AEI’s Jamila Raqib in Waging Nonviolence on Why Authoritarianism Fears Women — and Why It Should

Published April 1, 2026

Why authoritarianism fears women — and why it should
By Jamila Raqib

This article is based on a speech AEI Executive Director Jamila Raqib gave at Tufts University, at the Fletcher School Conference on Gender in International Affairs.

Today, there are two parallel global trends: the rise of authoritarianism and the resurgence of patriarchy, trends that are being tracked by the United Nations. The UN Secretary General is warning against authoritarianism while at the same time UN Women is sounding an alarm as misogyny becomes more prevalent in workplaces, schoolyards, and relationships (see their recent publication on the manosphere). These are mutually reinforcing systems of oppression, and both are fundamentally about power, who has it, and who it’s denied to​​.

Authoritarianism and patriarchy operate with the same logic, and research is showing that they are surging worldwide. They concentrate power in the hands of a few. They eliminate opposition and punish dissent. They enforce rigid roles and strict hierarchies – hierarchies that are presented as natural, inevitable, or even divine. They thrive on obedience, fear, and the silencing of voices that challenge the status quo.

In the fight to combat these systems, women are playing, and must continue to play, a central role. That is why authoritarians are so fearful of empowered and organized women as a collective force. And the research says they probably should be. Women are a secret weapon against authoritarianism. They always have been.

Women have been at the forefront of struggles throughout history, not exclusively struggles to advance the rights of women, but in every type of struggle imaginable, such as the rights of workers, the rights of indigenous groups, and struggles for national liberation. Women have not only been participants, but leaders, strategists, and organizers. And they have often done so while fighting patriarchal systems that denied them their full rights as citizens.

Women have played leadership roles in the most prominent struggles for justice and freedom, from the Indian Independence Movement, the anti-apartheid struggle, the first Intifada, the Otpor Movement in Serbia, the Arab Spring, the Umbrella Movement in Hong Kong, the Green movement in Iran and then again in the Women, Life, Freedom uprising, and in recent struggles in Sri Lanka, Poland, and Bangladesh. The examples are countless, and yet women’s contributions are often overlooked or erased.

Erica Chenoweth and Zoe Marks’ research in the “Women in Resistance” dataset begins to address this gap, and it shows that inclusion of women in a movement isn’t just a nice idea, it’s a strategic necessity. The research shows a clear link between women’s participation and leadership, and higher success rates.

So, what does that mean for today’s movements? When women are in leadership roles or on the front lines, this seems to produce a number of important dynamics that are linked to movement effectiveness: movements tend to achieve mass participation, be more tactically innovative, more resilient to repression, more likely to stay nonviolent, and more likely to lead to democratic outcomes in the long term.

First, on mass participation. Women-led movements are more likely to achieve this because participation rates don’t just double when women lead, they increase seven and a half times. That’s because when women show up, they bring others with them. They bring their communities, including the social networks that men often can’t reach: mothers’ groups, schools, religious groups, families, and neighborhood associations.

That’s what nonviolent movements are positioned to do: use methods and tactics that enable the participation of a larger segment of the population including women, but also people who are younger and older, and who have different abilities.

A great example is Bangladesh’s pro-democracy uprising in 2024, which was truly multi-generational, intersectional, and inclusive. It was also youth and women-led. As one organizer put it, when women and girls joined the struggle, “the movement became a people’s revolution.” Numbers matter, and larger movements tend to be more successful.

Second, on skills and tactical innovation. It’s not just about the quantity of the participation; it’s about the quality. Women bring special skills and types of social power to movements. Not necessarily because they’re born with them, but because they’ve been socialized into these roles: managing households, coordinating care, multitasking, organizing, and logistics – all of which are very needed for mass mobilization.

Women also tend to be more creative and tactically innovative. A study from Georgia State University found that while men tend to take bigger risks, women generate ideas that are more inclusive of other perspectives, which makes those ideas more practical and more easily implemented, because more people feel a sense of ownership.

Third, on resilience to repression. Movements where women are participating in large numbers are usually more resilient to repression. When regimes use violence against movements that include women, grandmothers, or schoolchildren being attacked, this triggers a backfire effect, delegitimizing the regime and creating sympathy for the movement.

In Sudan’s 2019 pro-democracy revolution this was visible, as women made up an estimated 70 percent of the movement. This gave them huge moral authority and legitimacy as citizens fighting for dignity and freedom.

Fourth, on nonviolent discipline. Women-led movements are more likely to stay nonviolent because women tend to bring skills in de-escalation and negotiation, which help prevent movements from turning to violence when they’re provoked.

A study out of Duke University found that women tend to bring negotiation styles that are seen as less aggressive, and their relation-oriented, inter-personal approaches make it more likely that deals can be reached and sustained.

In the Liberian Women’s Peace Movement in the early 2000s, Christian and Muslim women organized across religious and ethnic lines during a brutal civil war. They held sit-ins, protests, and even a sex strike to force factions that were fighting each other to come to the negotiating table. This led to the end of a brutal civil war, the resignation of the Liberian president, and the election of Africa’s first female head of state, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf.

Fifth, on transitioning to a democratic system. The research shows that many years after a successful struggle, in which women participated in large numbers, societies are more likely to see gains in democracy, gender equity, and civil liberties.

That’s because when women are involved, the emergence of an alternative vision for society is more likely, along with alternative institutions and governance structures, constructive programs like mutual aid, and the everyday skills needed for transition and long-term governance. These are the foundations of democratic resilience.

In Bangladesh’s 2024 uprising, when Sheikh Hasina, the country’s authoritarian ruler for 15 years, fled the country, much of the police force went on strike, which could have led to chaos and violence. But women students refused to demobilize, and stayed in the streets along with men, to guide traffic and conduct night patrols to maintain public order. Now, with a new government in place, the hope is that women and girls will continue to stay mobilized and use the political power they’ve gained to preserve their place in government.

Transition periods are times of great vulnerability. As unjust institutions are weakened through noncooperation, new ones must be built to take their place. The democratizing effect that women’s participation has on the transition period is an important piece of the puzzle in building societies that are resilient to backsliding.

This research is still in its infancy, and there’s so much more to learn about women’s roles in struggles for justice – roles that have too often been overlooked or erased. Just like any other field, if women and girls don’t see themselves represented, they might not see what’s possible for them.

Women’s leadership in struggles against authoritarianism and injustice today is not just an ethical consideration, it’s a strategic necessity. For the numbers they bring, for the networks they mobilize, and for the creativity, the skills, the resilience, and moral leadership they offer.

The fact that today’s movements against authoritarianism are heavily women and youth led is grounds for real hope, hope that our movements will be more resilient, more creative, and ultimately, more successful.