This new tool can help movements chart a path to victory

This article This new tool can help movements chart a path to victory was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

Embed from Getty Images

The beginning of 2025 brought a relentless wave of dehumanization and the systemic erosion of democratic institutions — all of which will fundamentally change the trajectory of the U.S. There have been sweeping executive actions from the new Trump administration, such as the dismantling of DEI efforts, attacks on the LGBTQ+ community and increasing deportations.  

But Americans haven’t accepted these changes without a fight. There has been significant nonviolent resistance to Trump’s agenda on many fronts. In just one of the latest examples, there have been widespread protests against ICE raids in Los Angeles, which Trump responded to by deploying the National Guard and Marines. Activists with Tesla Takedown have exacted a major toll on the company’s sales and Elon Musk’s net worth, and there is continued interest in building towards a general strike.   

However, a more nuanced picture emerges if we take a step back from the immediate enthusiasm. While there is a clear desire for impactful collective action, it’s premature to declare any widespread, deeply rooted shifts in power. The actions thus far have yet to translate into sustained, strategic gains. Rather, they should be seen as initial bursts of energy that still require careful channeling if they are to achieve lasting change in the face of such significant policy shifts. 

At this moment, we need to move beyond traditional power analysis — a tool long employed by community organizers and often associated with figures like Saul Alinsky — which focuses on identifying the issue, identifying who holds the power and attempting to persuade them to act in our favor. However, as their poll numbers drop, the Trump administration appears to have little concern with public opinion. 

This situation creates challenges that call for a different way to analyze power. It’s not just timely — but essential — to have a more sophisticated approach toward shifting the balance of power in ways that more deliberately advance democratic ends.

What’s wrong with the traditional power analysis? 

The traditional power analysis presents four issues that leave movements at a disadvantage. The first is that it only focuses on the power holder and who is or isn’t on your side. While this is a good place to start, it’s insufficient for the complexity of today’s movements and leaves several critical considerations unearthed. It also leaves movements with blind spots in their pursuit of liberation. Chief among them is how they might get their target to do what they want. 

In many cases, people simply assume: “If we can get enough people on our side, then we can get them to do what we want.” However, having public support alone is rarely enough to advance a movement’s ends. Instead of focusing on who currently has the power, we need to consider how to undermine that power in pursuit of our objectives. 

The second disadvantage of mapping power the traditional way is that it doesn’t consider the movement’s power and the work needed to move the target. You can say you’re building power, but to what end? How much power do you need to win? How long will it take? How can you ensure that while you’re building power, you don’t hemorrhage power as soon as you move to the next base-building effort? 

The third disadvantage is that the traditional power analysis doesn’t allow movements to conceptualize their path to victory because it focuses on the power holder and their influences — with no place to map how they would engage that power holder. Thus, the tactics and methods chosen through previous power analyses may be ill-informed. 

Finally, the traditional way fails us by misrepresenting the nature of power. It presents power as concentrated at the top of a pyramid, and it promotes the notion that people are dependent on the goodwill of the power holder. But power isn’t static — it ebbs and flows daily, from situation to situation, and those in power depend on the people and their cooperation or silent consent. If you understand that, then you may be able to select the proper actions and the right timing.

What a new approach could look like 

How do we analyze power using a single tool that allows us to: 1. assess our power, 2. assess the power of our opponent, 3. make rational considerations on a path to victory, and 4. take into account the nature of power relationships? 

My answer is: the relative power matrix. With this tool, you can consider your power, your opponent’s power and how you might chart a path to victory. 

I developed this power matrix because I was unable to effectively facilitate the understanding of relative power to activists seeking liberation. I wanted to help people understand that they should consider conditions, timing and other factors that may benefit or hurt them when they choose to engage their opponent. 

During trainings, I used the traditional power analysis, but it never stood the test of a campaign. It becomes a relic as campaigns advance and dynamics shift. It would lose its usefulness almost immediately after the first action. I thought there needed to be a better way of visualizing power and its inherent dynamics. So I drew on the work of Gene Sharp and Robert Helvey, who taught that power is dispersed throughout a given society and not monolithic. 

I found that a matrix is the perfect way to evaluate a power relationship. Here’s how to set it up: On the X-axis of the relative power matrix, you have your opponent’s power. On the Y-axis, you have the people’s power. Wherever you place the dot for the movement on the matrix represents not only the opponent’s power, but also the movement’s power in relation to it. 

The results were promising when I tested it during a training. Organizers were able to project their ability to shift their power dynamic through various activities that could improve their position. Since that first trial run, the matrix has proven useful in helping groups analyze, map out and act on their objectives during a struggle. 

One example was an activist seeing the connection between their ability to recruit and organize people who spoke the various local languages. By doing so, they would increase their power by being able to communicate with everyone in their country, which could grow their base. Participants could immediately see how different courses of action would affect the power dynamic, giving them more immediate feedback and motivation to lean into power and structure-building activities rather than feeling they had to engage with their opponents immediately to be effective. 

