Constructing reliable, legitimate, and accountable democratic institutions is easier when the conflict has been primarily nonviolent for three reasons. First, the active participation of large numbers of citizens in the process of democratic change, through their involvement in campaigns of nonviolent resistance, enhances the prospect that the citizenry will remain politically engaged after the transition...
Second, in countries where nonviolent resistance has succeeded in removing entrenched power, the victorious party has demonstrated that nonviolent means can be effective in winning power... ...In a country that has just witnessed the triumph of mass, nonviolent resistance, leaders may attempt to bolster their legitimacy by swearing off violence toward the very civilians that put them in power...
Third, successful campaigns that rely primarily on violent methods are more likely to operate by means of secrecy and martial values... ...campaigns that rely on a nonviolent strategy are more likely to use consent, leading to the establishment of more democratically oriented parallel institutions that might aid in the transition to a democratic system when the conflict has ended.