Closing the Gap: Protecting Activists from Authoritarian Use of AI

Closing the Gap: Protecting Activists from Authoritarian Use of AI

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is transforming societies around the globe, ushering in new possibilities for innovation and advocacy. However, it has also become a battleground between autocrats and activists. Authoritarian regimes, armed with vast resources and cutting-edge AI tools, have gained a significant upper hand in surveilling, targeting, and suppressing dissent. Meanwhile, activists often operate with limited resources, outdated technology, and delayed access to the training and tools they need to fight back.

This resource gap leaves activists vulnerable, prevents them from shaping the development of AI, and hinders their ability to counter oppression effectively. Bridging this divide is essential not only to protect human rights but to ensure that AI evolves in ways that uphold transparency, justice, and freedom. This article examines how autocrats exploit AI to maintain power, how activists are working to close the gap, and what must be done to empower movements with the resources, training, and support they need to reclaim AI as a force for promoting positive social change.

How AI Is Weaponized Against Activists

Autocrats and oppressive governments are increasingly utilizing AI to monitor, target, and silence activists, undermine democratic processes, and consolidate power. Through mass surveillance, facial recognition, disinformation campaigns, predictive policing, online harassment, and electoral manipulation, AI has become a potent tool for authoritarian control.

Most notably, AI-powered facial recognition systems are a cornerstone of modern surveillance. Governments in countries like China have implemented vast networks of AI-driven cameras capable of identifying individuals in real time. The technology is often used to monitor public gatherings, protests, and even day-to-day activities, making it nearly impossible for activists to operate anonymously.

China has used AI technologies to target the Uyghur community under the guise of counter-terrorism. Protesters in Hong Kong famously employed tactics like wearing masks, shining lasers at cameras, and using umbrellas to thwart facial recognition during demonstrations in 2019. Despite these efforts, reports emerged of individuals being arrested based on AI-assisted identification.In Russia, AI surveillance has been leveraged to monitor anti-government protesters. Moscow’s expansive facial recognition network was reportedly used to track and detain individuals participating in anti-Putin demonstrations. The chilling effect of such technologies cannot be overstated, as they deter activism and dissent through fear of retribution.

What is worse, the technology is being exported and shared around the world

Predictive policing tools powered by AI that analyzes data from various sources in order to forecast potential crimes or unrest are also a growing threat for activists. While this technology has legitimate uses, it has been widely criticized for perpetuating systemic bias and enabling authoritarian control. Activists often find themselves unjustly flagged as threats based on biased algorithms or intentionally manipulated data. In Egypt, for instance, the government has utilized AI to monitor social media for signs of dissent. Keywords, hashtags, and online activity are analyzed to predict and preemptively suppress protests. Similarly, in Bahrain, activists have been targeted using spyware and AI-driven monitoring systems, leading to arrests and harsh penalties.

AI-generated disinformation is another weapon in the arsenal of oppressive regimes, and one that has received a lot of attention. Sophisticated algorithms can quickly create deepfake videos, fake social media accounts, and AI-generated content to spread propaganda, discredit activists, or sow confusion among opposition groups at a dizzying rate. For example, during protests in Myanmar following the 2021 military coup, AI-driven bots flooded social media platforms with pro-junta narratives and targeted harassment of activists. These campaigns aimed to drown out dissenting voices and fracture solidarity among protesters. Activists often face an uphill battle against such coordinated efforts, which undermine trust and amplify fear.

AI is also employed to censor dissenting voices online. In countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia, advanced AI systems are used to monitor and automatically delete content deemed critical of the regime. In some cases, activists’ accounts are flagged, suspended, or shadow-banned, limiting their ability to organize and spread awareness. For instance, during the 2022 protests in Iran sparked by the death of Mahsa Amini, activists reported widespread internet blackouts and algorithmic suppression of protest-related content on social media platforms. AI-driven censorship tools make it harder for activists to document and share human rights abuses.

