The BDN Opinion section operates independently and does not set news policies or contribute to reporting or editing articles elsewhere in the newspaper or on bangordailynews.com
Cora Caton is an assistant professor of political science and international affairs at the University of Maine. The views presented here do not express those of the University of Maine System or the University of Maine. This column is a guest feature in an ongoing series by the Maine chapter of the Scholars Strategy Network, which brings together scholars across the country to address public challenges and their policy implications.
In mid-October, millions of Americans filled the streets for “No Kings” rallies, proving protest is still alive and well in the age of online outrage. Attendees were largely objecting to President Donald Trump’s use (and what many see as abuse) of presidential power in his second term, and the event has been largely hailed as one of the largest in U.S. history.
But it isn’t alone. Global protest activity has surged in recent years. From climate marches in Europe to democracy movements in Africa and Asia, people are taking to the streets to demand accountability from political systems they no longer trust.
But does protest really do anything? It’s messy, sometimes controversial. And it works — just not always how we think. A singular protest (even two) might not turn into legislation right away. But it does mobilize people. It keeps people engaged in democracy, even in a time when formal politics feels unresponsive.
The U.S. “No Kings” rallies aren’t an isolated phenomenon. Rather, they reflect a broader civic release valve in an era of rising polarization, institutional distrust, and digital echo-chambers. According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), events of political protests rose around 11.5 percent annually between 2009-2019. The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has tracked hundreds of large-scale protests since 2017 with their Global Protest Tracker.
If some Americans feel less confidence in the validity of elections, why would they vote? If doomscrolling emotionally exhausts and leads to feelings of hopelessness, why should they organize for change? When people feel like the system doesn’t work, they may shift from formal participation like voting, to expressive acts of dissent like public protest.
Does protest “work”? The short answer is yes, though perhaps not in the way you’d expect. When people think of protest changing things, they may envision immediate policy shifts. But rarely does protest work through a single march or organized sit-in. Most movements succeed only after years of sustained organizing. In this sense, protests “work” not through a single outburst but through persistence. Each additional demonstration adds pressure, attention, and legitimacy.
Famously, sustained demonstrations during the U.S. Civil Rights Movement directly contributed to passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Act of 1965. More recently, mass protests in Poland over judicial independence and women’s rights pushed the government to withdraw parts of its controversial abortion restrictions and to delay implementation of several court reforms. In Saudi Arabia, activists and protest movements pushed the kingdom’s government to end the ban on women driving in June 2018. We tend to view episodes like these as evidence of direct cause-and-effect. But the reality is that these policy breakthroughs were years in the making.
Protesters may also have goals beyond legislative change. Boycotts, for example, can shift corporate decisionmaking almost overnight by leveraging market pressure. When Target rolled back their DEI initiatives in January, the company faced significant backlash and calls for boycott. Target’s first quarter earnings fell significantly short of Wall Street estimates, a blow that many attributed to the consumer boycotts over their DEI rollback.
Even if marches, sit-ins, and rallies don’t lead to immediate policy outcomes, they still serve important functions.
First, they keep people engaged in public life. Research suggests that youth involvement in protests correlates with higher rates of later civic activity like voter registration, voting, and volunteering.
Second, protests are visible outlets for dissent, and allow the public to notify elites and policymakers of their preferences outside the ballot box. This can place pressure on leadership, but whether this translates into visible policy change depends on how responsive those leaders are to the public. When protests are large and unified in the position they take, policymakers are more likely to listen. When movements are nonviolent, they have greater legitimacy and encourage more participation, which can translate into more pressure on policymakers.
A single protest might not cause policy change. But protesting plays a vital role in civic life. Showing up keeps people engaged. Taking action guards against political apathy. And it preserves the idea that collective action still matters. Protest, in this sense, acts as a sort of civic insurance: maintaining the democratic energy of engaged citizenship, even when formal politics seems stalled.
