Do protests and demonstrations threaten democracy – or guarantee it?

The prime minister has seemingly started a war against something that largely doesn’t exist – “mob rule”. Rishi Sunak, perhaps pushed by some on the right of his party who value order above free speech, has warned police chiefs of a “growing consensus that mob rule is replacing democratic rule”.

Some of his rather sketchy proposals to end this supposed threat to civilisation are commonsensical and consensual – curtailing intimidatory meetings outside MPs’ homes, for example. Others are vague and merely rhetorical: “We simply cannot allow this pattern of increasingly violent and intimidatory behaviour which is, as far as anyone can see, intended to shout down free debate and stop elected representatives doing their job. That is simply undemocratic ... I am going to do whatever it requires to protect our democracy and our values that we all hold dear.”

Sunak’s remarks and use of the hyperbolic phrase “mob rule” actually suggest he shares the views of Lee Anderson about such protests, even though he has said the words used by Anderson himself were “wrong”.

In perfect harmony with the PM, the home secretary, James Cleverly, has suggested that the Gaza protesters have “made their point” and should abandon their now-weekly protests. It is a slightly condescending instruction, and one posited on the notion that public dissent should be rationed on the say-so of a minister who happens to have limited sympathy with the protesters. The Home Office says that such protesting is “as un-British as it is undemocratic”. History and common sense suggest otherwise...

Obviously not. There have recently been many loud, highly disruptive protests about the war in Gaza, and many parliamentarians have expressed concerns about whether these add to the pressure on MPs to behave and vote differently. There have also been some boycotts attempted against shops and industrial sites allegedly linked to the war in Gaza; and one recent interruption of proceedings at Chorley town council.

However, as things stand, the only evidence of such pressure affecting political decision-making was the way the speaker of the Commons, Lindsay Hoyle, chose amendments to a motion proposed on an SNP opposition day debate. Critics say that although any motion passed would have no practical effect on foreign policy, it is a slippery slope to mob rule; on the other hand, Hoyle also says he was keen to allow all parties to express a view on the issue.

In any event, protests and demonstrations usually have little immediate political impact in and of themselves – and to the extent they do, it is because they are but one manifestation of a much more powerful democratic feeling. Thus, the peaceful and violent poll tax protests in 1990 weren’t the only reason why the tax was abandoned and Margaret Thatcher deposed; the widespread unpopularity of the tax, also expressed in parliamentary debates and local elections and by-elections, was such that the survival of the Conservative government (let alone its chances of winning the next election) was lethally threatened by it. When John Major got rid of it, it wasn’t bowing to “mob rule” but to his backbenchers and public opinion.

It would be dangerous. Fairly or not, some might feel that without the right to express dissent in public – a human right, after all – they would have to find other ways to make their point, such as direct action and escalating violence. Demonstrations are excellent and fairly safe ways for sections of the public to let off steam and make their case loud and clear to the ruling classes. Besides, it is simply not possible to suppress open dissent without turning the country into a police state – and thus sacrificing the free speech that protests so often represent.

It probably isn’t because of a conspiracy involving the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan (who has limited powers in this field), his “mates” and Islamist extremists or terrorists. Despite some misleading reporting, there has been comparatively little violence in the Gaza protests, and not that much law-breaking. Behaviour that many find offensive, such as clambering on war memorials, aren’t specific offences, and would be difficult to prosecute; the same goes for chanting slogans capable of multiple interpretations. Some laws relating to encouraging acts of terrorism have been broken (it’s arguable) and clearly, there have been incidents of threatening behaviour, assault and criminal damage, but the actual decision to arrest in a given set of circumstances has to be an operational decision for the police – and their independence should be respected.

If 100,000 people descend on central London, on an agreed basis with the police or not (arrangements are required to be approved in advance by law), and start causing trouble, the police can’t arrest and detain them all. In many cases, the law already covers violent disorder – invading the Commons or council chambers is unlawful. In other cases, it is perhaps deficient; is say, flying a Palestinian flag from a car, or group of cars, travelling through a Jewish area an offence? And if not, should it be?

The alternative, more or less explicitly demanded by figures such as Suella Braverman, is for ministers, ie politicians, to be able to direct which demonstrations can go ahead, the conditions for doing so and, by extension, who should be arrested. Indeed, by her logic, the “lefty lawyers” who populate our judiciary and pliant juries should not be allowed to conspire to acquit people whom the government regards as guilty. That descent into soft fascism is a far more dangerous erosion of civil liberties than the spurious idea of mob rule.

Yes, and this must be faced up to. This is especially true in this case to the Jewish community, many of whom have spoken out about feeling unsafe in central London when these mass marches take place. The chanting of “from the river to the sea” can be interpreted (and is sometimes meant) to be a cry for the violent destruction of the state of Israel and its people; the same goes for the projection of that slogan onto the Elizabeth Tower of parliament itself.

The balance is thus hard to strike. To take another example, in the past, the police have sometimes permitted neo-Nazis to march through immigrant areas because there is a (qualified) right to do so. As with free speech, it could be argued that the right to protest encompasses the right to offend. But the police, in more recent times, have tended to block such marches when they seemed highly likely to spill over into a pitched battle, with risk to life and limb. How far the Gaza marches can be placed in the same category is impossible to judge easily – each has to be assessed sensitively by the police – and they will make mistakes in such uncertain territory.

Mostly, definitely not. There are certainly new phenomena, such as digital rape and death threats and pile-ons, which are highly distressing, and the trend to protests at MPs’ homes. But civil unrest, sometimes descending into much worse violence and disorder than seen lately, has been a constant feature of British history. The names and dates of uprisings, riots and disorder are famous and sometimes infamous, but the country and, latterly, its democratic institutions have accommodated and survived them all.

The chronicle is a long one, and a non-exhaustive list would include: the Peasants’ Revolt (1381); the Levellers (1640s); Peterloo massacre (1819); the Luddites and Captain Swing resisting the industrial revolution; the Chartists (1840s); the Suffragettes in the Edwardian era; the battle of Brick Lane (1936); CND (from 1958); the Grosvenor Square riots against the Vietnam war (1968); provocative National Front marches in the 1970s; strikes and mass picketing in the 1970s and 1980s; the urban riots of 1981 and Broadwater Farm (1985); the poll tax riots (1990); Countryside Alliance protests about fox hunting (2000s); the “anti-capitalist” movement (1999-2001); fuel protests and blockades (2000); the one-million-strong march against the war in Iraq (2003); the riots of 2011; Brexit protests, pro and anti (2016 on); and the various Black Lives Matter and environmental protests in recent years.

The history of unrest and disorder, then, is a long and varied one and there was never some golden age in which the populace confined itself to polite debate, writing stern letters, silent protest and casting a vote every few years. The fact is that occupations, illegal gatherings, criminal damage, mass disruption and battles with the police have been a feature of our democratic life for centuries, and usually highly inconvenient for ministers and the establishment. We’ve even survived an actual civil war and successive waves of Troubles and IRA bombing campaigns.

Stopping the Gaza protests would require force to be deployed by the state on such a scale as to be impractical, and indeed counterproductive. On balance, it’s unlikely that Sunak and Cleverly will force the British to play nicely, and the alternatives to lawful protests are far worse.