AI is in addition being weaponized to supercharge online harassment, creating hostile digital environments that deter people from engaging in democratic processes. By deploying AI-driven bots and algorithms, regimes flood social media platforms with targeted harassment, trolling, and disinformation aimed at activists, journalists, and opposition figures. These campaigns are not only designed to intimidate individuals but also to sow division, erode trust in democratic institutions, and discourage public discourse. In Belarus, the government has employed AI-driven technologies to suppress dissent and control the narrative. For instance, state-sponsored online trolls have been used to harass independent media outlets, creating a climate of fear and self-censorship among journalists and activists. These tactics not only intimidate activists but also deter the general populace from participating in democratic processes, fearing retribution.

Finally, though certainly not least, AI-driven disinformation campaigns flood social media with propaganda, fake news, and deepfakes, creating confusion and discrediting opposition candidates. In Zimbabwe’s 2018 election, reports indicated that AI-powered bots were used to spread misinformation about voter registration deadlines, leading to voter suppression in opposition strongholds. Similarly, in Russia, AI has been used to manipulate public opinion by amplifying state-sponsored narratives while silencing dissent, as seen in the 2021 parliamentary elections where bots and trolls discredited opposition leaders and fabricated narratives to justify election outcomes. In Venezuela, the government allegedly used AI to analyze voter data, gerrymander districts, and target individuals with pro-regime messaging to maintain control.

How Activists Are Using AI to Protect Themselves and Advance Human Rights

Despite these challenges, activists and movements worldwide are beginning to harness AI as a force for good. From encryption tools to AI-driven human rights documentation, innovative uses of AI are helping activists counter repression and protect their communities.

A key area is the use of AI for digital security and privacy. As surveillance intensifies, activists are using AI-powered tools to enhance their digital security. Encryption apps like Signal use AI to ensure secure communication, protecting activists from government surveillance. These tools encrypt messages end-to-end, making it nearly impossible for third parties to intercept or decipher communications. Additionally, AI is being used to detect spyware and malicious attacks. Tools like Amnesty International’s Mobile Verification Toolkit help activists identify and mitigate risks from spyware like Pegasus, which has been used to target journalists, activists, and human rights defenders worldwide.

Activists are also leveraging AI to debunk disinformation and promote factual narratives. Fact-checking platforms like Full Fact and Logically use AI algorithms to analyze and verify claims, helping activists counter propaganda and build trust in their messages. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, activists used AI-driven fact-checking tools to combat misinformation about vaccines and public health measures. By identifying false narratives early, they were able to provide accurate information and hold governments accountable. In Asia, activists are also using AI to track Chinese disinformation across the region and better understand who is spreading it.

Increasingly, AI is playing a crucial role in documenting human rights abuses and gathering evidence for accountability. HURIDOCS uses AI to organize, analyze, and verify evidence of human rights violations. These platforms help activists and organizations build robust cases against perpetrators. In Syria, AI-driven tools have been used to analyze satellite imagery and social media content to document war crimes. Similarly, during the Rohingya crisis in Myanmar, AI was employed to analyze patterns of violence and corroborate survivor testimonies, aiding international advocacy efforts.

AI is in addition transforming how activists engage with audiences. Machine learning algorithms can analyze social media trends, helping movements tailor their messages for maximum impact. Chatbots and AI-driven platforms are being used to automate responses, provide resources, and engage supporters. In Venezuela, AI journalists were created to raise awareness about the deteriorating situation following the July 2024 election. Also in 2024, an AI candidate was created for parliamentary elections in Belarus to raise awareness of the risks opposition and rights activists face in the country.

The Resource Imbalance: Why Autocrats Have the Upper Hand

While there are increasing examples of how activists are experimenting with and using AI, a significant challenge is the stark resource imbalance between oppressive regimes and grassroots movements. Autocratic governments often have access to vast financial and technological resources, allowing them to develop, deploy, and refine AI tools at scale. These regimes partner with private tech firms, fund cutting-edge research, and integrate AI into state security apparatuses with little oversight or transparency.

