When Protest Confronts Power: How Regimes Determine Accountability

Source: Alisdare Hickson, Mahsa Amini protests, 8 October 2022 - Parliament Square, London

Mass protests have erupted across vastly different political systems – from the streets of Iran to Brazil to the United States. While these movements shared a common demand for accountability, their outcomes were very different. The reason is not the willingness of citizens to protest, but how political systems respond.

In the past year, the world has witnessed significant political upheaval. Elections led to unexpected outcomes in Canada, Australia and Japan, long-standing India-Pakistan and Cambodia-Thailand rivalries have strained, and governments have faced mounting public protest. Amid these developments, one constant remains: ordinary citizens continue to take to the streets.

Within a span of weeks, large protests erupted in Iran, Brazil, and the United States. Each movement responded to a different political trigger: economic collapse and repression in Iran, attempts to weaken democratic accountability in Brazil, and controversial federal immigration enforcement in the United States. Despite differing motivations, the protests shared a common purpose – demanding representation from those in power.

The contrast between these three cases illuminates a critical point: mass protest remains a powerful expression of dissent everywhere, but its ability to produce meaningful change greatly depends on the strength of democratic institutions. As governments slide toward the authoritarian end of the spectrum, protests do not disappear, but they become far less effective and far more dangerous.

The Purpose of Protest 

Political protest has long served as a corrective mechanism when democracies stall. Demonstrations can harness governments’ attention to respond to public grievances, highlight abuses of power, and mobilise broad segments of society. Historically, protest movements have helped advance civil rights, challenge authoritarian rule, and defend democratic norms.

Scholars emphasise that protest also creates solidarity and visibility. When individuals witness others publicly opposing authority, the perceived cost of dissent may decline. Timur Kuran’s theory of preference falsification, for example, suggests that public expressions of dissent can bring hidden opposition to the surface and trigger broader mobilisation.

Research on protest under authoritarian regimes also shows that demonstrations can sometimes serve as a focal point and solve the collective action problem, which arises when individuals deem striving towards a common goal too costly and thus choose to free ride and enjoy the benefits while their peers take action towards the goal. Studies of electoral fraud protests demonstrate that blatant violations of democratic norms can reduce fragmented attention towards several issues by giving citizens a shared grievance to rally around. For instance, political scientist Joshua Tucker’s work on post-Soviet protest movements highlights how contested elections helped trigger mass demonstrations in Serbia, Georgia, and Ukraine.

Yet protest does not operate in a vacuum. Its effectiveness depends on the institutional context in which it occurs.

Iran: Protest as an Existential Threat to the Regime

Iran’s recent protests illustrate how authoritarian regimes respond when dissent threatens their survival. The demonstrations began on 28 December 2025, initially triggered by a sharp collapse in the national currency and worsening economic conditions that rapidly fuelled nationwide anger. The movement soon expanded into calls for the fall of the Islamic Republic itself. The government responded with sweeping repression. 

On 8 January 2026, Iranian authorities imposed a nationwide internet shutdown as protests intensified, effectively cutting citizens off from the outside world. Human rights organisations reported that security forces used firearms and other unlawful force against protesters, aiming at “heads and torsoes” and carrying out mass arrests. The internet blackout made it extremely difficult to verify the scale of violence or the number of casualties, although reports indicated that dozens – and possibly far more – had been killed in the early days of the crackdown. Such repression is not unusual in authoritarian systems.

Authoritarian governments often restrict information flows, shut down communication networks, and deploy security forces to suppress dissent when protests threaten regime stability. Under these conditions, protest is a dangerous path for challenging power and thus rarely lead to immediate policy change.

Brazil: Protest as Democratic Defence

Brazil’s protests tell a different story. Rather than challenging the legitimacy of the state itself, demonstrators mobilised for key electoral and legislatives issues believed to symbolise the health of their democracy. In late 2025, tens of thousands of Brazilians took to the streets across major cities to oppose proposals that would grant amnesty to former president Jair Bolsonaro and others implicated in attempts to overturn the results of the 2022 election. Protesters also criticised legislative efforts that would make it more difficult to prosecute lawmakers accused of crimes, which was dubbed by critics as the “Banditry Bill”.

