“Protests are political theatre, and public squares are their grand stages”

With the police about to be given broader powers to tackle disruptive events, the right to protest is in the spotlight. TIMOTHY GARTON ASH and KATRINA NAVICKAS join Danny Bird to discuss the history of popular demonstrations.

- TIMOTHY GARTON ASH and KATRINA NAVICKAS

Danny Bird What is a protest? What distinguishes it from a riot or a revolution?

Katrina Navickas A protest is often defined by law, making it a fluid and changeable term. In England and Wales, its meaning has evolved over time. The earliest legal definition dates to the 1714 Riot Act, which distinguished a riot from other forms of protest. The modern idea of a demonstration emerged in the 19th century alongside the rise of democratic movements. Protest came to mean people gathering publicly to make collective claims – a reflection of the growing concept of ‘the people’ and their role in politics. However, what counts as a protest still depends on context: the country, the circumstances and the legal boundaries of what is permitted in public spaces.

Timothy Garton Ash Historically, revolution was associated with violence, but modern protest is defined by nonviolent action. Think of Gandhi in India, the Civil Rights movement in the US, or People Power in the Philippines [in 1986, resulting in the overthrow of the Marcos regime]. The revolutionary events of 1989 in eastern Europe were particularly notable because they brought together nonviolence and revolution for the first time. In essence, protest is about people power – collective, peaceful demonstration as a means of change.

What makes a protest ultimately successful? Is it timing, tactics, leadership or something peculiar to a moment in history?