English Version | Formal Complaint

Freedom of expression, choice, equality, the right to vote... we take for granted what once had to be claimed. In a kind of “I’d like to speak to your manager” on a universal scale, protesting is a right that is used as a fuse to conquer other rights. And sometimes we forget why it continues to be and will always be important to voice the manifesto.

“If we don't complain, nothing changes.” It's a kind of catchphrase that I always heard my father utter every time he checked a bill, sent a plate back, protested about (a bad) service, in short, defended his rights and pointed out the duties of those who interacted with him as a consumer. It’s natural that when we talk about protest, the imagination wanders to something massive capable of changing social futures - we think of demonstrations like the Arab Spring or Occupy Wall Street, we think of revolutions in the political system like April 25th, we think of monarchy falling and universal suffrage - but the mantra holds true, whether the scale is as tiny as an overcharged coffee or as global and magnanimous as Human Rights. If we don't complain, nothing changes.

It is a dim analogy, but one that can be escalated to other, more magnanimous forms of protest because the principle that is inherent to it can be extrapolated: that of complaining, standing up, claiming to change something that is not right, correct or something with which we disagree. History has witnessed its applicability on the field, even though the processes, logistics and dimensions of protest have evolved over time, hand in hand with economic, social and political changes and the gradual establishment of modern societies. Tiago Carvalho, sociologist, Integrated Researcher at CIES-Iscte - Center for Research and Studies in Sociology (ESPP), and author of the book "Contesting Austerity - Social Movements and the Left in Portugal and Spain", shares his professional framework with Vogue, which is filled with studies on the subject: “Protesting was consolidated in the Western world from the 19th century onwards (albeit not exclusively) as a form of claims by states and governments for rights of a different nature. Until then, more than organized groups, what you had were rebellions that dealt directly with local rather than national issues. Currently, protesting is a typical and accepted form of making demands in democracy, that is, it is part of the democratic game itself that allows expression and opposition to societal and political alternatives from different actors. It is one of several forms of conflict in democratic regimes, which tends to degenerate into violence.”, he succinctly contextualizes. “In addition, protest, in its different forms, is also a way of giving voice and visibility to groups that have more difficulty accessing centers of power. Furthermore, protesting, for those who organize and participate, clearly has group effects such as the creation or reinforcement of new identities. It helps to organize groups and collectives that have the same objectives. It is also important because it gives visibility to these groups in the media, something that would be difficult otherwise.” Tiago Carvalho already lists some reasons why we can, should and have the right to protest, and arguments why it remains important to vocalize frustrations, injustices, precariousness, inequalities, censorship, even in societies considered free. One of them is this realization that we are not alone in our claims: one of the ways for an established regime or power to maintain its authority is to create a dominant discourse from which dissident points of view are excluded, which instills in those who think differently a sense of isolation, marginalization and weakness. Demonstrating publicly, for example, empowers the counter-current because it creates the group effect mentioned by Carvalho, by making this opposition to what is established feel that it is not alone, at the same time that it vocalizes the protest in a more audible way, creating visibility on these minorities and showing that after all they are not so small - many voices together are more difficult to counter-argue than just one -, a visibility that facilitates, thus, quoting Tiago, “access to the centers of power”. Protest provides an essential voice for minority groups – “nothing reinforces authority like silence”, said Leonardo da Vinci. No wonder classical theorists recognized that universal suffrage threatened to impose the “tyranny of the majority”, overriding minority rights: protest can be a vital corrector of majority rule. Of course, the verb to protest, which we use more routinely in everyday speech to assert day-to-day complaints, is much broader in its applicability than what is understood, in social terms, by protest, a noun which usually refers to large protest demonstrations, among other forms of protest. The sociologist explains it better: “A protest can be defined as a non-routine, non-institutionalized and non-conventional way used by collective actors to achieve or prevent changes in institutional power relations and assert their interests. As a form of claim, it can take various forms and be more or less disruptive or violent, depending on the intensity of the underlying conflict, such as demonstrations in public spaces, workers' strikes, but also boycott campaigns, occupations of buildings or roadblocks. It triggers, therefore, indirect ways of influencing political decision-makers, companies or other types of authorities. Thus, in summary, a protest can be understood as a collective and public act that can involve various claims and the desire to change society, with different degrees of disruption and conflict. The way of protesting has rules in the sense that they are framed by different institutions and political cultures. Therefore, one can see different types of protests in different countries. That is, protesting tends to be a more or less standardized activity.” Is that what distinguishes it from an anarchic gathering?, we ask. “One tends to have the idea that protest can be anarchic, or spontaneous, but in reality, when you investigate in depth, you realize that there are always organizational logics and leadership underlying them”, explains Tiago Carvalho.

