Around the world, people are marching: against Trump's authoritarianism in the USA, Macron's failures in France, and the cruelty of Gaza policy in the UK. Everywhere, governments are asking 'how to stop protest?', when they should be asking 'why people feel the need to protest?'
In this video, I argue that protest is a democratic safety valve — a sign that governments are failing to meet basic human needs like food, housing, warmth, dignity, and justice. When people protest, it's because they have been ignored.
Governments that suppress protest aren't defending democracy; they are betraying it.
The real question is not how to silence dissent, but how to listen and act on what it tells us.
Watch now to explore why protest is essential to democratic life — and what it tells us about political failure and the possibility of renewal.
This is the audio version:
This is the transcript:
Why do people protest?
They are around the world.
People are protesting in the USA against Trump.
People are protesting in the UK about what's happening in Gaza.
People are protesting in France about what Emmanuel Macron is doing in his failed government.
And everywhere governments are saying, "How do we stop these protests?" as if people shouldn't have the right to object to what they're up to, when I suggest they should be asking, "Why do people feel the need to protest?"
That alternative question was put out by Roy Lilley, who's a campaigner on the NHS, and I thought he had a perfect point to make. That question should be everywhere because governments should be asking the question of themselves, "Why is it that people feel the need to protest about what we are doing? What is wrong that is upsetting people when it is our job to serve the people of this country?" If they remember what that duty is, of course.
That question defines the difference between governing by fear, which is what too many governments are now trying to do, and governing with consent, which is, of course, what should happen in a democracy.
In a democracy, protest is not an inconvenience to be managed. It is a constitutional safety valve. Protest actually delivers us a form of information, and incredibly valuable information at that.
Protest tells the system that it is not meeting people's needs. It is, in other words, failing.
When people have access to food and warmth and housing and healthcare and dignity and freedom, they do not march. They march when those things are denied to them. People have to get angry to march, and when they're satisfied, they won't protest.
So the question is not how to stop protests. It is, instead, how can the state, which has the power to deliver well-being, and the duty to deliver well-being, I would suggest, why has it chosen not to use that power for the common good?
And remember, the constraint on that delivery is one that comes down to political will. No government in a country like the UK or the USA is constrained by a lack of money. They have central banks that can create all the money they need. They can find the resources within their economy to divert them into the activities that will prevent the need for protest.
That is possible. People know that this is the case because they saw this happen in 2008, and they saw this happen again in 2020. They know that the argument that there is no money left is not a good one. They know that if they are not getting what they need, it is because somebody in power has decided not to deliver it to them.
The fact is that protest is democracy in motion. When the state treats dissent as a threat, it says that only those already in power have the right to speak. But in a genuine democracy, government must be accountable to those who object. In fact, dissent is the oxygen of public life in a democracy. Drive it underground, and discontent rises because people can see inequality, insecurity, the collapse of services, unaffordable housing, climate anxiety, and injustice. And they know that these things are the result of deliberate fiscal and political choices.
That is what is driving discontent. And what people want is to see the government working for them. They want schools rebuilt, transport restored, homes insulated, care improved, and justice delivered. They know that the state can do these things because they saw governments do it in 2009 and in 2020.
The fact is, the economy must serve people and not the other way round. And this is the big issue that governments are not understanding when they ask the question, "Why are people protesting and how do we stop them doing so?", instead of listening to them and trying to solve the underlying problems.
If only they listened, if only they respected people, they would, in fact, not be trying to suppress dissent. They would be guaranteeing people the right to assemble, because when people have something to say, the government should be listening.
The police should be facilitating protests and not suppressing them. Of course, I do mean peaceful protest, and I do mean that this involves protests by different groups, those who even disagree with each other, but that fact should be recognised as a right as well. The right to disagree is fundamental to democracy.
The job of government is not to suppress, but to listen and to reconcile. Suppressing dissent destroys the legitimacy that protest exists to defend.
Protest is a sign of failure in government policy, because people have to get pretty angry before they'll get off their butts and get out with a placard and walk the street saying, "It's time for change."
But the government has the power to change things if people feel that strongly about them.
It has the power to reconcile interests.
It has the power to explain.
The constraint then is political, but not financial.
The government has to have the confidence that it can either defend its policies or be big enough to change them.
It has to have the confidence that it can hear people and reconcile differences.
It has to have the confidence that it can persuade and not suppress.
Peaceful protest must be protected as democracy's most visible expression. You can silence a protester, but you cannot legislate away their fears or people's ultimate right to protest. They will always do that if things are bad enough.
So what we really need are not governments that can work out how to impose an unjust rule of law, but governments that are big enough to listen. That's what we need.
What do you think? Do you think we have a right to protest?
Do you think that the government should facilitate protests?
Do you think the government should listen to the protesters?
Do you think they should change as a result of the protest?
We think that these things matter, or we wouldn't have made this video, but let us know what you think. There's a poll down below, and leave us comments. We do read them, and they do influence how we make future videos.
Poll
Loading ...Comments
When commenting, please take note of this blog's comment policy, which is available here. Contravening this policy will result in comments being deleted before or after initial publication at the editor's sole discretion and without explanation being required or offered.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I have to agree.
