It is unsurprising that as the world entered its 18th consecutive year of democratic decline, it was also experiencing a record number of conflicts, with 2023 being among the most violent years since the end of the cold war. This year’s Stockholm Forum on Peace and Development successfully unpacked the complex intersectionality among factors driving instability and violence throughout the globe. Yet while the topic of authoritarianism was raised over and over again during the Forum, it was treated primarily as a governance problem. In fact, authoritarianism is a cross-cutting and fundamental threat to peace and security.
The authoritarianism–kleptocracy–conflict nexus
Addressing authoritarianism is integral to addressing peace and security challenges. A recent policy paper by the Atlantic Council and the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict reminds us that a more authoritarian world is likely to lead to more interstate warfare. In contrast, research finds that the more democratic states are, the less likely they are to wage wars against each other. But that is not the only security risk of rising authoritarianism; autocratic governments are also more likely to harbour violent extremists than are democracies.
Among the drivers of the authoritarian resurgence is the growth of kleptocracy, where networks of ruling elites use public institutions to steal public funds for their own private gain. Together, authoritarian governance and kleptocracy feed vicious cycles, undermining the rule of law and delegitimizing authority, which in turn reinforces a myriad of conflict drivers, which in turn reinforces authoritarian governance and kleptocracy.
As we contemplate how to resolve violent conflicts in a rapidly evolving security landscape, we need to recognize that the drivers of violence today are not just local but are driven and sustained by kleptocratic networks of autocrats and violent non-state actors who profit from illicitly gained resources. As the historian Anne Applebaum notes, these networks:
control state-owned companies, across multiple countries, that are making investment decisions worth billions of dollars;
laundering their own reputations to make them appear to be good global citizens.
These actions have weakened the domestic and international institutions responsible for maintaining peace and security. The wealth and power generated by kleptocratic networks help to put actors who drive conflict beyond the reach of these institutions. That is exactly why engaging non-violent resistance movements and the non-traditional institutions they create is critical to building sustainable peace and security.
Non-violent resistance movements defend democracy and strengthen security
Non-violent civil resistance movements have great, and underutilized, potential to help to secure sustainable peace by addressing the key drivers of conflict in their local and regional contexts. They are rooted in communities and led by and for people facing injustices. They use non-violent direct-action tactics to shift power. And they are twice as effective as armed struggles in advancing democratic aims.
Non-violent collective action inspires dignity, agency and three ‘collectives’: collective responsibility, collective ownership and collective identity. Leveraged together, these enable non-violent resistance movements to demonstrate effective tactics that can be scaled and replicated both locally and transnationally.
Change rarely happens without meeting fierce–and violent–opposition, as has been seen recently in Bangladesh, Hong Kong, Iran, Myanmar, Sudan and Syria. However, while not always successful, non-violent resistance movements do in fact incentivize non-violent pathways to peace. And they can also reduce the risk of atrocities; research shows that armed uprisings are subject to mass killings nearly three times as often as non-violent campaigns.
Where to go from here
Since the Stockholm Forum, I have had the opportunity to connect with many Forum participants from non-violent resistance movements, civil society, government agencies and donors across geographies and sectors. Three things are clear. First, all recognize the underlying role that authoritarianism and kleptocracy play in driving insecurity and violence in both fragile and stable countries around the globe. Second, all recognize the urgent need to think strategically and collectively to tackle this set of problems. Finally—and unsurprisingly—there is no agreement on a path forward.
In my current role as a donor, I believe inclusive strategies are needed that transcend sectors, geographies and levels—from grassroots up to powerholders. Donors should try to build or support cross-sectoral and transnational relationships capable of leveraging diverse knowledge, skills, networks and proximity to power. Such partnerships enable actors with shared goals to simultaneously challenge multiple policies, processes, relationships and power structures that enable insecurity and violence. We know what these partnerships look like: they were the global anti-colonial and anti-Apartheid non-violent resistance movements, and include today’s demands for climate action and justice.
Developing and implementing comprehensive strategies to support relationships linking non-violent resistance movements to one another and with other sectors is not just a possibility: collaboration among governments and philanthropic organizations is making these strategies a reality. One example is Powered by the People, a public–private partnership between the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and private foundations that is upskilling and connecting activists around the world, and building partnerships between non-violent resistance movements and key actors in areas such as transparency, anti-corruption, banking and regulation, advocacy, strategic litigation and human rights—to name just a few.
Leveraging governmental and philanthropic funds allows donors to better coordinate, collaborate and exploit each other’s strengths.
Access to external funding has been a key demand among non-violent resistance movements globally. As donors in the peace and security field, if we are serious about building sustainable peace in an increasingly violent world, we need to meet this demand.
SIPRI is pleased to share a series of guest blog posts from partners of the 2024 Stockholm Forum on Peace and Development. Dr Sims was a speaker at the Forum session ‘Dismantling pillars of authoritarianism and violence’, co-organized by Humanity United and the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)
Dr Bryan Sims leads Humanity United’s strategies on non-violent collective action and inclusive peace processes.
