When future historians will look back at the first two decades of the 21st century they’ll be confronted to an undeniable fact - the number of protests has soared and they have become the most common form of mobilization and one of the key drivers of political change. Maybe with hindsight it will be easier to make full sense of such a worldwide pattern that affects both democracies and autocratic regimes despite the different ways they deal with dissent. However, protests have become so ubiquitous and relevant to our understanding of geopolitics that we may not need to wait for future historians because we can already rely on cutting-edge, real-time research.
Using a mix of qualitative and quantitative sources and techniques - from media reports, field observation, case studies, and first-hand accounts, to polls, geospatial information, or large data sets, collected through a growing number of monitoring tools and observatories - researchers are dissecting protests to better understand their internal dynamics and driving forces, the factors that keep them nonviolent, their contribution to democratization, what happens in their aftermath, and the positive or negative impact of foreign support.
This last aspect is especially relevant in the light of the interest shown by the international community, who recognizes the importance of social movements for democracy, development, and conflict transformation, but struggles to find legitimate and effective ways to support them. Indeed, legitimacy and effectiveness are the two key variables that determine donors’ attitudes towards protests, which seldom happen in a vacuum. On the contrary, they always go hand in hand with other forms of mobilization, from civil disobedience to advocacy campaigns, meaning that, to some extent, rallies may be seen as the surf cresting waves that are being propelled by discontent, indignation, and ultimately hope.
People joining up is a form of power that may tip
Whether it is because of corruption, inequalities, environmental disasters, or climate change, protests are always triggered by acts perceived as intolerable abuses from those in power and therefore represent a last resort to hold them accountable. This may explain why, other than voting or paying taxes, taking to the streets has become one of the most salient forms of political participation, especially among young people and other groups that feel excluded from decision-making. Needless to say, the risks of challenging power differ widely between, on the one hand, democratic systems, however imperfect they may be, and, on the other, dictatorships. In autocratic systems, individuals will rarely express their views publicly, as they fear reprisals and distrust their fellow citizens.
This is, after all, why the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes peaceful assembly and association as a key political freedom, although it would be naïve to view it exclusively as a means to rein in power. People coming together is, in itself, a form of power and can therefore unleash both constructive and destructive forces, which is why nonviolence is key to determining if movements are taking a turn towards the darker side. Whenever this happens, we have what Hannah Arendt despised as the mob or Elias Canetti mystified as the crowd, a phenomenon that played a central role in the rise of fascism and has been instrumental for totalitarian regimes.
The international community needs to mind the plain political message of a movement
The protean nature of social movements and protests makes them volatile and hard to predict. Such difficulties, however, do not justify turning a blind eye. No matter how complex a situation, the international community has to be mindful of the political message people are expressing when they gather in dissent. In that sense, foreign support is not only about protecting those who exercise their human rights, but also has to prevent movements from turning violent or from being captured by a demagogue.
I have seen first-hand how donors’ reluctance to engage with protests and support nonviolent movements has thwarted their grassroots efforts. In Kyrgyzstan, for instance, I witnessed how representatives of civil society were confident that they could rid themselves of an abusive president by taking to the streets - just as they had done with Askar Akayev during the Tulip Revolution in 2005 and with Kurmanbek Bakiyev five years later. However, when prodemocracy activists tried to oust Sooronbay Jeenbekov, alleging he had rigged the 2020 presidential elections, their peaceful protests were hijacked by a violent faction that exploited the power vacuum to storm the prison where Sadyr Japarov, a former MP and nationalist politician, was serving a sentence for allegedly kidnapping a provincial governor. Capitalizing on people’s discontent with politicians and thanks to the intimidation tactics of his supporters, Japarov managed to seize power through political manoeuvring. Ever since, what used to be the only democracy in Central Asia, is in steep decline and political freedoms have been dramatically curtailed.
In Armenia, on the other hand, I witnessed quite the opposite as peaceful protests brought Nikol Pashinyan to power following a long march across the country. At the time leading up to Armenia’s Velvet Revolution I was involved with the EPD (the European Partnership for Democracy) as part of a policy dialog on the socioeconomic rights of women and reforms to workplace law. As a result of the upheavals our talks with the ministry had stalled for months. It was worth waiting, however, because once the new government came to office the dialog resumed and the results were promising. Yet, more recently this rosy picture has been overshadowed. Since neighboring Azerbaijan invaded Nagorno Karabakh in 2020 the crisis, along with the dramatic influx of refugees, has brought many Armenians are back on the streets, accusing Pashinyan of treason, and these nationalist protests are becoming increasingly ugly and violent.
So what can the international community do about this? Quite a bit, actually... First of all, foreign actors – including transnational civil society organizations and philanthropic donors – must be attentive and try to better understand the dynamics that are driving protests and the motivations of the different factions. Using such research, the international community will be able to use its diplomatic resources much more effectively, put pressure on those in power (for instance through sanctions) and promote peaceful democratic opposition movements (for example by attending trials or providing visas and legal support).
Donors can make a real difference by training movements regarding questions of organization, negotiation and nonviolent techniques; or by facilitating exchanges with activists from other countries; or by assisting them in building coalitions and conducting advocacy campaigns. In other words, donors need to understand the power and organizational dynamics behind protests. Only then will they be able to tailor support to the needs of the different actors. By doing this, donors may assist nonviolent movements in becoming more resilient and better able to attain their goals by peaceful means.
Of course this sort of involvement is not devoid of risks. The other option, however, is to do nothing and look on while nonviolent protests are being repressed and degenerate into riots, giving way to yet more bloodshed, another power grab, or democratic backsliding.
Sergio Rodriguez Prieto is an expert for government and democracy building with 20 years of experience in Latin America, Eastern Europe, the MENA region, and Central and South Asia. He is a consultant at the European Partnership for Democracy and advises Pax for Peace and the Berghof Foundation on how to develop tools and methods to support non-violent movements and other forms of collective action.