Apolitical demonstration is an action by a mass group or collection of groups of people in favor of apolitical or other cause or people partaking in aprotest against a cause of concern; it often consists of walking in a mass march formation and either beginning with or meeting at a designated endpoint, orrally, in order to hear speakers. It is different frommass meeting.
Demonstrations may include actions such as blockades andsit-ins. They can be eithernonviolent orviolent, with participants often referring to violent demonstrations as "militant." Depending on the circumstances, a demonstration may begin as nonviolent and escalate to violence.Law enforcement, such asriot police, may become involved in these situations.Police involvement at protests is ideally to protect the participants and their right to assemble. However, officers don't always fulfill this responsibility and it's well-documented that many cases of protest intervention result in power abuse.[1] It may be to prevent clashes between rival groups, or to prevent a demonstration from spreading and turning into ariot.
The term has been in use since the mid-19th century, as was the term "monster meeting", which was coined initially with reference to the huge assemblies of protesters inspired byDaniel O'Connell (1775–1847) in Ireland.[2] Demonstrations are a form ofactivism, usually taking the form of a public gathering of people in a rally or walking in amarch. Thus, the opinion isdemonstrated to be significant by gathering in a crowd associated with that opinion.
Demonstrations can promote a viewpoint (either positive or negative) regarding a public issue, especially relating to a perceivedgrievance orsocial injustice. A demonstration is usually considered more successful if more people participate. Research shows that anti-government demonstrations occur more frequently in affluent countries than in poor ones.[3]
There are many types of demonstrations, including a variety of elements. These may include:
Marches, in which aparade demonstrate while moving along a set route.
Rallies, in which people gather to listen to speakers or musicians.
Picketing, in which people surround an area (normally an employer).
Sit-ins, in which demonstrators occupy an area, sometimes for a stated period but sometimes indefinitely, until they feel their issue has been addressed, or they are otherwise convinced or forced to leave.
Nudity, in which they protest naked – here the antagonist may give in before the demonstration happens to avoid embarrassment.
Demonstrations are sometimes spontaneous gatherings, but are also utilized as a tactical choice by movements. They often form part of a larger campaign ofnonviolent resistance, often also calledcivil resistance. Demonstrations are generally staged in public, but private demonstrations are certainly possible, especially if the demonstrators wish to influence the opinions of a small or very specific group of people. Demonstrations are usually physical gatherings, but virtual oronline demonstrations are certainly possible.
Topics of demonstrations often deal withpolitical,economic, andsocial issues. Particularly with controversial issues, sometimes groups of people opposed to the aims of a demonstration may themselves launch a counter-demonstration with the aim of opposing the demonstrators and presenting their view. Clashes between demonstrators and counter-demonstrators may turn violent.
Sometimes the date or location chosen for the demonstration is of historical or cultural significance, such as theanniversary of some event that is relevant to the topic of the demonstration.
Locations are also frequently chosen because of some relevance to the issue at hand. For example, if a demonstration is targeted at issues relating to foreignnation, the demonstration may take place at a location associated with that nation, such as anembassy of the nation in question.
While fixed demonstrations may take place inpedestrian zones, larger marches usually take place on roads. It may happen with or without an official authorization.
Protest marches and demonstrations are a common nonviolent tactic. They are thus one tactic available to proponents of strategicnonviolence. However, the reasons for avoiding the use of violence may also derive, not from a general doctrine ofnonviolence orpacifism, but from considerations relating to the particular situation that is faced, including its legal, cultural and power-political dimensions: this has been the case in many campaigns ofcivil resistance.[11]
Demonstration turned riot at the US Capitol Building onJanuary 6, 2021.
A common tactic used by nonviolent campaigners is the "dilemma demonstration." Activist trainer Daniel Hunter describes this term as covering "actions that force the target to either let you do what you want, or be shown as unreasonable as they stop you from doing it".[12] A study by Srdja Popovic and Sophia McClennen won the 2020 Brown Democracy Medal for its examination of 44 examples of dilemma demonstrations and the ways in which they were used to achieve goals within civil resistance campaigns.[13]
Some demonstrations andprotests can turn, at least partially, intoriots or mobviolence against objects such asautomobiles andbusinesses, bystanders and thepolice.[14] Police and military authorities often usenon-lethal force or less-lethal weapons, such astasers,rubber bullets,pepper spray, andtear gas against demonstrators in these situations.[15] Sometimes violent situations are caused by the preemptive or offensive use of these weapons which can provoke, destabilize, or escalate a conflict.