These logics and leaderships can serve as a common denominator, but their contexts, effects/consequences, forms are not linear, in fact, they are as variable as the protest itself: “The consequences of a protest will always depend on the magnitude of the protest, the continuity of campaigns over time, the mobilization and organization capacity, the widespread acceptance of claims as valid, and even the visibility that is achieved”, explains the researcher. “Thus, the protest or strike of a union or workers in a factory or workplace (more localized and circumscribed) is very different from broader protests that try to set the political agenda (eg, Que se Lixe a Troika entre 2012-13).” Carvalho also deepens that “there are different degrees of change and conflict. There are conflicts that lead to profound changes in power structures, while others are more defensive and integrated within existing institutional rules. Not all protests aim at a revolution or disruption of the prevailing social order, on the contrary, sometimes it is about protecting and defending previously acquired rights. In Portugal, the entire period of April 25th, the wave of student mobilization against school fees in the 1990s, the campaign for Timor, the teachers' protest in 2007/8, the entire campaign of anti-austerity protests [as referenced in the book Contesting Austerity] are good examples of different degrees of change and conflict.” The range of cases, contexts and formats means that classifying their consequences as success or failure will be too narrow. Perhaps more measurable is its impact, but always with due reticence in its quantification, as advised by the sociologist: “From a strictly academic point of view, it is difficult to define success or failure of a protest. These are always, or almost always, subjective assessments by the actors themselves. Still, it is important to realize that small protests can often lead to widespread waves of protest and have unexpected consequences. A protest will have greater or lesser impact depending on the resonance it manages to have in society in general and the organizational capacity behind it”. Tiago Carvalho also opens the door to the idea of unexpected result - the expectation of consequences can be fulfilled, but they can even be supplanted or manifest itself in a different way than would be foreseen or planned. For example, protests against Greenham Common Base in the UK in the 1980s seemed to have no effect when missiles were deployed there, but the demonstrations forced both the US and UK governments to admit that they only did so because the Soviet Union was doing the same - which resulted in their withdrawal when Mikhail Gorbachev rose to power and ordered the withdrawal of missiles from the Soviet Union. Public opinion forced the Western governments to comply - who could not go back on their word when it came time to imitate Gorbachev - and the space that once served as a military base is now public land. The results of a protest are not only varied - they can also be lengthy; it may take generations to manifest itself, generations that, fresh and with different pre-conditions from their predecessors, can change the political paradigm simply because the protesters' speech makes more sense to them than that of the established power - issues such as gender inequality and racial prejudice, even though they are still visible in society to a greater or lesser extent, were much more established and dogmatic in previous eras. 

