This is part of a series on nonviolent protest methods, which explains approaches and provides inspirational examples from history. For additional resources, please explore the Museum of Protest’s activist guides and view items in the collection.

Fraternization is a tactic of personally reaching out to people who serve the opposing side with the aim of winning their sympathy or support. The goal is to erode the loyalty that individuals in power (or in the security forces) have toward an unjust command or regime – not by coercion, but by persuasion, empathy, and moral appeal.

Fraternization plays a unique role within nonviolent resistance. Unlike mass protests or economic boycotts, it targets the individuals on the other side – the soldiers holding rifles, the clerks processing orders, the bureaucrats enforcing unjust policies. Sharp describes fraternization as essentially “trying to win over” these members of the opponent’s forces, as reported by Security and Defence. It’s a positive alternative to simply vilifying or socially boycotting them. Whereas other tactics (like public denunciations) might shame oppressors, fraternization invites them to listen and even join. This method recognizes that a regime’s power ultimately hinges on the obedience of individuals; if those individuals can be peeled away through personal appeal, the regime’s pillars begin to crumble.

How Fraternization Works

Fraternization operates on a simple psychological insight: people find it harder to harm or oppose someone they feel a human connection with. In practice, fraternization means engaging with individuals from the opposing side on a personal level – talking with them, showing concern for their well-being, and appealing to their conscience. The strategic goal is to break down the “us vs. them” mentality that regimes foster. Protesters may start conversations with rank-and-file police during a demonstration, send friendly letters to government employees, or offer food and water to soldiers who have been deployed against them.

By doing so, activists humanize themselves in the eyes of the opponent’s personnel. Instead of seeing a faceless mob, the soldier or official sees real people with legitimate grievances. The immediate objective is not necessarily to get an official to openly switch sides on the spot (though that can happen), but to soften their resolve. Fraternization can create moments of doubt in those carrying out repression. For example, protesters might politely explain why they are demonstrating, or share personal stories that resonate. Often, activists emphasize common ground – “we are all citizens of the same nation,” or “we want a better future for everyone, including you.” This approach can undermine the propaganda that portrays protesters as enemies.

In fact, soldiers are “more susceptible to fraternisation when the discrepancy between [the regime’s] image and reality becomes clear,” according to Security and Defence. In other words, if troops have been told that demonstrators are violent traitors, but instead encounter peaceful people offering respect and empathy, it creates a powerful cognitive dissonance.

Another key aspect of fraternization is that it can trigger what Sharp calls “loyalty shifts.” If done successfully, fraternization builds sympathy within the opponent’s ranks, which may lead some individuals to refuse orders, leak information, or even outright defect to the movement’s side. History shows that when large numbers of a regime’s own personnel begin to question or resist its commands, the regime’s days are numbered. Thus, fraternization works not by brute force but by eroding the willingness of individuals to carry out repression. It is essentially a contest for the loyalty and mindset of the people in the middle – a nonviolent tug-of-war for hearts and minds, happening one person at a time.

Effective Use of Fraternization

To make fraternization impactful, activists have developed a range of best practices and insights. Here are some key techniques for using this method effectively:

Approach with empathy and respect: Nonviolent movements succeed when they refuse to dehumanize their opponents. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. taught that “nonviolence does not seek to defeat or humiliate the opponent but to win friendship and understanding,” as quoted by National Catholic Reporter. In practical terms, this means treating soldiers or officials courteously – using polite language, listening to their perspective, and even acknowledging the difficulty of their position. An empathetic approach can disarm hostility and lower the psychological barriers between protester and opponent.

Maintain nonviolent discipline: It is crucial that those engaging in fraternization remain peaceful and patient, even if met with initial coldness. When protesters steadfastly refrain from aggression, it can “trigger feelings of sympathy or mercy within security forces,” according to research on nonviolent resistance cited by Smithsonian Magazine (as long as the forces are not provoked to see the crowd as a threat). Violence or insults will instantly shatter any chance of rapport. By contrast, calm nonviolence – sometimes complemented by warm gestures like a smile or a handshake – allows the moral contrast to speak for itself. The opponent’s personnel may begin to feel that using force against such peaceful people is unjust.

Emphasize shared identity or values: One proven technique is to appeal to a sense of common identity. Activists often remind security forces that “we are all one people” or invoke patriotism in inclusive ways. In several successful campaigns, protesters have waved national flags, sung the national anthem, or even adopted slogans that include the army or police as part of the people, as noted by the War Prevention Initiative. By framing the movement as a joint struggle for the good of the nation (rather than a fight against the police), fraternization taps into values the opponents themselves hold. This can make it psychologically easier for officials or soldiers to side with the movement or at least stay neutral. For example, during the Serbian uprising against Milosevic in 2000, the student movement Otpor used the slogan “Resistance because I love Serbia,” signaling to security forces that their protest was deeply patriotic.

