From Rallies to Riots: Why Some Protests Become Violent?

“Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world… would do this, it would change the earth.” —William Faulkner.

 A study of demonstrations between 2006 and 2020 found that the number of protest movements around the world had more than tripled in less than 15 years. And the authors concluded that we are living through a period in history like 1848, 1917, or 1968, “when large numbers of people rebelled against the way things were and demanded change.”

As documented in Carnegie’s Global Protest Tracker shows that, since 2017, there have been over 700 noteworthy anti-government protests around the world. These protests have spread across more than 147 countries, with approximately 18% lasting for more than three months. Among these protests, there have been 258 significant economic demonstrations against government policies.

The speed and scale at which the demonstrations spread have reanimated an old question ：Why do some protests descend into riots, whereas others remain peaceful or never emerge in the first place？

Predicting the course of grassroots, activist-driven protests is difficult because of their decentralized and unpredictable nature. However, comparing their evolution to a fire can provide a conceptual framework. These protests typically arise from underlying grievances (the tinder), are ignited by a catalytic event, intensify into a larger movement (the flame), and can occasionally escalate into widespread unrest (the conflagration) before eventually subsiding.

Study shows that in most situations, violent mobilization carries a higher cost than nonviolent mobilization, especially when challenging the state. These higher costs result from the increased risk of imprisonment, physical harm, or even death for protesters involved in violent protests. Conversely, the costs associated with nonviolent protest are primarily determined by the government, reflecting the concept of political opportunity structures. These structures measure institutional openness to citizen input and indicate the government’s willingness to deal with dissent. However, even participation in nonviolent protest can carry significant risks in repressive environments. When governments escalate repression in response to previous nonviolent protests, the overall costs of all forms of protest rise. Paradoxically, this leads to a narrowing of the cost differential between nonviolent and violent protest, as both become increasingly risky endeavors in environments of heightened repression.

Protesters holding umbrellas face off with police officers in anti-riot gear in Hong Kong on July 1, 2019. (Kin Cheung/AP)

The contrast between peaceful and violent protests is particularly evident in Hong Kong’s social movements, with dozens of protesters storming out of a camp near the government headquarters during the 2014 Umbrella Movement, grabbing barricades and smashing them against the glass walls of the Legislative Council. However, the same scene was repeated in the 2019 protests, but this time protesters smashed photos of pro-Beijing politicians and graffitied the walls. One of the messages read, “it was you who told me peaceful marches did not work.”

Randall Collins employs the tunnel of violence theory to elucidate the escalation of violence in specific contexts. He posits that violence typically originates from a buildup of tension, which may arise from social inequality or perceived threats to one’s identity or status. In the event of a triggering event, the tension may intensify, reaching a peak. This could manifest as large-scale conflicts and riots. He believes that confrontations between two parties often begin with a verbal clash followed by minor physical contact with a conscious line maintained in each mind. As the confrontation progresses, the emotions of both parties infect and reinforce each other physically and psychologically. During this process, people’s cortisol and adrenaline also soar, entering a highly tense and confused cognitive state, where people may not be able to control their behavior. For example, Daunte Wright was shot after the officer intended to use a Taser but mistakenly pulled her gun instead.

The spontaneity seen in many protest movements, such as Occupy Central, the Arab Spring, and Tiananmen Square. This is usually the result of individualistic responses to events rather than collective decisions by organized groups. Snow and Moss’s theory of spontaneity explains how this spontaneity can lead to escalation, especially when violent participants act without constraints from protest organizers. According to their theory, in situations where protests lack strong organization, the role of leadership in regulating participants is diminished. This absence of gatekeepers can affect the composition of the protest in two important ways. First, without leadership to constrain participants, the overall level of protest experience tends to decrease. As a result, inexperienced protesters may resort to violence when confronted by state authorities. Second, protests without gatekeepers are more likely to attract individuals predisposed to violence because there are fewer constraints on their behavior within the protest environment.

Lawrence Ho, an assistant professor specializing in policy and public order management at EduHK. highlighted a significant contemporary challenge: the lack of clear leadership in many protests. He believed that the mainstream way of handling processions and demonstrations nowadays is a negotiated management strategy. He pointed out, “Negotiation is the best way, but the problem for today is that many protests do not have leaders. If you can’t find leaders, you can’t negotiate with them.” This shift in protest dynamics is evident in the emergence of “be-water” protests, often organized through online platforms. However, the lack of visible leadership makes communication and coordination difficult, leaving law enforcement unsure of whom to deal with. As a result, there has been a gradual breakdown in communication between the government, police and protesters. This breakdown exacerbates tensions and complicates the police’s ability to effectively manage protests, potentially leading to an escalation of violence and perpetuating a cycle of unrest.

French BRAV-M Police unit police officers carry a demonstrator during the traditional May Day labour march on 1 May 2023.  REUTERS

Lawrence Ho further explained that a decline in public trust towards the police can lead to heightened emotional confrontation between people. He clarified that this strained relationship is not solely attributed to the actions of protesters or law enforcement,  but rather to underlying structural inequalities ingrained within society.  “A series of protests is often triggered by individual events. For example, the death of George Floyd in the United States as a pivotal moment, symbolized the experiences of a larger group. It reflects long standing grievances regarding the relationship between law enforcement and the black community.” He said. The police, as the frontline agent of the government, are forced to become the immediate focus of public scrutiny.

When protests escalate to violence, a country may experience political or economic destabilization.Ultimately, the riots may be a symbol of long-standing tensions and complex problems. And there is no easy solution to these problems. However, opening avenues for peaceful protests under police protection can significantly diminish violence. Similarly, fostering a civic environment enriched with robust civil society organizations rather than fragmented individuals is a promising approach. By implementing these strategies, states can not only reduce the likelihood of violent outbreaks, but also enhance the legitimacy of their regimes.

Lawrence HO argues that changing forms of protest are constantly challenging the ways in which governments and police deal with protesters. In general, the way in which politicians engage in dialogue and whether or not they use emergency legislation is decisive in making things better or worse. In the short term, the most effective way to win back trust is to conduct an independent investigation into the incident, examine its causes and consequences, and publicize the findings.