What can be read between the lines? That the importance of protest, more or less revolutionary, more or less impactful, more or less global, is underlined by the consequences in terms of changing paradigms, even if this change may be tenuous or on a large scale, immediate or slow, and even if it only happens at the level of awareness. And its impact, however residual it may be, is closely linked to the (r)evolution of society and mentalities, since the protest intends to challenge the status quo, in order to boost the revolution and consequent evolution, in favor of communities more egalitarian, just and free. American writer James Baldwin (1924-1987) did not shy away from saying that he loved America more than any other country in the world, “and precisely for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize it perpetually”, and his fellow countryman Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862), poet and philosopher, argued that “Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient can only be slaves”. But in order to be disobedient with effects at the level of power and get the message across to those who need to hear it, protest, even peaceful, involves a certain amount of disruption, not only because it places the target of criticism in a discomfort zone, but also because of all the collateral damage that can be felt: a public transport strike makes commuting to work more time-consuming; a teachers' strike implies thinking about the daily alternatives for a child who is left without school. But the disruptive side of the protest is not just a collateral damage, it is necessary to draw attention. “There is always a conflict of interests and positions – for example, factory workers can stop production to show that without them the bosses cannot continue their activity; there will always be consequences for someone and this is part of the negotiation process. The same with regard to schools and the demonstrations of teachers. There may also be protests that imply a lower level of disruption, such as weekend marches – now the question is how this can lead the target to change its position – it depends on the nature of the conflict”, corroborates Tiago Carvalho, adding, regarding the animosity that may result from this from those who feel its side effects that “protest is a form of expression of conflict in democratic societies in which one tries to clearly mark a position. Thus, it is normal for animosity to exist between the various parties. However, there are societies that are more open to protest, this implies opening up the means of communication, dialogue between the parties, education in schools, parties and political institutions open to citizens. In addition, it is also important to have organizations and groups that can create this awareness”, underlines the sociologist. Starting with the perception that this disruptive process is necessary to make the complainant's message and demands felt. In a society that tends to distance itself from issues that it does not identify with or that it does not know, feeling the consequences closer to home and/or making an effort to understand motivations, is also a factor for awareness and, consequently, subsequent action. "Power does not make concessions without demands." The phrase of the abolitionist Frederick Douglas (1818-1895) resonates with everything that has already been mentioned and particularly echoes in the aftermath of the protests that exploded all over the United States of America and even the world after the death of George Floyd and the consolidation of the Black Lives Matter movement. Pressure from protesters in mostly peaceful marches precipitated the faster arrest of agent Derek Chauvin, responsible for Floyd's death, and promoted a series of other decisions related to brutality and the police force (particularly in Minneapolis, which culminated in the abolition of entire departments), as well as the emergence of new guidelines and investments of billions of dollars, by international companies such as Apple, Nike or Comcast, in ways to fight against racism and inequality. Perceiving the strength of the protest (voicing displeasure en masse, even in a non-violent way, has resonance - just think of our own Carnation Revolution, on April 25th, 1974, which overthrew the dictatorial Estado Novo regime, in force since '33, whose reaction from the regime was practically non-existent) is to perceive the long-term strength of the same and the resulting social movements. They are powerful because they change mindsets, including those who may not even participate in them, and they change the lives of their stakeholders. They are important because in the short, medium or long term, they can call into question one of the most significant pillars of power: legitimacy. If the loss of legitimacy is deep and far-reaching enough, pawns capable of sustaining the regime, whether through authority or violence, can and do rebel against established power, joining, for example, mass protests.

