How Have Governments Reacted to Protest?
- Governments respond to protests because protests challenge their authority, expose injustices, and mobilise large groups.
- How they respond depends on their political system, strength, and willingness to change.
Analogy
- If citizens are the “voice” of a country, protests are when the volume gets too loud for leaders to ignore.
Exam technique
- Compare two types of responses: repression vs reform.
- Most questions want both.
1. Repressive Responses
- Governments may try to stop protests through force or restrictive laws.
- Typical tactics:
- Police crackdowns (tear gas, arrests, curfews)
- Censorship, internet shutdowns
- Banning protest groups or leaders
- Surveillance and intimidation
- Why governments use repression:
- To maintain stability
- To discourage further protests
- To show strength
Example
- Hong Kong (2019)
- Police relied on tear gas, rubber bullets, and large-scale arrests to disperse protesters.
- Authorities targeted digital organising by blocking Telegram channels, tracking online activity, and tightening surveillance.
- Result: The government regained short-term control of the streets, but internationally it faced major criticism for police violence and erosion of civil liberties; trust between citizens and authorities sharply declined.
Hint
- Repression can reduce protests temporarily but often increases anger and global attention.
2. Negotiation and Dialogue
- Some governments choose to listen to protesters and open discussions.
- What this looks like:
- Meeting protest leaders
- Announcing commissions or investigations
- Promising gradual reforms
Example
- Tunisia (2011)
- After mass protests, the government agreed to democratic reforms and elections.
- Result: more stable transition compared to other Arab Spring countries.
3. Policy Reforms
- Governments sometimes respond by changing laws or systems to address the protesters’ concerns.
- Common reforms include:
- Expanding voting rights
- Changing discriminatory laws
- Increasing transparency or reducing corruption
- Improving environmental or labour regulations
Example
- United States (1960s)
- After sustained civil rights protests, the government passed:
- Civil Rights Act (1964) - ended segregation
- Voting Rights Act (1965) - protected voting rights
- Result: major legal changes driven directly by protest movements.
Note
- Reforms often come after long protest pressure, not immediately.
4. Symbolic Responses
- Governments may make gestures that acknowledge public anger without deep changes.
- Public apologies
- Removal of statues
- National days of remembrance
Example
- Canada (2015)
- Government issued formal apologies for residential school abuses, acknowledging Indigenous injustices.
Note
- Symbolic actions help healing but don’t replace structural reform.
5. Mixed Responses
- Some governments mix repression and reform, allowing small changes while still using force.
Example
- South Africa (1980s)
- Apartheid government arrested activists but also began negotiating with moderate leaders due to global pressure.
- Result: transition to democracy when repression became unsustainable.
6. No Response or Denial
- In authoritarian contexts, governments may ignore protests entirely or deny that problems exist.
- Why this happens:
- Governments fear that any concession signals weakness.
Example
- Belarus (2020)
- After widespread claims of election fraud, the government refused to acknowledge opposition demands or allow independent recounts.
- Security forces carried out mass arrests, beatings, internet shutdowns, and intimidation to break up protests.
- Result: The regime stayed in power through force, but legitimacy collapsed at home and abroad; sanctions increased, the opposition went into exile, and society became more polarised and repressed.
Common Mistake
- Thinking “no response” means nothing changed.
- Even denial can fuel further activism or international involvement.
What determines how governments respond?
- Type of government: Democracies lean toward negotiation; authoritarian states toward repression.
- Strength of protest: Larger, organised protests force stronger reactions.
- Media pressure: Global attention pushes governments to act.
- Economic conditions: Weak economies make repression harder to sustain.
- International pressure: Sanctions or criticism influence government behaviour.
Note
- Governments react based on a mix of fear, pressure, and opportunity.
- They choose between force, dialogue, reform, or a mixture depending on what they think will keep them in power.
Case study
UK Government Response to the Suffragette Movement (Women’s Votes)
- Background
- In the early 1900s, women in Britain had no right to vote, despite paying taxes, working, and contributing to society.
- Two major groups emerged:
- Suffragists (NUWSS): peaceful, legal campaigning.
- Suffragettes (WSPU): more militant tactics like marches, window-breaking, and hunger strikes.
- Repressive Responses
- The government initially viewed the Suffragettes as disruptive and dangerous.
- Repressive actions included:
- Arresting protesters for civil disobedience
- Harsh prison sentences
- Force-feeding hunger-striking women in prison
- Surveillance and censorship of activists
- Passing the Cat and Mouse Act (1913): temporarily released ill hunger strikers but re-arrested them once they recovered
- Why repression happened:
- Leaders feared women’s suffrage would disrupt traditional society and politics.
- The government wanted to discourage militant tactics and maintain public order.
- Attempts at Dialogue
- While rejecting militant activism, the government occasionally engaged with peaceful suffragists, such as:
- Meeting NUWSS leaders to discuss voting reforms
- Considering limited voting rights bills (mostly blocked in Parliament)
- While rejecting militant activism, the government occasionally engaged with peaceful suffragists, such as:
- Major Reform After WWI
- The turning point came during World War I, when women took on crucial jobs in factories, transport, hospitals, and agriculture.
- Impact on government thinking:
- Women proved essential to the war effort.
- Public attitudes shifted toward recognising women's contributions.
- Granting votes became politically and morally harder to resist.
- Reform:
- Representation of the People Act (1918):
- Gave voting rights to women over 30 who met certain property or education requirements.
- Equal Franchise Act (1928):
- Granted equal voting rights to women and men aged 21+.
- Representation of the People Act (1918):
- Outcome
- Women gained the right to vote and later to run for Parliament.
- The movement demonstrated how persistent activism + social change + political opportunity can shift government policy.
- What this case teaches us:
- Governments may repress movements they see as radical, but long-term social pressure and public opinion can force eventual reform.
- Key turning points (like war or national crises) can speed up political change.
Self review
- Why do some governments choose repression while others choose reform?
- What are examples of repressive strategies governments use during protests?
- Why might negotiation or dialogue be an effective response to protest?
- How have major protest movements (e.g., civil rights, Tunisia) pushed governments to create reforms?
- What factors influence how a government decides to respond to protest?