I may not agree with what you are protesting about, but you have a right to be heard and ensure that those who make the decisions know that not everyone is on board with their policies as they might think.
Might these protests indicate that, in the countries involved, there is not a valid form of democracy in input, process and output, resting upon educational systems which teach cohesive individualism and persistent grounded questioning, which also lack an objective main stream media to keep every one well informed in depth?
In the only protest I have been involved in, the government knows exactly what we’re protesting about, but the politicians seem rather more interested in covering their own arses than listening to dissenting voices.
When the power you talk about comes from less than 34% of the votes in a general election, the majority you have means you can do what you want. Our electoral system is not just clearly wrong, it has a corrosive effect on how people – both the elected and the electors – view politics. All you can do is protest.
As a counter-point to your excellent post – could some protest be driven by impatience? I’m sure Labour would argue that they have only been in power for a year, and it will take many years to undo the damage from the last 50 years since Thatcher. Of course, they aren’t providing any evidence that they are actually aware that they need to undo all this damage, and how to go about it using MMT, but that is perhaps another point.
The news cycle and social media happens so fast now – a story appears one day, and is replaced the next before any sensible understanding and exploration of the topic can be made. Social media using the nefarious techniques of advertising can push opinions one way or the other very quickly, turning issues like the rounding error of people crossing the channel on small boats, into an unwarranted larger focal point for anger, helplessness and blame.
Labour knows exactly what it is doing – neoliberalism
We knew that from the start
It needed no time at all to make that clear
Labour, and other Governments, don’t serve the people. They serve their masters.
Imagine the “Change” that Labour promised us, as a journey from Lands End to John O’Groats.
What the hell are we doing 15 months later, in the Channel Islands?
And they expect us to be patient?
I will continue my journey by other means.
I literally laughed out loud
First they came for the protesters…………….
Indeed they did. Here is a video about one of them from Crispin Flintoff, which seems to be experiencing some blockage from YouTube. If anyone can publicise it on other channels please do so if you are happy with the content.
https://youtu.be/RovWMlcf1GY
It features Sarah Wilkinson, from the recent flotilla that was hijacked in international waters in Israel. She was taken into Israeli custody. On being deported she was detained at our border on re-entry to the UK.
She has experienced a lot of attention from the British forces of so-called law and order.
The denial and quashing of protests also opens up the kind of vile rhethoric spouted by Priti Patel on Laura Kuensberg on Sunday. Describing the peaceful protests against genocide as terrorism!! While remaining quiet on the anti immigration protestors preaching about removing anyone not a Christian!
I would be laughable if not leading to such serious repercussions
But surely Richard you heard Priti Patel on Kuensberg yesterday saying that these Gaza protests are ‘hate marches’ which should be banned. And of course the same BBC that can send an on the ground correspondent to a Telaviv square, can’t possibly summon the curiosity to have a reporter join the marchers on the Strand to ask just how hateful and anti semitic these protests really are.
When politicians pay lip service to the ‘right to protest’ they usually mean – ‘so long as it doesn’t have any effect’. Many Gaza , anti brexit, anti-Iraq invasion, anti-Vietnam marches have had hundreds of thousands or maybe up to a million, but often got barely a mention, unless there was trouble – then that was news – ‘protests are always violent’.
And these massive protests were proved right by history – in every case.
BBC seems to have no clear editorial policy about when or how to cover a protest , to talk to people on the ground, or to interview the organisers, even when hundreds of thousands are travelling the length and breadth of the country to attend.
But it gave massive coverage to rioters harassing asylum seeks cowering in hotels. They were not ‘protests’ they were often down right intimidation.
Chris Packham recently observed he would have to contemplate breaking the law to be noticed . In our ‘democracy’ a peaceful protest will be ignored however large.
All the polls show that people are losing faith in democracy, and certainly in politicians – for good reason. The system is corrupt from top to bottom – bought and sold by vested interests, by dark money, by global corporate bad actors.
Governments should always remember that people don’t go out and protest just because they’ve got a free Saturday and can’t think of anything better to do. They protest when they’ve become so angry that they’re prepared to go to the enormous trouble, expense, inconvenience and even risk involved in leaving their homes and travelling to London and standing in the cold all day. It takes a great deal of frustration to push people to this point, and for every one protester actually out on the street there are likely to be ten or twenty others who agree with them but who are unable to protest in person.
And that means that for the two million who protested against Tony Blair’s Iraq war there would have been tens of millions more who actively opposed it too. Keir Starmer should reflect that Tony Blair’s legacy was one of the factors keeping Labour out of office for the duration of five disastrous Tory prime ministers – not because these Tories were loved, but because people still felt betrayed by Tony Blair. Starmer only won when memories began to fade and the Tory party’s catastrophic record began to loom larger than Labour’s.
Starmer needs also to remember that his ‘landslide’ was the result of unprecedented tactical voting – and that many people were not voting for Labour, but voting against the Tories. His government was not given a get-out-of-jail-free card, or a mandate to ignore two-thirds of the electorate. Every government has at best only a provisional licence, which has a fixed expiry date.
Much to agree with