Violence or Peace? Where do we draw the line? 👊

Is violence quintessential in protests? Is there any precedent involving violence in protest movements? Are systems themselves the main perpetrators of this violence?

Just a note before, I am not advocating violence, but exploring potential reasons behind protestors tendency to resort to violence. Protests occur because of disagreement or disapproval with a particular idea, policy, or action. To express this opposition, many protesters resort to some form of violence to get their message across. Force is often seen as a natural response to dispute. Historically, this has frequently been the case. The suffragette movement in the early twentieth century, the civil rights movement in America against racial segregation, and the French Revolution in the eighteenth century are all pertinent examples that highlight humanity’s tendency to resort to violence. Is this instinctive within human nature? Is force not so much easier than passive protest?

One reason many protesters advocate violence is a feeling of insignificance. Gargantuan monopolies and institutions hold vast political and economic power, making it difficult for small unions or minority groups to compete. Think about when you're at school. Do we not get the feeling of insignificance to teachers and the educational system, despite outnumbering them? Violence becomes a tool that both attracts attention and allows the minority to exert influence. Is this not, for some, the very purpose of protest? Furthermore, protests often concern grand narratives such as environmental protection or opposition to war, as seen in the anti–Vietnam War protests. If a small minority uses violence to reduce violence on a much larger scale, could this be considered a legitimate justification?

Despite limited legal grounds supporting violence in protest, some cases have alluded to narrow circumstances in which force may arise. ‘R (Ziegler) v DPP’ primarily concerned peaceful protest, yet judicial reasoning touched upon the boundaries of unlawful conduct. In exceptional situations, violence may occur lawfully, such as in self-defence against unlawful police force. While most protest-related violence remains illegal, there is limited space within the law where force may be acknowledged rather than outright dismissed.

Is peace the solution?

However, most people would agree that violence is not the desirable approach. Violence is widely viewed as immoral and socially taboo, yet this alone is often insufficient to deter it. Instead, legal authority plays a central role. An array of legislations have been introduced to restrict the use of violence, including the Public Order Act 1986, the Human Rights Act 1998, and the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. While these statutes collectively discourage violent behaviour, arguably the most influential instrument is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Articles 19 and 20 of the Declaration state that “everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression” and “the right to peaceful assembly and association.” This universal framework strongly opposes the use of violence in protest. When violence occurs, fundamental rights may be lost and innocent civilians often suffer the consequences. While violence may sometimes appear effective, is it ethically and morally defensible?

Mahatma Gandhi provides a powerful counterargument: can peaceful protest genuinely challenge authority and achieve meaningful results? Gandhi’s ideology centred on non-violence combined with deliberate civil disruption. By encouraging millions to openly defy British colonial laws, he undermined the legitimacy of British rule in India. This approach paved the way for future peaceful movements that achieved significant change while minimising loss of life. More recently, figures such as Greta Thunberg in Sweden demonstrate how non-violent protest can mobilise global attention and influence policy. How effective her protest was that she gained global attention at only 15.

Peaceful protest can also expose corruption or unlawful conduct by governments and institutions. When the state responds with force while protesters remain peaceful, protesters gain moral authority and public sympathy. This aligns closely with the protections offered by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, particularly freedom of expression and assembly. By avoiding punishment and maintaining moral legitimacy, peaceful protest arguably maximises both ethical standing and impact. Is this not the ideal form of protest?

The Middle Ground

As demonstrated, force is often the type of protest that generates the greatest immediate attention. Conversely, peaceful protest also carries significant advantages; while sometimes perceived as less effective, it raises awareness while limiting harm to human life. On this basis, non-violent protest may appear to be the preferable option. But what if there is a more balanced solution?

Two potential middle-ground approaches emerge: conditional non-violence and disruption without harm.

Conditional non-violence proposes that peaceful protest should always be the starting point, with escalation only occurring after all peaceful avenues have been exhausted and failed to produce change. This approach acknowledges the moral and legal strengths of non-violence while recognising historical instances where force followed prolonged inaction. Violence is not celebrated or deemed morally right; rather, it is framed as a reluctant response to systemic failure. In matters of significant public interest—such as opposition to war or challenging harmful industries—could limited force be justified to protect the wider population? This approach raises serious ethical dilemmas but may offer a pragmatic explanation for escalation.

This issue is highly relevant to our generation because many protests begin at the student level. A key example is the Vietnam War, when university students in Ohio organised anti-war protests against U.S. involvement during the 1960s. This led to the ‘Kent State shooting’, in which police unlawfully opened fire on students, resulting in several college students being killed and others injured. In such circumstances, the question arises: is violence ever appropriate? As discussed above, student protest plays a crucial role in society, which is precisely why this debate is so important.

Alternatively, disruption without harm advocates forceful protest that avoids violence against individuals. Methods such as mass civil disobedience, road blockages, and property damage have historically been employed. This approach blends elements of peace and force, though it leans closer to the latter. However, unintended consequences may arise. For example, protests aimed at protecting animal rights may inadvertently harm animals themselves, going against the cause of the protest. Nevertheless, all forms of protest present challenges, whether violent or peaceful.

Ultimately, these middle-ground approaches attempt to reconcile moral restraint with political effectiveness. Arguably, the most effective solution would be ethical and accountable conduct by powerful institutions themselves. While this may appear idealistic, it highlights a deeper issue: meaningful reform is still required—within law, rights, and systems alike.

Peace or Violence?

• 0%Peaceful Protests
• 0%Violent Protests