It is unsurprising that as the world entered its 18th consecutive year of democratic decline, it was also experiencing a record number of conflicts, with 2023 being among the most violent years since the end of the cold war. This year’s Stockholm Forum on Peace and Development successfully unpacked the complex intersectionality among factors driving instability and violence throughout the globe. Yet while the topic of authoritarianism was raised over and over again during the Forum, it was treated primarily as a governance problem. In fact, authoritarianism is a cross-cutting and fundamental threat to peace and security.
The authoritarianism–kleptocracy–conflict nexus
Addressing authoritarianism is integral to addressing peace and security challenges. A recent policy paper by the Atlantic Council and the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict reminds us that a more authoritarian world is likely to lead to more interstate warfare. In contrast, research finds that the more democratic states are, the less likely they are to wage wars against each other. But that is not the only security risk of rising authoritarianism; autocratic governments are also more likely to harbour violent extremists than are democracies.
Among the drivers of the authoritarian resurgence is the growth of kleptocracy, where networks of ruling elites use public institutions to steal public funds for their own private gain. Together, authoritarian governance and kleptocracy feed vicious cycles, undermining the rule of law and delegitimizing authority, which in turn reinforces a myriad of conflict drivers, which in turn reinforces authoritarian governance and kleptocracy.
As we contemplate how to resolve violent conflicts in a rapidly evolving security landscape, we need to recognize that the drivers of violence today are not just local but are driven and sustained by kleptocratic networks of autocrats and violent non-state actors who profit from illicitly gained resources. As the historian Anne Applebaum notes, these networks:
These actions have weakened the domestic and international institutions responsible for maintaining peace and security. The wealth and power generated by kleptocratic networks help to put actors who drive conflict beyond the reach of these institutions. That is exactly why engaging non-violent resistance movements and the non-traditional institutions they create is critical to building sustainable peace and security.
Non-violent resistance movements defend democracy and strengthen security
Non-violent civil resistance movements have great, and underutilized, potential to help to secure sustainable peace by addressing the key drivers of conflict in their local and regional contexts. They are rooted in communities and led by and for people facing injustices. They use non-violent direct-action tactics to shift power. And they are twice as effective as armed struggles in advancing democratic aims.
Non-violent collective action inspires dignity, agency and three ‘collectives’: collective responsibility, collective ownership and collective identity. Leveraged together, these enable non-violent resistance movements to demonstrate effective tactics that can be scaled and replicated both locally and transnationally.
Change rarely happens without meeting fierce–and violent–opposition, as has been seen recently in Bangladesh, Hong Kong, Iran, Myanmar, Sudan and Syria. However, while not always successful, non-violent resistance movements do in fact incentivize non-violent pathways to peace. And they can also reduce the risk of atrocities; research shows that armed uprisings are subject to mass killings nearly three times as often as non-violent campaigns.
Where to go from here
Since the Stockholm Forum, I have had the opportunity to connect with many Forum participants from non-violent resistance movements, civil society, government agencies and donors across geographies and sectors. Three things are clear. First, all recognize the underlying role that authoritarianism and kleptocracy play in driving insecurity and violence in both fragile and stable countries around the globe. Second, all recognize the urgent need to think strategically and collectively to tackle this set of problems. Finally—and unsurprisingly—there is no agreement on a path forward.
In my current role as a donor, I believe inclusive strategies are needed that transcend sectors, geographies and levels—from grassroots up to powerholders. Donors should try to build or support cross-sectoral and transnational relationships capable of leveraging diverse knowledge, skills, networks and proximity to power. Such partnerships enable actors with shared goals to simultaneously challenge multiple policies, processes, relationships and power structures that enable insecurity and violence. We know what these partnerships look like: they were the global anti-colonial and anti-Apartheid non-violent resistance movements, and include today’s demands for climate action and justice.
Developing and implementing comprehensive strategies to support relationships linking non-violent resistance movements to one another and with other sectors is not just a possibility: collaboration among governments and philanthropic organizations is making these strategies a reality. One example is Powered by the People, a public–private partnership between the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and private foundations that is upskilling and connecting activists around the world, and building partnerships between non-violent resistance movements and key actors in areas such as transparency, anti-corruption, banking and regulation, advocacy, strategic litigation and human rights—to name just a few.
Leveraging governmental and philanthropic funds allows donors to better coordinate, collaborate and exploit each other’s strengths.
Access to external funding has been a key demand among non-violent resistance movements globally. As donors in the peace and security field, if we are serious about building sustainable peace in an increasingly violent world, we need to meet this demand.
SIPRI is pleased to share a series of guest blog posts from partners of the 2024 Stockholm Forum on Peace and Development. Dr Sims was a speaker at the Forum session ‘Dismantling pillars of authoritarianism and violence’, co-organized by Humanity United and the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)