In contrast, activists and human rights defenders frequently operate with limited funding, outdated tools, and insufficient training in emerging technologies. The lag in support is critical: it often takes a year or more after new technologies become widely available for activists to receive the necessary resources, training, and tools to counteract their misuse. A case in point is digital security, an issue for many years, but one in which support for grassroots activists still lags. This delay allows autocrats to consolidate their advantage, stifling dissent before activists can adapt. And the need is palpable: In a recent CANVAS survey of activists and partners around the world, 97.1% of respondents said that they want to learn more about how to use AI for their work and how AI can be used to strengthen civil society and democratic engagement. And 91% of respondents want continuous education opportunities in AI.

The delay in providing activists with AI training and resources has profound implications. This includes missed opportunities to shape AI development as frontline activists are often left out of critical conversations about how AI should be developed and deployed. This exclusion means that AI systems are rarely designed with human rights, transparency, or fairness as priorities. And, without early access to tools and training, activists struggle to counter new forms of surveillance, disinformation, and censorship as they arise, leaving them vulnerable to emerging threats. Activists with inadequate AI literacy and resources are in addition less able to leverage technology for advocacy, outreach, and movement-building. This limits their ability to inspire and mobilize international support, reducing global impact.

Leveling the Playing Field

To level the playing field, the global community must prioritize providing activists with the tools, training, and resources they need to protect themselves and harness AI effectively. Indeed, activists need comprehensive training programs to understand AI technologies, identify threats, and adopt best practices for digital security. Organizations like Access Now, Witness, and Tactical Tech are already making strides in this area, but these efforts need to scale globally and their inclusion in all donor programs, especially those that support grassroots activists, should be a priority.

Governments, NGOs, and philanthropic organizations should also offer grants to fund activist-led projects that develop AI tools for human rights advocacy. This includes but is not limited to tools for documenting abuses, countering disinformation, and evading surveillance. As a new technology, donors should support activists and movements to explore, create, and experiment with a variety of AI tools. Activists also need access to emergency funding and technical assistance when targeted by AI-driven repression. This could include legal support, access to secure technologies, or relocation assistance for those at risk.

Platforms that facilitate collaboration between technologists, human rights defenders, and civil society groups can also accelerate the development of AI solutions. Partnerships between activists and AI developers are crucial for creating tools that address real-world challenges. To this end, CANVAS partners with the University of Virginia to organize the People Power Academy, which features experts and leaders from the frontlines of authoritarian use of technology sharing insights into cutting-edge advocacy tools. Activists must also be included in policy discussions about AI governance. This ensures that AI systems are designed with transparency, accountability, and human rights in mind.

By providing activists with early access to AI tools, training, funding, and collaboration opportunities, the global community can empower them to counter repression and ensure that AI serves as a force for liberation and not repression.

A Contest of Skills Over Conditions

The interplay between AI and activism underscores a fundamental truth: technology is neither inherently good nor bad—it is a reflection of the values and intentions of those who wield it. While autocratic regimes use AI to suppress dissent and consolidate power, activists are finding innovative ways to turn the tide, leveraging the same tools to fight for justice, equality, and human rights.

At the same time, no amount of resources can ever fully level the playing field between authoritarians and grassroots activists and movements. States will always have significant advantages- more money, more data, more computing power, and more institutional control- just as they have police, military, judicial systems, and much more at their disposal. Yet history is full of examples of less resourced and underdog movements using the tools available to them to outmaneuver and pull the pillars of support out from autocrats- even those who seemed invincible. Now, AI is simply another tool at their disposal.

This suggests another fundamental truth: the real battleground is not raw technological capability. Nor is it about using AI for AI’s sake, but understanding how it works and strategically integrating it into a movement’s broader goals. Indeed, AI is not an arms race between activists and authoritarians; rather, it is a contest of skills over conditions- one where adaptability, creativity, and strategic application matter more than sheer power, since conditions rarely favor a movement until it is able to force changes in their operating context. This aligns with broader research on how nonviolent movements succeed despite lacking vast resources.

