I'd be curious to see how those percentages were obtained, and what sort of "campaign" qualifies for consideration. Nonviolent tactics can be extremely effective if you have the support base to sustain them. Nonviolent campaigns that can't raise the necessary support to apply meaningful pressure don't generally achieve much beyond making noise.
This assumption rests on a questionable assessment of AQ's causation. AQ is not an insurgency, has no populace, and did not arise as a reaction to despotism. It has never managed to raise sufficient popular support to threaten a government by nonviolent means. If we try to shoehorn AQ into a Cold War paradigm or resistance to oppressive despotism we do ourselves a disservice: it doesn't fit there.
It's worth noting that the "insurgencies" in Iraq and Afghanistan are not reactions to indigenous despotism, but reactions to a foreign power's misplaced confidence in its own ability to create acceptable governance for other countries. Insurgency certainly can be a response to despotism, but it is not always a response to despotism.
Certainly there are violent insurgencies in the world today that would be more effective if they worked through nonviolent tactics: I've long believed that the Palestinians need a Gandhi. Like all other tactics, though, nonviolent resistance requires certain conditions to succeed, and broad popular support is one of them. Calling a strike gets you nowhere if nobody heeds the call, a demonstration is ineffective if nobody shows up. Mass action won't work without mass. Groups turn to violence and terror precisely because they haven't the mass to operate any other way.
Bookmarks