Use symbolic gestures of goodwill: Small acts can have big impacts. Offering a weary riot policeman a bottle of water, placing flowers on a soldier’s barricade, or wishing them to “stay safe” can profoundly alter the mood. These gestures carry a humanizing message: We don’t see you as our enemy; we care about you. In the Philippines’ People Power Revolution, for instance, crowds brought food, prayers, and flowers to the troops sent to disperse them, as documented by One New Lucena and Wikipedia. Nuns knelt and prayed in front of battle tanks, and ordinary citizens linked arms to politely block their path – resulting in the soldiers standing down without firing. Such is the quiet power of goodwill: it appeals to the conscience of individual enforcers. Even a hardened officer can be moved by a gentle act, especially if it contrasts sharply with any orders to crack down.

Communicate and listen: Effective fraternization often involves genuine dialogue. Protesters may calmly explain why their cause is just, or ask questions that prompt the other person to think. A two-way conversation, if it can be opened, is ideal – it allows opponents to speak about their concerns or confusion. Sometimes just being heard with respect can soften an official’s stance. During the Czechoslovak resistance to Soviet occupation in 1968, citizens famously talked at length with invading soldiers, “explaining why they were resisting the invasion and encouraging the soldiers to support their cause,” as reported by Security and Defence. This patient persuasion was “quite effective” – many Soviet troops, finding themselves treated kindly by locals rather than met with hate, became doubtful about their mission and had to be rotated out by their commanders. The lesson: rational discussion and personal appeals, delivered respectfully, can chip away at an opponent’s certainty.

Be conscious of fears and offer reassurance: Individuals who consider breaking ranks often worry about repercussions (punishment from superiors, loss of job, etc.). Fraternization can address these fears by subtly indicating that defectors or whistleblowers will be supported or honored by the people. Historical accounts tell of protesters chanting things like “Join us!” or promising soldiers that they will be treated with dignity if they refuse unjust orders. While it may not always be possible to directly promise safety, the general tone can reassure opponents that siding with justice is nothing to fear and is, in fact, something to be proud of.

In sum, effective fraternization is about building trust and understanding across enemy lines. It requires moral courage – reaching out a hand to someone who might initially be hostile – and a steadfast commitment to nonviolence. When done correctly, it turns encounters that could have been confrontational into moments of shared humanity. Over time, these moments can accumulate and tip the balance, turning enforcers of the system into weak links or even allies of the movement.

Historical Examples of Fraternization

Fraternization is not just a theoretical idea – it has repeatedly proven its worth in real-world struggles. Throughout history, movements have used this method to dissolve the loyalty of troops and officials upholding an unjust status quo. Below are several powerful examples where fraternization made a tangible difference:

Russian Revolution (1917): During the February Revolution in Petrograd, unarmed demonstrators (many of them women) approached the Tsar’s soldiers in the streets. They engaged the troops with pleas and even physical gestures of compassion. The presence of large numbers of women in the crowds made the soldiers “particularly reluctant to fire on the crowds,” according to Smithsonian Magazine. In one famous account, women workers marched up to the lines of armed men, took hold of their rifles and begged them: “Put down your bayonets; join us!” These personal appeals worked – one regiment after another defied orders and went over to the people’s side. Instead of shooting protesters, the soldiers joined them, accelerating the collapse of the Tsar’s regime. Fraternization had turned the army from a tool of repression into a friend of the revolution. As Leon Trotsky noted, women played a “great role” in melting the barrier between workers and soldiers. The mass mutiny of troops in 1917 is a dramatic example of how winning over individuals in the opponent’s forces can swiftly change the course of history.

German Kapp Putsch (1920): In March 1920, a group of right-wing army officers and Freikorps units attempted a coup in Germany (the Kapp–Lüttwitz Putsch) to overthrow the democratically elected government. The coup leaders seized Berlin, expecting the bureaucracy and military to fall in line. Instead, they were met with widespread noncooperation – a form of fraternization on a national scale. The legitimate government, before fleeing, called for a general strike. Millions of German workers refused to work, and crucially, most civil servants refused to follow the putschists’ orders, as documented by Britannica. In effect, ordinary clerks, railway workers, and officials said to the coup plotters: “We will not help you.” Even some troops refused to support the new regime. Within only four days, this immense pressure by individuals and groups rendered the coup untenable – it collapsed without the need for armed resistance. The Kapp Putsch highlighted how essential the cooperation of individuals is to power. By convincing those individuals (through appeals from unions and political leaders) to withdraw their cooperation, the coup was peacefully defeated. While this was more a strike than face-to-face fraternization, it similarly targeted the loyalties of people on the opponent’s side – and succeeded in peeling them away.