While authoritarians use AI for surveillance and control, activists can harness it for agility and disruption- automating security, evading censorship, uncovering disinformation, amplifying resistance, and strategically undermining authoritarian pillars of support. What makes AI so powerful in these efforts is its ability to enhance efficiency- allowing activists to do more, faster, and at scale. And, in asymmetric struggles where governments have superior resources, efficiency is often the deciding factor. AI doesn’t just help activists fight back- it is another tool that allows them to outmaneuver repression in ways that were previously impossible.

Ultimately, AI will not determine the outcome of struggles between repression and freedom- people will. The activists who understand how to wield AI strategically, leveraging its strengths while mitigating its risks, will be better positioned to challenge authoritarian power and drive social change. The key is not to match the scale of authoritarian AI but to outthink, outpace, and outmaneuver it.

Interview with Dominika Lasota, Poland

Interview with Evan Mawarire, Zimbabwe

Interview with Rodrigo Gil Bermudez About the Venezuelan Presidential Election

Interview with Malcom Bidali, Kenya

Interview with Alejandro Gonzales Davidson, Founder of Mother Nature in Cambodia

What’s next for Georgia after the Foreign Agents Law? Interview with Giorgi Meladze

Interview with Ramy Essam, Egypt

Interview with North Korea Human Rights Activist

Venezuela’s Struggle for Democracy: Lessons from the 2024 Disputed Elections

For more than twenty years, Venezuelan pro-democracy activists have fought against authoritarianism, united in their wish to build a free, democratic Venezuela. Once Latin America’s richest state, today’s Venezuela is synonymous with economic collapse, mass emigration, and harsh state repression, legacies of Chávez and Maduro’s authoritarian rule. Under both dictators, democratic institutions crumbled, power was concentrated in the executive and opposition voices were ruthlessly silenced. Yet, Venezuela’s powerful if overlooked opposition remains a force to be reckoned with, committed to holding the government accountable despite huge adversity. In this article, we’ll explore Venezuela’s current political landscape, focusing on state strategies to stifle dissent, and the opposition’s evolving tactics to counter democratic backsliding. Just as authoritarian regimes around the world learn from each other, Venezuela’s 2024 protests offer crucial insights for pro-democracy activists worldwide, guiding them as they craft their own strategies for change.

Context:

Government:

Venezuela’s descent from democracy into authoritarianism didn’t happen overnight; it was a calculated process, engineered by Hugo Chávez. Capitalising on widespread anti-party sentiment, Chávez came to power in the 1998 elections, promising to check elite influence on Venezuelan politics. But, once in power, he didn’t rejuvenate democracy. Instead, he dismantled it from within, bringing the judiciary, legislature, National Petroleum Company, and electoral bodies under his influence. The media wasn’t spared either—critical outlets, like RCTV, were shut down or denied broadcasting licenses after legislation penalising ‘offensive’ content was introduced. And, when civil servants like Judge María Lourdes Afiuni spoke out, they were prosecuted on the nebulous charge of ‘treason’; Afiuni spent years under house arrest.

When Maduro took the reins in 2013, he didn’t just maintain Chávez’s authoritarian framework; he intensified it, while the country suffered from hyperinflation, mass migration and humanitarian crisis. In 2016, he blocked a recall referendum on his rule. By 2017, when the opposition-led National Assembly threatened his control, he stripped it of its legislative powers, leaving him the sole authority in Venezuela’s (by now) hyper-presidential system. Under his rule, Venezuela slid further into authoritarianism; what remained of democracy was now a mere façade. Against this backdrop, opposition figures mobilised to protect their country’s future.

Opposition: 

Over time, different opposition groups came together to challenge Chávez and Maduro’s authoritarianism. Up until recently, Venezuela’s main opposition front was the Democratic Unity Roundtable (MUD), formed in 2008, which encompassed conservatives, social democrats and centrists. Despite internal coordination problems centred on whether to use electoral or protest approaches, figures like Capriles helped the group secure numerous regional and local election victories, outlined below in the ‘Strategies’ section.

