The governments of the three most powerful countries in the world today, which are: America, Russia, and China all had violent revolutions, while there are different reasons for each of these revolutions, the bottom line was wars of independence were fought, lost, and won. This most definitely proves the somewhat obvious point that in order for a violent revolution to overcome its opposition, that you need both men and weapons. So that one in general can conclude that when those in power are in lockstep with the military and/or paramilitary of that country, that unless there is a coup within that leadership, or alternatively a tremendous amount of strategic help, arms, personnel, and outside assistance, that it would appear nearly hopeless for any revolution to replace those already in power.
Yet, there have in fact been revolutions that have occurred in which the regime changes from the hands of those in power and control of military forces and weaponry to the people that have demonstrated effectively against these particular regimes, such as in India, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. This clearly demonstrates that revolutions can be successful through the route of non-violence, especially when the resistance is broadly base, with a strong moral force behind it, and with a high level of civil disobedience against laws, powers, and principalities that are both arbitrary and capricious.
This means that revolutions can be successful through either violent or non-violent means, while keeping in mind the very valid caveat, that revolutionary upheavals are also often unsuccessful in their violent or non-violent opposition. In either case, whether violent or non-violent in their resistance, people's lives will invariable change, sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worst, which presupposes the very valid point which is that any opposition, that any revolution, should have a clear agenda of what they are trying to achieve and it is that agenda that they must live up to, as demonstrated In such seminal documents such as our Declaration of Independence.
The thing about revolutions is that it is always far easier to destroy what already is, yet it is far more difficult to build up what should be. That is to say, it is natural for people to have valid complaints, and further it follows that those same people believe somewhat simplistically that everything will be just fine if those certain people in power were removed. However, often times the very problems that one thinks will be corrected by a regime change are instead found to be so intractable, so systemic, that there are no easy solutions to such to correct them, and virtually all the efforts in a revolutionary cause have come to naught, as the new boss is the same as the old boss (paraphrased from the Who).
It does take a strong man to face down the barrel of a gun and not to flinch in their vulnerable position, and often times to gather that strength comes from a strong, moral core, which understands and knows that non cooperation with evil is the basis of all that is good, and the opposite of such is treason