It is a popular misconception that armed struggle is more effective than nonviolent struggle, but this not supported by historical data.
At most, we can point to exceptional cases and cases in which opposition movements were predominantly nonviolent but had militant elements simultaneously involved.
In a review of 323 opposition movements of the last 100 years, more than half of the nonviolent movements achieved their goals, while only around 27% of armed struggles ultimately succeeded. And we must also bear in mind the toll inflicted on society by armed struggle; even if they finally achieved their goals, the price in blood was far higher.
I would also suggest that nonviolent struggle has a greater chance of being genuinely independent, while armed struggle almost always requires sponsorship of some kind to provide fighters with weapons and training. This sponsorship will always compromise the independent character of the struggle and integrate foreign agendas into the agendas of the rebels