The protests following themurder of George Floyd are well-known examples of political demonstrations addressingracial injustice andpolice brutality. These demonstrations, which spread across the United States and around the world, brought attention to systemic issues within law enforcement and the broader society. This movement highlighted the importance of political demonstrations in driving social change and influencing public policy, but also showed how protests can turn violent through police intervention.[16]
Australasian, European, and North American democratic states have all experienced increased surveillance of protest movements and more militarized protest policing since 1995 and through the first decades of the 21st century.[21][22]
Criminalization of dissent is legislation or law enforcement that penalizes political dissent. It may also be accomplished through media that controls public discourse to delegitimize critics of the state. Study of protest criminalization places protest policing in a broader framework of criminology and sociology of law.[21]
An anti-Naftali Bennett demonstration inTel Aviv,Israel, on September 23, 2021. One of the signs the demonstrators primarily carried translates in English to "BENNETT DANGEROUS TO ISRAEL!".
The Special Rapporteur has expressed concern regarding laws adopted in many countries that impose harsh restrictions on assemblies, including provisions relating to blanket bans, geographical restrictions, mandatory notifications and authorizations. [...] The need for prior authorization in order to hold peaceful protests [is] contrary to international law [...].
A report released by the Human Rights Law Centre in 2024 states that based on British common law, "Australian courts regard [the right to assembly] as a core part of a democratic system of government." However, there are a number of limitations placed on demonstrations and protest under state, territory and federal legislation, with forty-nine laws introduced regarding them since 2004.[24]
Citizens of the Russian Federation shall have the right to gather peacefully, without weapons, and to hold meetings, rallies, demonstrations, marches andpickets.[26]
Demonstrations and protests are further regulated by the Federal Law of the Russian Federation No.54-FZ "On Meetings, Rallies, Demonstrations, Marches and Pickets". If the assembly in public is expected to involve more than one participant, its organisers are obliged to notify executive or local self-government authorities of the upcoming event few days in advance in writing. However, legislation does not foresee an authorisation procedure, hence the authorities have no right to prohibit an assembly or change its place unless it threatens the security of participants or is planned to take place near hazardous facilities, importantrailways,viaducts,pipelines,high voltage electric power lines,prisons,courts, presidential residences or in the border control zone. The right to gather can also be restricted in close proximity of cultural and historical monuments.
Public demonstrations inSingapore are not common, in part because cause-related events require a licence from the authorities. Such laws include the Public Entertainment and Meetings Act and the Public Order Act.
Under theSerious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 and theTerrorism Act 2006, there are areas designated as 'protected sites' where people are not allowed to go. Previously, these were military bases and nuclear power stations, but the law changed in 2007 to include other, generally political areas, such asDowning Street, thePalace of Westminster, and the headquarters ofMI5 andMI6. Previously,trespassers to these areas could not be arrested if they had not committed another crime and agreed to be escorted out, but this will change[when?] following amendments to the law.[27]
Human rights groups fear the powers could hinder peaceful protest.Nick Clegg, the thenLiberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said: "I am not aware of vast troops of trespassers wanting to invade MI5 or MI6, still less running the gauntlet of security checks inWhitehall and Westminster to make a point. It's a sledgehammer to crack a nut."Liberty, thecivil liberties pressure group, said the measure was "excessive".[28]
One of the biggest demonstration in the UK was the people vote march, on 19 October 2019, with around 1 million demonstrators related to theBrexit.
TheFirst Amendment of the United States Constitution specifically allows thefreedom of assembly as part of a measure to facilitate the redress of such grievances. "Amendment I: Congress shall make no law ... abridging ... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."[30]
A growing trend in theUnited States has been the implementation of "free speech zones", or fenced-in areas which are often far-removed from the event which is being protested; critics of free-speech zones argue that they go against the First Amendment of theUnited States Constitution by their very nature, and that they lessen the impact the demonstration might otherwise have had. In many areas it is required to get permission from the government to hold a demonstration.[31]
^Adam Roberts andTimothy Garton Ash (eds.),Civil Resistance and Power Politics: The Experience of Non-violent Action from Gandhi to the Present, Oxford University Press, 2009, especially at pp. 14–20.[1] Includes chapters by specialists on the various movements
Another common tactic is to infiltrate legitimate demonstrations in the attempt to stir widespread violence and rioting, seen most recently in a spring anti-Iraq war gathering in Vancouver, Canada. This has become so commonplace that sources within activist organizations have told STRATFOR they police their own demonstrations to prevent infiltration by fringe groups.
_2015_October_Stockholm.jpg)
.JPG)
_(retouched).jpg)