More recently, it was used to help a movement in Southeast Asia plan its campaign against carbon market scams. Reviewing their progress with the matrix, they saw how they had enough power to use more coercive methods following their base-building and consciousness-raising efforts. 

Understanding the relative power matrix

Let’s take a closer look at how this relative power matrix works. In the corner of each quadrant, there are mechanisms of change or ways in which you can bring about social and political change. They are as follows: 

Conversion happens when a nonviolent struggle influences an opponent to change their viewpoint to support the movement or its goals. 

Accommodation happens when an opponent decides to grant at least certain movement demands, although they have not changed their views or been nonviolently coerced. Accommodation may result from influences that, if continued, might lead to the opponents’ conversion or nonviolent coercion or a mixture of both.

Coercion happens when the activists’ demands are achieved, as a result of their struggle, against the opponent’s will and without their agreement.

Disintegration is an extreme development in a nonviolent struggle in which the opponent completely falls apart. This occurs when the previous noncooperation and collective action have severed all or most power sources from the opponent, leaving them unable to exercise power.

Each quadrant shows what is possible in a particular power situation. In the lower half of the matrix — where the movement is relatively weak — only conversion and accommodation are possible. In the upper right, where the movement has built serious power and the opponent is also powerful, coercion becomes an option. Finally, in the upper left quadrant, where the movement is strong and the opponent weak, all of the mechanisms of change, including disintegration, are possible. 

Now that we understand the components of the matrix, let’s explore three ways it can assist you in analyzing your power situation. 

1. Consider the situation you’re in.

If you have 30 members in your group and your opponent only has 10, that would suggest that you have a clear advantage. However, what if the battle were to occur in water, and none of your 30 members could swim, while all 10 of your opponents could? This would alter the balance of power significantly. By considering such factors, movements can adjust and increase their power through strategic positioning. For instance, you would want to make sure the battle takes place on land to play to your group’s strengths. This tool evaluates power in a way that considers the conditions of a campaign, enabling movement leaders to plan accordingly.

2. Power in one situation doesn’t necessarily translate to power in another. 

Just because you’re powerful against one opponent doesn’t mean you’ll be relatively powerful against the next. Let’s break this down in terms of a community organization that has well-trained members and support from the local community. They want the local corner store to sell more fresh fruit and vegetables, or they’ll organize a boycott. In that situation, they may find themselves in the upper left on the power matrix. They are powerful in relation to their opponent. Even the boycott threat might coerce the opponent into providing fresh fruit and vegetables. 

However, if that same group of community members wanted a hostile governor to sign a bill to eliminate food deserts, they would have significantly less power than their opponent. Therefore, their relative power would be somewhere in the bottom right quadrant. 

In this case, they would have to build more power and more momentum to move the governor. 

3. Power ebbs and flows

One of my favorite movies that demonstrates the practical understanding of power is called “Walkout.” This HBO film tells the story of the 1968 walkouts by Chicano students in Los Angeles to demand better educational opportunities and fair treatment, inspired by their teacher Sal Castro. The walkouts brought national attention to the educational inequalities faced by Chicano students and galvanized the Chicano civil rights movement. 

This story shows how power fluctuates in the real world, and if you understand that, you can take advantage of it. The students used petitions and other tactics to convince the board that they were worth investing in, to no avail. The problem was that their starting spot on the matrix 360 days out of the year was in the lower right quadrant.

However, there’s one brilliant moment in the movie where they realize that their relative power is different for five days out of the year. It’s during what is known as ADA week, or average daily attendance week. If you’re a young person in high school, you may wonder why they have homecoming, spirit week, pizza parties and pajama day all during one week of the school year. It’s because those five days are when they need you more than you need them. It’s the week the school district counts every student to see how much funding they will get. When the student activists in “Walkout” realize this, they concentrate all of their organizing during ADA week, moving their relative power situation to the upper right quadrant. 

The school’s relative power stayed the same, but students’ increased. Once that happened, more people got involved, including parents. 

Just a week after the walkouts began, the parents formed the Educational Issues Coordinating Committee. It was comprised of students, parents, community members and local activists. The committee became the central body that negotiated with the school board for radical reforms in L.A. education. Parents overcame their fear of the school system, and their opponents could no longer rely on parents to punish their children, which shifted the power dynamic. They built enough strength to hold a month-long sit-in in the school board’s chambers to force educational reforms and the release of the organizers from jail.  

By the end of the whole campaign, the students and their parents ended in the upper left quadrant. In that power position, they were able to achieve amnesty for all students and teachers involved in the walkouts, as well as the dismissal of the conspiracy and disturbing the peace charges against the organizers. Additionally, Chicano students were able to achieve changes that addressed the inequality in L.A. schools. Through continued engagement, more Latino administrators and teachers were being hired for the schools, shifting the education landscape and halting the colonizing approach to education by L.A. schools. 

This dramatic victory was won because student organizers were able to recognize when they were relatively powerful in comparison to their opponent and take advantage of it. 