Protests, namely those that triggered historical revolutions, tend to be associated with changes in authoritarian contexts, but continue to be and are just as valid - in fact, as the sociologist has mentioned in his speech - in egalitarian societies. It's also a tool without an expiration date: maybe we tend to think of the world as “evolved enough”, especially if we grew up in a western context, with little (less?) need for protests as in times when women didn't have the right to vote or times in which racial discrimination was commonly accepted, but the last decade, and especially the last few years, has been surrounded by a wave of demonstrations: the study entitled World Protests: A Study of Key Protest Issues in the 21st Century, by a team of researchers of the Initiative for Policy Dialogue (a non-profit organization based at Columbia University), from November 2021, analyzed protests from 2006 to 2020 and points to the current era as comparable to seething historical periods such as 1848, 1917 and 1968. The authors point out the failure democracy as a fuse, underlining that 54% of the more than 900 protest movements analyzed would have been triggered by the opinion that the political system or representation had failed them. Another 28% called for “real democracy” and other themes included inequality, corruption and lack of action on climate change. “Too many leaders in government and business are not listening. The vast majority of demonstrations around the globe advance reasonable demands already agreed upon by most governments. People claim jobs, a sustainable planet for generations to come, and a voice in decisions that affect their quality of life,” explained Sara Burke, author of the study and expert on global economic policy, to the Washington Post. Portugal, in recent times, does not seem to escape this trend: demonstrations for education, housing, equality, the fight against precariousness have multiplied in recent years, namely for a country that may seem, to the naked eye, more resilient than demanding . Tiago Carvalho opines: “Social and political conflict has certainly increased in the last year given the worsening of economic conditions, namely with the increase in the cost of living and the generalized housing crisis, after the pandemic interregnum in which the protest subsided. Protest in Portugal tends to be union-led and focused on demands of an economic nature, social rights (eg education and health) and demands for redistribution. Although Portugal seems to show lower levels of protest when compared to other countries, in fact, in the last decade it is possible to observe changes with the appearance of new organizations and a generalized increase in participation in protests, in particular by those with higher levels of education” , corrects. Perhaps the multiplication of protests is also linked to the fact that social networks have facilitated the mobilization of large groups. But are they contribution or noise to the cause? While facilitating communication, they also created couch activists, shares, experts in comment boxes. “I believe that social networks, although important, do not solve fundamental problems with regard to the continuity of the protest and alternatives over time. They can be an excellent way of disseminating information, but without organization and groups that can take it forward, they have no effect. (…) In addition, even the protests that seem spontaneous when analyzed more deeply it is possible to understand background and groups behind their organization. This is not to say that there are not groups whose purpose is to create noise and support through social networks as a way to guarantee support for their causes.” The ease with which gatherings can be created in an age of social media can also undermine their credibility by being too easy: the Women’s March in 2017 took only weeks to organize; the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, on the economic and political rights of the African-American population, took 10 years to go from idea to reality. The difficulty of yesteryear showed commitment and, therefore, more credibility a priori. Today, it is time and long-term commitment that will demonstrate this most vehemently.

And, sometimes, the short, medium or long term also sees the fall of the protest, it is true: not all expectations of the demonstrations come to fruition - they are often broken by repression, which, unfortunately, works. During the Arab Spring, about a third of Bahrain's population marched for months only to face a government response that involved indiscriminate arrests, torture and executions (including of teenagers), ultimately silencing the population. In 1989, the Chinese government killed hundreds (probably thousands) of demonstrators peacefully defending the pro-democracy movement in Tiananmen Square. In Egypt, after a military coup d'état in 2013, tens of thousands of protesters, including women and children, camped in Cairo's Rab'a Square in opposition to the coup. The police opened fire on the camp, fatally shooting about 1,000 people (the Muslim Brotherhood reports twice as many deaths) in a single day - the protests ended up being silenced and the country has since lived under dictatorship. On a less bloody note, this year, in France, the Government (until this article was submitted) has not yet been deterred by the march of thousands, in March, protesting against the increase in the retirement age. Does this mean protests don't work? No, it just means that the results did not meet expectations. But even on a micro dimension, protesting creates awareness and voice and can serve as a fuse, as mentioned, for changes that come not immediately, but later or in the long term. 

This is why protesting is and will continue to be so important. And as much as the importance of the protest itself is the importance of maintaining it as a right. Precisely because of the way it can be a force capable of overthrowing powers, there are those who want to silence it - it's not random that Amnesty International has a campaign entitled “Protect the protest”. Protesting is closely linked to freedom of expression and is an important manifestation of it, as much as the right to vote. Incidentally, protesting is a complement to voting, when this conventional way (and others) of exerting or pressing for change does not work. “If we don't complain, nothing changes.” The speech doesn't change either. My father continues to say this every time he checks a bill, even though he now asks me to check it, because he can't see well without glasses anymore. I'm on my way there too, and one day it will be my seven- and four-year-old nephews who will be checking the bills. And they will realize that if they don't complain, nothing changes. Above all, they will realize that the quote is not about an overcharged coffee or bad service. It's about ratifying what's not okay, what's abuse; that it's not about criticizing, it's about claiming, about having rights; it's about empowering change and, at its primary stage, it's about having a voice. “One should never be afraid to raise one's voice for honesty and truth and compassion against injustice and lies and greed. If people all over the world did it, it would change the Earth”, the American writer William Faulkner (1897-1962) puts the succinct period to this article.

Originally translated from The Revolution Issue, published April 2023.Full stories and credits on the print issue.