U.S. Civil Rights Movement (1960s): The civil rights struggle in America provides many examples of activists appealing to the conscience of individuals within the segregationist power structure. One iconic instance occurred in Nashville in 1960. After weeks of sit-in protests against segregated lunch counters, student leader Diane Nash led a silent march of protesters to City Hall. There, in front of news cameras, she confronted Mayor Ben West one-on-one with a simple, heartfelt question: “Do you feel it is right to discriminate against a person solely on the basis of their race or color?” The mayor, moved and on the spot, admitted that segregation was morally wrong. His public change of heart was a turning point – soon after, Nashville’s lunch counters were desegregated. This moment illustrates fraternization as moral dialogue: a protester speaking truth to an official and touching his conscience. Beyond that famous story, civil rights activists constantly worked on winning over individuals. They politely dialogued with police officers at protests, wrote letters to white ministers and politicians, and emphasized shared American ideals of justice. By appealing to the better angels of their opponents, they gradually eroded support for Jim Crow. Even some law enforcement officers eventually chose to quietly protect demonstrators or refused to enforce unjust laws. The movement’s nonviolent ethos of “love and understanding” helped convert former adversaries into allies over time.

People Power Revolution – Philippines (1986): The fall of the Marcos dictatorship in the Philippines is a classic case of fraternization on a grand scale. In February 1986, after a disputed election, millions of Filipinos took to the streets (especially along Epifanio de los Santos Avenue, “EDSA”) to demand an end to Marcos’ rule. Marcos sent elite military units and tanks to quell the uprising – but they encountered not an angry mob, but throngs of friendly, determined citizens. Protesters greeted the soldiers with waves, cheers, and offerings of food and flowers, as reported by One New Lucena. Catholic nuns knelt in prayer before armored vehicles, rosaries in hand, creating a powerful image of moral appeal. People chatted with young conscripts about their families and urged them that “we are doing this for our country, for your future too.” This overwhelming display of fraternization paid off: when ordered to fire or disperse the crowds, many soldiers hesitated or outright refused. In one standoff, tens of thousands of unarmed civilians stood their ground before advancing marines. The people even linked arms to block tanks, singing hymns. Confronted by such mass goodwill and resolve, the soldiers retreated with no shots fired, according to Wikipedia. Crucially, a significant portion of the armed forces defected to the reformist side during these events, and Marcos found himself without reliable support. Within days, the regime crumbled. People Power demonstrated how completely fraternization can undermine a dictator’s chain of command: when troops will not obey orders to attack peaceful citizens, a tyrant cannot survive. To this day, images of Filipinos handing flowers and bread to soldiers atop tanks remain a testament to the disarming power of treating opponents as brothers and sisters.

Ukraine’s Euromaidan (2013–2014): The Euromaidan movement in Ukraine began in late 2013 as a peaceful protest calling for closer ties to Europe and government reform. As the crowds in Kyiv grew, so did the lines of riot police deployed to contain them. Protesters consciously tried to win over these officers on an individual level. In December 2013, demonstrators famously placed flowers on the shields of the riot police guarding government buildings, as reported by Foreign Policy. This simple gesture – colorful roses wedged into the gray phalanx of shields – was symbolic but potent. It signaled to the young conscripts behind those shields that the crowd meant them no harm. Activists also chatted with police at the barricades, brought them hot tea during the cold winter nights, and appealed to their patriotism (many sang the Ukrainian national anthem every hour, which some police officers quietly joined in). These efforts created an atmosphere of restraint; for a time, the security forces showed relative caution in using force. While the Euromaidan protests eventually escalated into violent clashes in 2014 (as hardliners on both sides took over), fraternization early on helped keep the movement largely nonviolent and maintain public sympathy. Even after violence erupted, there were cases of individual police and even Berkut riot troopers refusing orders or switching sides. The demonstrators’ attempts to connect on a human level – humanizing themselves and even the police – contributed to divisions within the regime’s enforcement apparatus. Euromaidan’s trajectory was complex, but it reinforced the principle that protesters ignoring the “enemy” as individuals do so at their peril; those who did reach out, with flowers and dialogue, provided a glimmer of hope for a peaceful resolution and showed the world the moral contrast between citizens and an intransigent regime.

These examples demonstrate how fraternization can decisively tilt the balance in nonviolent conflicts. Time and again, when ordinary people found the courage to talk to, befriend, or compassionately confront the very persons ordered to oppress them, the dynamics of power shifted. Soldiers lowered their rifles, officials reconsidered their stance, and unjust systems were left without executors. Fraternization doesn’t always succeed – but even partial successes (a few soldiers standing down, a few officials quitting rather than carry out evil) can change the outcome of a struggle. It introduces a powerful uncertainty in the opponent’s camp: “Are our people still with us?” When the answer edges toward “no,” the opponent’s strategy falters.