Using the matrix 

So, how can this tool assist movements in their effort to change conditions on the ground? I’ve seen movements use it in a few ways to help them better understand their power position and plan their next steps. 

Because the matrix allows you to visualize power and plan your approach simultaneously, it helps teams be on the same page in conceptualizing their campaign. 

The first thing you should do is honestly assess where you’re at in your power situation. Though you may feel powerful as a group, your actual power may not be where it needs to be in relation to your opponent to achieve your goals. The truth is that most new activist groups will start with little power in the lower half of the matrix. Once you can be honest about where you’re at on the power matrix in relation to your opponent, it can be a liberating experience and allow you to chart a path to victory. 

If you find yourself in the bottom half of the matrix, you should focus on what you need to do to build your own power. The overlaid words are suggested approaches to help manage and improve your position on the matrix. 

If you’re in the bottom left, your best bet might be to build momentum and the public’s understanding of the issue. You can do this through actions that capture the public’s interest while simultaneously expressing your position on a matter. This is usually done to inform the community about the conflict and to encourage them to join your fight. The methods listed on the matrix include political mourning, guerrilla theater and petitions, although there are many other options. They are methods that can get more people engaged in your work through building public understanding. They don’t directly attack your opponent, but they build the power to attack your opponent when it’s time. 

As you move up the power matrix and your power grows, you’ll need to structure that power. That can mean creating teams or affinity groups that increase your capacity to coordinate the power you’ve built. It’s not enough to get more people to agree with you. You have to go through the process of identifying, developing and deploying people as leaders in your effort. This requires that you build some sort of “container” for your group to strategize further, make decisions and effectively use the power you’ve built. Eventually, you can plan actions requiring more organization to execute effectively. 

You may have noticed that until now, there has been little to no contact with the opponent. The focus has been largely internal. That’s important to think about as you engage with the power matrix. Often, we think that actions have to impact a target directly. But that’s not the case, and in most situations it’s not wise when you’re in the initial power-building phase of a particular campaign. 

Know when to escalate

As you’re building power and still in the lower half of the matrix, it may be tempting to use your power more aggressively. But you likely won’t have the power to implement more coercive methods against your opponent. So this calls for managing the conflict — that is, working to not overshoot your power and risk losing it with a catastrophic failure. 

For example, a national work stoppage in the U.S. right now could stop the administration from advancing toward its objectives. But calling for a general strike now, without the necessary power, support or planning to pull it off would be premature and likely backfire.  

When you move up the power matrix, you can engage in ways that flex the power you have built, and also open up negotiations with the opponent. As your power grows, and you crossover from the bottom half to the top half of the matrix, tactics like suspending social and sports activities or a consumer boycott become possible. Those are attainable after considerable base building, consistent action and awareness raising around the larger community. 

If a group has a good grasp on its power situation, it can operate better in the liminal space between the ability to seek accommodation and coerce. Further, as you build significant power and engage your opponents on an issue, they will have to respond. Activist groups can then use their response to build even more power based on their skill in sequencing methods — that is, choosing tactics that logically build on each other in a coherent order. 

Let’s say you lobby and get stonewalled. You have made your opponent go “on record,” saying they oppose your ends. If there was any doubt before, there isn’t now. If you choose other methods to continue raising awareness and building a base, you can continue to grow your power even more. After you’ve begun to preliminarily engage your opponents and the lines are drawn in the sand, the public will be able to more easily figure out whose side they’re on. In this position, a movement can continue to engage in activities that build leadership and also engage new participants to increase its capabilities. If you’re effective in these efforts, you’ll eventually find yourself in the upper right quadrant. 

Planning to engage your opponent

As you move into the upper right quadrant, you’ll see that you have more mechanisms of change at your disposal. You now have enough power to be more coercive. 

At this point, you can shift from building your people’s power to reducing your opponent’s power. That’s not to say you should stop building new leadership, but you can effectively use more coercive methods. 

In this example, you can see the movement using tactics of economic and social noncooperation like consumer boycotts and suspending social activities that can weaken the opponent’s sources of power. Over time, these methods can move movements into the upper left quadrant. 

If you’ve generated enough power to get to the upper left quadrant, then you have every mechanism of change at your disposal, and many more methods are realistic to deploy. 

Looking at it all together, you can see how the power matrix helps you understand your power relative to your opponent and plan accordingly. As we move into some of the most tumultuous times in world history, we have to think more clearly about how we can create meaningful social change. Any misstep can signal to the broader public that strategic nonviolence is ineffective in moving toward liberation. 

Strategic blunders and tactical approaches that fail to chart a path to victory can lead to public disillusionment and disengagement. This may prompt people to seek less effective means of resistance. As those who understand that strategic nonviolence is, both statistically and morally, the most effective means of resistance, we must take responsibility and exercise great care in its implementation. Perhaps this tool can help us achieve that.

This article This new tool can help movements chart a path to victory was originally published by Waging Nonviolence.

People-powered news and analysis

Source: https://wagingnonviolence.org/2025/06/this-new-tool-can-help-movements-chart-a-path-to-victory/