Coercion vs Persuasion is a comparison of tactics. It is the description of the means to an end. Ideally, nonviolence works by opening the heart of the opponent, in other words, by persuading them to voluntarily change their belief or action. Coercion on the other hand, employs threat power so that one person feels they have no option but to surrender. Although the process of persuasion may take more time, it is less likely to lead to a cycle of retaliation or revenge down the road. By using persuasive means instead of coercive ones, the positive effects of a nonviolent action are much more durable. When bullied into submission, it is human nature to fight back at the earliest opportunity.

There are times in a nonviolent campaign, however, when it is not realistically possible to persuade because the perpetrator is seemingly unmoved by persuasive appeals. This was the case in the struggle against the Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. It is unlikely that he would have ever been persuaded to voluntarily step down from his powerful position. In the end, it was through nonviolent elections that the Chilean people were finally able to oust Pinochet from power and end the junta in Chile in 1988. While General Pinochet eventually took formal responsibility for the many human rights violations under his rule eight years later, it is doubtful that he ever consciously felt remorse for those deeds. Nonetheless, the opposition clearly saved Chileans from much suffering by removing him from power.