Over the past four years, youth-led protest movements have brought down governments in Sri Lanka (2022), Bangladesh (2024) and Nepal (2025). In all three countries the protests began peacefully and were issue-based, but escalated after government heavy-handedness. Unrest is now visible in France as well, and governments elsewhere, India included, are weighing how to respond to street protests of their own. The question is how democracies should handle demonstrations that turn violent.
The protests were not random. The root cause in all three countries was economic distress. The triggers differed: job quotas in Bangladesh, inflation in Sri Lanka, and a social media ban in Nepal. Analysts also point to a youth bulge, corruption and the perversion of democratic processes as shared causes. Some commentators suspect hidden backers behind such movements.
Violence, however, is a legitimate concern. Arson, looting and attacks on public buildings harm ordinary citizens and weaken institutions. Nepal's parliament was burned, and in Bangladesh hundreds of people, mostly students, were killed. In France, a historic town hall in Limoges was devastated by fire during protests over the cost of living. Peaceful protest is a democratic right, but violence is not, and governments have a duty to protect citizens and public property.
Violent crowds are usually a small share of any population, and media coverage can make unrest look larger than it is. Yet France shows that protest participation can be broad. More than half a million people demonstrated there in a single day against living costs, with looting and arson in many cities. Violence can come from a fringe while grievances are widely shared, and governments need to distinguish the two.
Strong enforcement against arson and looting is within a democratic government's remit. But the record shows that force alone can backfire. In Nepal, heavy-handed measures by security forces led to the deaths of 19 young people and a wider uprising. A Journal of Democracy analysis notes that elections alone, even largely free and fair ones, cannot defuse dramatic upsurges of discontent. Protesters can argue that peaceful channels have failed them, and officials can argue that public order must come first. Both claims deserve weight. Proportionate policing, prosecution of those who commit violence, and real responses to economic and governance complaints are likely to work better together than any one of them.
The causes of the French unrest are themselves disputed. US President Trump has blamed immigration and urged Europe to close its borders. French President Macron has called such claims "stupid." The demonstrations themselves centred on living costs, poor school conditions and public services. An AP fact-check found that the claims blaming immigrants were made without evidence, and that the protesters seem representative of France's diverse society. The immigration debate is a legitimate political one, but it should not be treated as the established cause of these riots. (close your borders before its too late trump sounds alarm as france erupts in violence.
In the end, democracies should not tolerate violence against people or public property, and governments are right to act against it. But they should avoid assuming that all protesters are manipulated, and they should address the economic and political grievances that bring people into the streets. Order and responsiveness work together, and governments that ignore either risk losing control of the situation.
---
*Trustee, Nandini Voice For The Deprived, Chennai
Comments