc Lynch, Deen Freelon, and Sean Aday (Peaceworks, 

January 2014)

• Media and Conflict after the Arab Spring by Sean Aday, Henry Farrell, Marc Lynch, John Sides, and 

Deen Freelon (Peaceworks, July 2012)

• Can You Help Me Now? Mobile Phones and Peacebuilding in Afghanistan by Sheldon Himelfarb 

with contributions from Cecilia Paradi-Guilford (Special Report, November 2010)

• New Media in Contentious Politics by Sean Aday, Henry Farrell, Marc Lynch, John Sides, John Kelly, 

and Ethan Zuckerman (Peaceworks, August 2010)

eISBN: 978-1-60127-278-2

An online edition of this and related 

reports can be found on our website 

(www.usip.org), together with additional 

information on the subject.