Today, the ‘Unitary Platform’ umbrella coalition, which came from the former MUD, dominates the opposition landscape. The Unitary Platform encompasses democratic parties with nominally different agendas, including the centre-left Democratic Action, the Christian Democrat Primero Justicia (PJ) and centre-left VP, and plays a crucial function in shielding opposition groups from ‘electoral’ government crackdowns. Most recently, in March 2024, the National Electoral Council (CNE) disqualified 19 political parties without due process for failing to meet the 1% vote threshold in the municipal elections. 

The 2024 elections were a critical test for the new Unitary Platform, testing their unity. In 2023, the coalition held primaries to select its leaders, with María Corina Machado leading the pack. However, both Machado and her replacement, Corina Yoris, were subsequently barred from holding public office—a move clearly designed to disrupt the coalition’s momentum. Despite blatant state harassment, the coalition underlined its strategic flexibility, or ability to think on its feet, by successfully fielding a new candidate, Edmundo González Urrutia, in the 2024 election. González was declared the rightful winner by independent electoral monitors, hence Venezuela’s ongoing 2024 protests (for more details, see the ‘Strategies’ section below), reminding both the regime and the world that the fight for democracy in Venezuela is far from over.

Strategy pre-2024: 

Chávez: 

Despite decades of surveillance, arrests, and the erosion of democratic norms, Venezuela’s opposition remains a powerful force. What lessons did they carry into the 2024 elections, and how were these shaped by earlier battles?

Back in 2007, during Chávez’s presidency, the opposition won key electoral battles, slowing the country’s democratic backslide. Student leaders like Yon Goicoechea and Freddy Guevara cooperated with pro-democracy advocacy groups like CANVAS, organising mass protests against proposed constitutional reforms. Chávez wanted to abolish presidential term limits and grant the PSUV sweeping powers to arbitrarily detain citizens, so fighting his reforms was essential. Here, thanks to well-coordinated decentralised student-led protests, non-violent mobilisation succeeded in blocking these authoritarian measures, providing a rare check on Chávez’s power.

But not all battles ended in victory. During the 2012 presidential election, the opposition MUD coalition, led by Henrique Capriles Radonski, failed to stop Chávez from winning a fourth presidential term; Chávez won 54% of the vote, to Capriles’ 45%. The 2012 election was widely considered rigged, and certainly took place on an uneven playing field; state-controlled media regularly slandered Capriles on national television. The opposition’s momentum stalled following this setback.

Maduro:

When Maduro took power in 2013, he immediately reinforced the authoritarian structure he inherited. However, the MUD opposition, now seasoned from years of struggle, won significant victories, not least in the 2015 parliamentary elections. Taking 66% of parliamentary seats, change seemed imminent; the opposition finally had the power to check Maduro’s authoritarianism. But victory was short-lived. In 2017, Maduro launched a preemptive strike, illegally robbing the National Assembly of its legislative power.

Maduro’s brazen power grab forced the MUD to rethink its strategy. Its response? Boycotting elections. Many Venezuelans joined the MUD in protest, and voter turnout plummeted; in the 2018 presidential election, turnout fell to 46.01%, and in the 2020 parliamentary elections turnout fell to 31%. But boycotts were a double-edged sword. Though they quantifiably demonstrated popular anger with a rigged system, they had a downside: uncontested elections gave Maduro room to consolidate his grip on power. 

Run-up to 2024:

Confronted by an increasingly oppressive regime, Venezuela’s opposition knew they had to adapt. Could they find a way to challenge Maduro within a system rigged against them? In 2019, seven months into Maduro’s second term— unrecognised by the EU, US, and Lima Group—Juan Guaidó, the leader of the National Assembly, made a bold, non-electoral move: he declared himself interim president, galvanising international support in the process.