Despite intense political polarisation, the demonstrations remained largely peaceful and openly pro-democracy. They were supported by trade unions, civil society organisations, and left-wing political parties, as well as by Brazil’s sitting president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. On the third anniversary of the Bolsonaro's supporters’ attack on government buildings, 8 January 2026, the president vetoed the amnesty bill. This served as a clear signal that the will of the people still held democratic sway over the government’s decision-making. 

This alignment between protesters and democratic institutions is crucial to producing meaningful change. Democracies possess multiple accountability mechanisms, including independent courts, free media, and competitive elections which can translate protest pressure into policy responses. Protest, in this context, reinforces institutions rather than replacing them. Political scientists often describe this as a corrective function of protest. Instead of threatening the regime as a whole, demonstrations highlight abuses and push institutions to act.

The United States: Protest in a Democracy Under Strain

The United States sits somewhere between these two cases. Protests erupted in Minnesota following an escalation of federal immigration enforcement operations known as Operation Metro Surge. The deployment of thousands of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents triggered widespread fear among immigrant communities. Tensions escalated dramatically after the killing of Renee Good on 7 January 2026, when video footage appeared to show federal agents shooting her as she attempted to flee.

Demonstrations intensified following her death, spreading across the state and prompting national attention. The killing of ICU nurse Alex Pretti on 24 January deepened outrage. The same week, a ruling by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals allowed immigration agents to arrest and pepper-spray peaceful protesters. Federal authorities also issued an internal memo permitting agents to enter homes without judicial warrants in certain circumstances. Meanwhile, local officials accused federal authorities of refusing to cooperate with investigations into the shootings.

Unlike Iran, the United States mostly retains functioning democratic institutions. Courts, state governments, and civil society organisations remain capable of challenging federal actions. Yet the episode also highlighted signs of democratic strain. These developments raise important questions about democratic backsliding. Political scientists often define democratic erosion through the weakening of three core pillars: separation of powers, protection of civil liberties, and the integrity of elections. When these pillars weaken, protest becomes a less reliable mechanism of accountability.

Regime Context Matters

The distinct outcomes across Iran, Brazil, and the United States thus reflect a broader theoretical pattern. Authoritarian regimes heavily rely on repression, propaganda, and co-optation to maintain power. Political scientist Johannes Gerschewski describes these as the three pillars of authoritarian stability. When protests threaten these regimes, repression often intensifies because concessions could signal weakness.

Democratic systems operate differently. Because leaders depend on competitive elections and institutional legitimacy, they often respond to protest by adjusting policies or allowing courts and legislatures to intervene. This distinction helps explain why protests in authoritarian systems often demand regime change, while those in democracies typically seek institutional correction.

Why Protest Still Matters

The protests in Iran, Brazil, and the United States collectively reveal a critical truth. Citizens across political systems remain willing to mobilise for accountability. The desire for democratic participation has not disappeared. What differs is the environment in which protests operate.

Where democratic institutions remain resilient, as in Brazil, protest can reinforce accountability and strengthen the political system. Where authoritarianism dominates, as in Iran, protest becomes an act of extraordinary risk with uncertain outcomes. And in countries that occupy a democratic grey area, as in the United States, the efficacy of protest increasingly depends on whether institutions still have the capacity and the willingness to accommodate demands for change.

Even when protests fail to produce immediate policy change, they still matter. Demonstrations signal public dissatisfaction, expose abuses, and shape political narratives. Research shows that visible dissent can influence elite behaviour, and encourage voter defection. But protest, alone, cannot safeguard democracy. Without independent courts, strong institutions, and an empowered civil society, the burden of accountability shifts disproportionately onto citizens themselves. 

That is an unsustainable position because, if this persists, there will be no one left willing to risk their personal safety for that of the nation’s.

Written by Sarina Sharma-Welsh

Edited by Abhilasha Achary