Gary Stark, professor emeritus of History at Grand Valley State University and vice-chair of Michigan Third Congressional District Democrats, authored this historical reflection. It’s been both published and shared as a presentation, including as part of the “Democracy 101” series at GVSU and at several pro-democracy gatherings. Appreciation for permission to share it with members of Holland Zeeland Indivisible. 

Gary will be our featured presenter at our August 13, 2026, meeting, on the topic of nonviolent civil resistance.

Strongmen all reject or have only a weak commitment to the democratic rules of the game; they all deny the legitimacy of their political opponents and try to curtail their civil liberties; and they all tolerate or encourage violence.

Once in office, they also follow the same playbook for power:

• They strike an “authoritarian bargain” with the nation’s powerful elites, promising them power and security in return for loyalty and a willingness to tolerate the suspension of rights,
• They sideline constitutional checks and balances, usually by declaring an emergency and/or amending the constitution,
• They purge the civil service and the courts, packing them instead with loyalists who won’t try to block the power of the executive branch.
• They pay lip service to “freedom of expression,” leaving the impression there is a free press, but crack down on the media and carefully manage information so the public mainly gets the “news” the strongman wants.
• They need to continue to hold periodic elections (or plebiscites or referenda) in order to give their power a veneer of legality and legitimacy.
• To ensure their victories in these elections, they increasingly manipulate the rules, disqualify opponents, purge voter rolls, and otherwise rig the process.

Once in office, preventing them from killing democracy is not easy (see Resources below). Nor is removing them from power—but it is possible. 

How Authoritarian Leaders Have Lost Power

Authoritarian rulers—Strongmen—are notoriously difficult to remove, but history offers several notable examples. After ruling for 20 years and leading Italy disastrously into World War II, Mussolini—the first modern Strongman—was deposed in 1943 when the long-defunct

Fascist Grand Council persuaded the King to dismiss and arrest him.

A similar elite-driven ouster occurred in 1964 when the Politburo removed Khrushchev, who had led the Soviet Union since Stalin’s death in 1953.

Some authoritarians have been removed through elections or their aftermath. Although Chile’s Pinochet seized power in a 1973 military coup, a 1988 referendum—forced by internal and international pressure—saw a 56-percent vote to end his regime. In 2000, after Peru’s Fujimori ran for an unconstitutional third term and won amid blatant fraud, mass protests forced him to flee and resign.

In Brazil, Bolsonaro lost his 2022 re-election bid but refused to concede, fleeing to Mar-a-Lago. His supporters stormed government buildings in a failed insurrection, and he now faces charges of plotting a coup and assassination. In Poland, after eight controversial years in power, the Law and Justice Party was decisively voted out in October 2023 by a broad democratic coalition.

That November, neighboring Czechoslovakia’s Communist regime quickly collapsed during the “Velvet Revolution” after mass demonstrations and a general strike forced the party to relinquish power. In Serbia, Milošević’s devastating nationalist wars and a rigged 2000 election triggered massive protests. During the “Bulldozer Revolution,” demonstrators stormed parliament and the radio station with the help of a bulldozer and forced his resignation. He was later tried for war crimes.

In Ukraine, pro-Russian President Yanukovych backtracked on joining the EU despite Parliament’s overwhelming vote to do so. Massive 2013 protests escalated into violent clashes, leaving over 100 dead. This Maidan Revolution forced Yanukovych to flee to Russia. In response, Putin declared the ouster a coup and invaded Crimea.

Common Patterns—Maybe Even Lessons—from Ousters

Before being ejected from power, each Strongman had suffered one or more of the following setbacks:

• an economic crisis
• a disastrous or mismanaged war
• growing public disapproval of their corruption and abuse of power
• erosion of civil liberties and judicial independence
• the arrest (or murder) of a political opponent, and
• discontent culminating with an election riddled with blatant fraud or manipulation.

One success sparked others. The Philippines’ People Power Revolution of 1986 directly inspired the East German Monday Demonstrations and the Czechoslovak Velvet Revolutions of 1989.

From Chile to Ukraine, ousting Strongmen involved prolonged mass protests and demonstrations. These depended on wide grassroots participation and support among the “pillars of society” (business or church leaders, labor officials, various civic and cultural institutions).

Ousting Strongmen requires sustained activism. The opposition must form broad alliances, coalitions, and partnerships, working with and through many groups and movements to amplify their message, reaching beyond political parties to other institutions: churches, unions, universities, the judiciary, etc.

Non-violent, unarmed protest and civil disobedience were crucial to ousting these Strongmen, e.g.:

• nonviolent protest and persuasion
• social, political, and economic non-cooperation, and
• non-violent intervention

Different situations call for different approaches, but some of the most effective have been:

• mockery and humor
• banners and protests that visually carry a message
• regular, recurring marches or parades that showcase the unity and strength of the cause
• people reclaiming a public space, e.g. an important public square or mall, and
• publicly displaying an alternative vision (think Women’s March of January 2017.)

Positive messages, stressing optimism and change, e.g. “March for Relief is Coming!” are most effective.

He said: “If your convictions mean something, you must be prepared to stand up for them and make sacrifices if necessary. And, if you’re not prepared to do that, you have no convictions. You just think you do. But those are not convictions and principles; they’re only thoughts in your head”.

He also noted that “Life works in such a way that social progress and a better future can be achieved only if a certain number of people are willing to pay the price for their right to have their own beliefs. Everyone pays their price. For some, the price is high even without being imprisoned. But the more people there are willing to pay the price of living freely, the less everyone has to pay”

We must ask ourselves if our convictions are worth standing up and making sacrifices for, or are they just ideas in our heads? What price are we willing to pay?

Resources

• Ruth Ben-Ghiat, Strongmen: Mussolini to the Present (2020; paperback with a new epilogue, 2021)
• Tom Ginsburg & Aziz Hug, How to Save a Constitutional Democracy (2018)
• Nicholas Kristof, “Three Well-Tested Ways to Undermine an Autocrat,” The New York Times (May 21, 2025)
• Steven Levitsky & Daniel Ziblatt, How Democracies Die (2018)
• Eric Liu, You’re More Powerful than you Think: A Citizens Guide to Making Change Happen (2017)
• Alexei Navalny, Patriot  (2024)
• Gene Sharp, Methods of Nonviolent Action (1973), also summarized in the 198 Methods of Nonviolent Action PDF
• Timothy Snyder, On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century  (2017)