Must Resistance Always Be Peaceful?

This article is an opinion piece whose contents represent the standpoint of its author and not UPF Lund or The Perspective’s editorial board.

We often celebrate resistance in retrospect. When a movement succeeds, its protesters are remembered as people who stood up against injustice. Yet, while the struggle is taking place, those same people may be criticised for disrupting public order or breaking the law. This raises an important question: should resistance be judged by the injustice it seeks to overcome, or by the methods used to challenge it?

The British suffragettes, for example, are widely celebrated today for their fight for women’s voting rights. Even though some smashed shop windows, damaged public property, and even set fire to buildings, they are still held in high regard today.

It often seems like there is an expectation that protesters must be perfect victims to deserve public sympathy. They are expected to remain peaceful and respectful, even when their demonstrations are ignored. But if peaceful protest repeatedly fails to bring about change, should people just be expected to continue using the same methods? At the same time, does a legitimate cause justify everything done in its name?

Peaceful protest remains an important way of challenging injustice. Demonstrations, strikes, and boycotts can unite people around shared demands and put pressure on institutions. The movements led by Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. show just how powerful nonviolent resistance can be. However, their successes do not mean that peaceful methods are always enough. A modern counterexample is the Gazan march of return in 2018, a largely peaceful protest that was suppressed by the Israeli military and resulted in multiple deaths and no stop to the Israeli blockade nor achieved free right to return. Another instance was the Tiananmen Square massacre, where Chinese students demonstrated for democratic reforms and anti-corruption. Even Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress eventually turned to armed resistance against South Africa’s apartheid government in 1961, when they founded the armed wing uMkhonto weSizwe after decades of nonviolent protest failed to halt state repression.

One problem with how we judge protest is that attention often shifts from the injustice itself to the behaviour of the protesters. Discussions end up focusing on how people protest, and the disruption they cause, rather than why they are protesting in the first place. But disruption and violence are not the same thing. Blocking a road, for instance, may inconvenience people without physically harming anyone. It can also put pressure on institutions that might otherwise have little reason to listen. After all, an orderly society is not necessarily a just one.

That does not mean all forms of disruption are justified. There is a clear difference between civil disobedience, property destruction, and violence against individuals. A legitimate cause does not automatically justify every method used to achieve it. 

It is also important to distinguish between a movement’s objectives and the actions of individual protesters. Although demonstrations involve people with different perspectives and approaches, the significance of a movement should not be judged solely by the behaviour of individual participants. Likewise, the actions of a few participants should not automatically discredit an entire movement. Doing so risks shifting attention away from the movement’s legitimate demands, by only focusing on the most violent or disruptive incidents associated with the demonstration 

This distinction becomes important when considering accusations that violence is deliberately encouraged or amplified to undermine a protest. In Serbia, for example, a former police officer accused pro-government media of only focusing on provocateurs that were not part of the movement, as to portray the peaceful demonstration in a negative light, and undermine its legitimacy. Similarly, French police have been accused of using undercover officers or agent provocateurs to infiltrate demonstrations and provoke confrontations. While these allegations should be approached with some caution, since they are notoriously hard to prove and there are incitements from both sides, they do illustrate how powerful organizations can try to dismantle movements rather than addressing them.

Another question is whether protest actually leads to meaningful change. A demonstration can attract thousands of people and generate widespread attention without leading to significant political transformations; just remember the Tiananmen Square protest that had more than 1,000,000 protesters, but still did not manage to bring about change. However, movements should not be judged solely by their immediate results either. Some struggles take decades to achieve their goals, while others help bring neglected issues into public debate and gradually change public attitudes. It is therefore important to distinguish whether a protest is morally justified, whether it is politically effective, and whether it contributes to lasting change.

While protesters can be held accountable when their actions cause unnecessary harm, governments and the institutions they represent must also be held accountable for creating the conditions that give rise to protest. When peaceful demonstrations are suppressed, or legitimate grievances are repeatedly ignored, authorities contribute to the frustration and disillusionment that drive resistance towards more confrontational methods. This does not excuse violence, but protesters’ behaviour should also be judged in the context of the failures of the institutions they are challenging, rather than expecting them to act perfectly. 

Ultimately, resistance should not be judged solely by whether it maintains public order. A society that demands peaceful obedience while refusing to address injustice risks turning order into a means of preserving oppression. At the same time, having a legitimate cause does not make every action acceptable. The question is not whether resistance must always be peaceful, but whether the methods used are proportionate to the injustice being challenged.

By: Tore Hansen

November 12, 2026