Despite international backing, however, Guaidó’s momentum waned, especially during the rigged 2021 regional elections. But it wasn’t a lack of popular support that stopped the opposition from winning seats; it was internal inter-opposition infighting. Had the two largest opposition factions cooperated, the opposition would have won 13 instead of the 4 governorships. The lesson was clear; lacking unity, bold gestures weren’t enough.

That said, in 2023, Venezuela’s opposition scored a major victory with the US-brokered Barbados agreement. Following negotiations supported by 7 other countries, they persuaded the government to hold nominally competitive elections by 2024, cracking open a critical window of opportunity. In exchange, the US agreed to lift oil sanctions for six months, boosting Venezuela’s economy. The US also promised to prepare an extended license for Chevron Oil Corp’s Venezuela operations and agreed to exchange prisoners following Qatari arbitration, but only if Maduro engaged in sustained dialogue with the opposition. 

Maduro himself had other reasons for engaging. Notably, he wanted to regain international legitimacy after the ‘stolen’ 2018 election, so he used the negotiations to rebuild his global standing. Before the negotiations, he was regularly spurned by Western leaders. After the negotiations, in 2022, he met with Macron in Egypt, and the meetings gave him more legitimacy when they were shown in Venezuelan state media.

Strategy – 2024 Elections: 

Faced with a regime determined to hold on to power by ‘hook or by crook’, the opposition had to be shrewd. Elections in Venezuela, even when manipulated, offered a rare chance to corner the government and galvanise public support. So, the ‘Unitary Platform’ decided to field a single, joint candidate. Moreover, they strengthened their legitimacy by choosing their candidate through democratic primaries organised without state support.

Soon, María Corina Machado, a charismatic political leader, led the pack, winning the Unitary Platform’s primaries. But on 30 June 2023, without explanation, the Supreme Court banned her from holding office for 15 years, a tactic later used against her handpicked successor, Corina Yoris. Despite this brazen attempt to weaken the opposition, the Unitary Platform showed its strategic flexibility by rallying behind former diplomat Edmundo González Urrutia. Although Urrutia contested the election, the government-controlled National Electoral Council (CNE) declared Maduro the winner with 51.2% of the vote. These results were clearly rigged; the results by polling station were never published, but the opposition managed to publish vote tallies showing that Edmundo González had won with 67% of the vote. You can check the results here: https://resultadosconvzla.com/

Notwithstanding these fraudulent results, the opposition successfully used the 2024 elections to their advantage. By successfully mobilising grassroots support and leveraging international attention, the opposition showed the fight wasn’t over. Maduro might remain in power, but his grip is increasingly unstable; the 2024 elections destroyed his remaining legitimacy, trapping the state in ongoing lose-lose dilemmas. The 2024 protests themselves might well achieve similar ends; should the state arrest María Corina Machado at a protest, more and more Venezuelans are likely to publicly challenge the state’s authority to lead.

What can non-violent struggle theory teach us about Venezuela?

Unity: How the Primary Unified the Opposition Around María Corina Machado

Unity is a critical factor in any successful movement, yet achieving it is often a complex and elusive goal, as activist Srdja Popovic has noted. Venezuela is no exception. The opposition parties faced significant challenges in cooperating with each other due to three main factors:

  • Divergent Strategies: Opposition parties differed in their approaches to solving Venezuela’s political crisis. Some believed that participating in elections was the best path forward, while others argued that nonviolent protest was the key to restoring democracy. These strategic differences made it difficult to forge a united front.
  • Mutual Distrust: Distrust permeated the opposition, both internally and externally. Internally, not all parties wielded the same influence, leading to power imbalances and tensions. Parties with more authority often imposed decisions, causing fractures within the opposition. Externally, the government systematically targeted opposition parties with unequal levels of repression. Some parties faced severe repercussions, such as imprisonment or persecution of their members, while others were allowed to participate in elections with fewer consequences. This unequal treatment exacerbated divisions and made consensus harder to achieve.
  • Government Co-optation: The government also undermined the opposition by co-opting members through corruption and the promise of public office. Although the majority of opposition members remained committed to their principles, the defection of a few prominent figures deepened the mistrust among the parties.

