Protest, polarisation and political violence: where do we draw the line?
Ursula Daxecker studies how political violence can still occur within democracies
10 October 2025
Political violence is about more than physically harming someone. ‘It also includes vandalism, threats of violence, and aggressive language,’ explains Ursula Daxecker. ‘Violence can be directed at politicians, but it can also be encouraged by them. The mere threat of violence often has a strong effect: people may feel intimidated and withdraw from political debate.’
Ursula Daxecker is Professor of Democracy and Conflict. She researches political violence within democracies. The fact that violence can occur in a system built on peace and cooperation makes the topic particularly fascinating to her.
Together with Neeraj Prasad (University of Amsterdam) and Andrea Ruggeri (University of Milan), she recently contributed to a special issue of the Journal of Peace Research on political violence in democracies.
Familiar examples, but data hard to measure
There are plenty of examples. The storming of the Capitol in the United States in 2021 is widely known. Closer to home, there were the Maccabi riots in Amsterdam, and during the Gaza protests at the University of Amsterdam, property was damaged through acts of vandalism. In some countries, such as the United States and Germany, incidents of violence have increased in recent years. Yet, according to Daxecker, it is difficult to say whether the overall amount of political violence has risen or fallen.
Smaller incidents are particularly hard to measure, partly because the groups involved often have an interest in telling different versions of what happened.
‘Smaller incidents are particularly hard to measure, partly because the groups involved often have an interest in presenting different accounts of what happened. Without reliable data, it is difficult to identify trends. Fortunately, research into smaller incidents of violence is increasing, so we are gradually gaining a clearer picture,’ Daxecker explains.
A thermometer for democracy
According to Daxecker, the presence of violence says something about the health of a democracy. ‘When polarisation becomes so deep that it leads to violence, something is going wrong. At the same time, democracy can never exist without conflict. Differences of opinion are part of it.’
Political violence also makes people feel less safe. The more dangerous political life becomes, the fewer people will take part. Women and minority groups are particularly likely to face threats and violence. This reduces diversity in politics and makes it less representative.
Such harsh measures raise the question of where to draw the line between tackling violence and restricting democratic freedoms
Where to draw the line between protest and violence?
A democracy cannot function without protest. Freedom of expression and the right to assemble are core values. According to Daxecker, the right to protest should go ‘quite far’, but in practice that is not always the case. ‘In the United Kingdom, a pro-Palestinian organisation was banned this summer after a protest that involved vandalism. Later, the police arrested hundreds of people who publicly expressed support for the group. In my view, that goes much too far. Such harsh measures raise the question of where to draw the line between preventing violence and restricting democratic freedoms.’
‘Vandalism is always a difficult issue. It is not part of legitimate protest, but demonstrations often consist of different groups, some more radical than others. It is therefore unfair to hold an entire movement responsible for the vandalism of a small minority.’
A Pride event got out of hand due to a violent far-right counter-demonstration, as there were far too few police officers present.
The role of social media
Social media also play an important role in protest and political violence. Anyone can instantly share their views with a large audience. This allows for more voices to be heard, but also spreads misinformation. Especially since users do not need to fact-check what they post, unlike journalists in traditional media.
How can escalation be prevented?
There is no simple recipe for stopping political violence or keeping protests peaceful. But lessons can be learned from the past. Daxecker gives an example from eastern Germany: ‘A Pride event in Bautzen turned violent due to an aggressive far-right counter-demonstration. It went wrong because there were far too few police officers present. The following year, many participants came from across Germany, but there was also a much larger police presence, and and the event passed without incident.’
The police need to be well prepared and, at times, choose not to intervene.
Yet more police are not necessarily the solution. ‘The police must be well prepared and sometimes choose not to intervene. Listening to what motivates people is just as important. By taking their concerns seriously, escalation can sometimes be avoided. That clearly went wrong at the University of Amsterdam last year,’ Daxecker notes.
Personal responsibility
But everyone has a personal responsibility too, Daxecker believes. ‘You must decide for yourself whether to join a protest. If you see violent slogans or calls for aggression spreading, I would stay away.’
Democracy is not a system without tension
Political violence shows that democracies are fragile. Yet disagreement, protest and even conflict are also signs that people are engaged and want to be heard. The challenge lies in finding the right balance. After all, democracy is not meant to eliminate tension, but to manage it without resorting to violence.