Given these challenges, achieving unity among opposition members was no small feat. The first step toward building this unity was to identify a legitimate process that reflected the will of the people, rather than merely a negotiated compromise among party leaders. The opposition had a precedent to follow: the 2012 presidential primaries, which had yielded positive results and high voter participation. This experience suggested that holding primaries could be an effective way to unify the opposition and identify a strong leader, and in this case, that leader became María Corina Machado.

The Power of Small Wins

When discussing the success of nonviolent movements, it’s crucial to recognize the importance of small wins. These incremental victories are essential for gradually building momentum and achieving long-term goals. While small wins require meticulous planning, they can eventually escalate into something much larger and more impactful. In Venezuela’s case, something similar occurred—not in the sense of starting a movement from scratch, but in terms of building on successive small victories to create a broader movement.

Why Small Wins Matter

Small wins are vital for two main reasons: they help movements grow in numbers, and they create a perception of success. People are naturally drawn to winners or those who seem capable of achieving their objectives. However, it’s not enough to simply achieve these small wins; they must also be effectively communicated to the public. This not only reinforces the image of success but also persuades more people to support and get involved with the movement. This was one of the biggest challenges the Venezuelan opposition faced: how to persuade the public to support and actively engage with them.

The Primaries: A Small Win with Big Impact

One of the most significant challenges for the opposition was selecting a new leader who could coordinate and unify the various factions. Coordination had always been difficult due to the issues previously mentioned, but the primaries themselves became a small win that instilled hope among the citizens.

The idea of holding primaries was fraught with difficulties, particularly due to the complex logistics involved. Many political analysts and prominent commentators doubted the ability of civil society to successfully organize such an event without the involvement of the government-controlled CNE. Even members of the National Primary Commission, the body responsible for overseeing the opposition primaries, resigned from their positions, believing it was impossible to carry out the event.

The Commission faced a critical decision: either relinquish control to the CNE or proceed independently with reduced resources. Ultimately, they chose the latter. Against all odds, the opposition successfully held organized primaries on October 23, 2023, with substantial participation from civil society and a high voter turnout, especially for this type of event.

This small but significant win demonstrated to the rest of the country that: 1) the opposition had the capacity to execute a complex, nationwide event with electoral centres in every city and town. 2) The process was transparent, with results being released within 24 hours of the polls closing. 3) The active involvement of ordinary citizens underscored their commitment to a civil society-led primary. This victory reignited hope in what many had considered a lost cause and provided a foundation for the opposition to build upon in the future. For the first time in a while, citizens genuinely felt they were part of creating a change.  

How to be strategically flexible and adapt to circumstances

After María Corina Machado was elected as the leader and presidential candidate of the opposition through the primaries, it was clear that many obstacles from Maduro’s regime would arise. To advance and effectively challenge the regime in an election, strategic flexibility was crucial. It’s essential to understand the regime’s nature; as an authoritarian government, its use of power and institutions does not follow a fair game. Instead, these institutions are employed to maintain power at all costs. This includes controlling who can run for president and using state resources to create an uneven campaign. María Corina Machado and her team understood this reality and knew they needed to adapt to pose a real threat.

The first step was to prioritize strategic goals: Was it essential that María Corina Machado herself be the opposition’s candidate, or was the ultimate goal simply to win the election? This distinction was critical, as the likelihood of Machado being unjustly barred from participating was extremely high—and indeed, this is what happened. After being notified that she was administratively disqualified from participating in any election until 2039, Machado had to find a substitute. Her initial choice was Corina Yoris, an academic aligned with her cause and a member of the National Primaries Commission. Yoris was largely unknown in political circles, as she had dedicated her life to academia. However, Machado’s choice was a masterstroke: Yoris shared her first name, making it easy for people to recognize her as Machado’s substitute. Yet, in authoritarian regimes, things rarely go as planned, and the platform for registering Yoris as a presidential candidate simply refused to process her enrollment. No explanation was provided—her name just didn’t appear.

While the opposition scrambled internally to resolve the issue, they had already registered a candidate to secure their place on the ballot—Edmundo González Urrutia, a former diplomat and a relatively unknown figure who had long been connected to the opposition. In an unexpected turn of events, after continuous negotiations with the rest of the opposition leadership, Machado agreed to support González Urrutia as her replacement. Her strategic flexibility ensured that the opposition remained unified and with a chance in the election. From that moment, Machado and González Urrutia acted as a combined force. She shifted her focus from being the candidate to leveraging her influence and knowledge to introduce González Urrutia to the public.

Fighting authoritarian regimes requires the ability to act with the circumstances you’re dealt, even if they go against your plans, and still adapt to achieve victory. It’s not about what you want to happen, but how you respond to what actually unfolds. In this case, Edmundo González Urrutia was already in a position to participate, and ultimately, what mattered was winning the election, not who won it.

Dilemma Actions: How to Put Your Enemy into a Lose-Lose Situation

One of the core principles of nonviolent resistance is the ability to place your adversary in a decision dilemma—where no matter what choice they make, they face a lose-lose situation. Effective leaders excel at creating these scenarios; one of the most iconic examples is Gandhi’s Salt March in 1930.

María Corina Machado and the opposition successfully put Maduro’s regime in such a dilemma with the presidential election. For this to happen, two key steps were necessary: first, to genuinely win the election, and second, to convincingly demonstrate that victory. This is where the challenge lay. From a technical standpoint, proving the win required a highly organized civil society capable of collecting most of the voting tallies for public verification. The opposition mobilized a vast network of volunteers who worked tirelessly on election day to gather tallies from nearly all voting centers. As a result, they managed to publish 83.5% of the tallies online.

The next step was to make these results accessible to the public. This involved scanning and digitizing all the tallies, creating a secure online platform to store the data, and developing a user-friendly website where anyone could verify the tally from their voting center. This transparency was crucial because it meant that any winner declared by the CNE would have to be credible.

By both winning the vote and demonstrating that victory, Maduro’s regime was forced into a lose-lose decision: 1) acknowledge their defeat and declare Edmundo González Urrutia the winner, or 2) commit electoral fraud, which would come with significant internal and external repercussions. The regime chose the latter, and we are now facing the consequences of that choice.

Committing fraud has led to a severe crackdown on dissent, with the regime aggressively repressing, jailing, persecuting, and harassing dissidents in ways never seen before in the country. In the two weeks following the election, over 1,000 dissidents were arrested—tripling the number of political prisoners in that short time span. However, the opposition’s strategy lies in sticking to the publication of voting tallies, in accordance to the Venezuelan law, and with big support from the international community.  

Conclusion

Venezuela’s ongoing struggle against authoritarianism serves as a powerful case study for pro-democracy movements worldwide. The opposition’s commitment to unity, strategic flexibility, and non-violent resistance, despite the immense challenges posed by Maduro’s regime, offers valuable lessons for those facing similar battles. The 2024 elections and the subsequent protests highlight not only the opposition’s resilience but also the potential of well-coordinated civil society actions to challenge entrenched autocratic power.

What we are witnessing in Venezuela is more than just a political conflict; it is a testament to the evolution of non-violent resistance in the modern era. As authoritarian regimes adapt and evolve, so too must the strategies employed to oppose them. Venezuela’s experience underscores the importance of innovation in resistance strategies, showing how even in the most repressive environments, there is room for impactful action.

While the ultimate outcome remains uncertain, one thing is clear: Venezuela’s pro-democracy movement has fundamentally altered the political landscape, setting a precedent that could inspire and guide other movements worldwide. Will Maduro ultimately leave the presidency? It’s still early to tell, but the situation has dramatically shifted in the opposition’s favor.

Authors: CANVAS & Rodrigo Gil