top of page

By:

Rajiv Shah

22 September 2025 at 8:32:23 pm

What Is Driving Europe’s Unrest?

Images of destruction can overshadow the grievances that brought people onto the streets. France has seen hundreds of thousands take to the streets. While most protests have been peaceful, some groups have engaged in arson, vandalism and looting. Belgium has seen its own confrontations, while grievances over housing, education, wages, energy prices and public services are surfacing across Europe. What links these protests is the convergence of different grievances. In France, student anger...

What Is Driving Europe’s Unrest?

Images of destruction can overshadow the grievances that brought people onto the streets. France has seen hundreds of thousands take to the streets. While most protests have been peaceful, some groups have engaged in arson, vandalism and looting. Belgium has seen its own confrontations, while grievances over housing, education, wages, energy prices and public services are surfacing across Europe. What links these protests is the convergence of different grievances. In France, student anger over teacher shortages, overcrowded classrooms and deteriorating facilities helped spark protests that drew in teachers, workers and trade unions. Concerns soon widened to inflation, housing, fuel prices, pensions, declining public services and distrust of government. In Belgium, education reforms, austerity and rising higher education costs have fuelled student anger, merging with wider discontent. Across Europe, accumulated grievances are finding a common outlet in street protests. The Roots of Anger For years, Europeans counted on affordable education, reliable public services and a better future for the next generation. That confidence is fading. Rising energy bills, housing and education costs, and job insecurity are straining households, while indebted governments struggle to fund healthcare, pensions, defence and welfare. Despite their wealth, many Europeans feel insecure as the opportunities and safety nets they once took for granted weaken. Immigration and Identity The unrest cannot simply be labelled an immigrant or religious uprising, nor can all protest violence be blamed on migrants. But immigration and integration remain part of the debate. Migration, asylum, national identity and religion have long divided European opinion. Questions about how many newcomer countries can integrate, the demands placed on migrants and the sustainability of welfare systems remain contentious. Economic pressures over jobs, housing and public services can deepen these tensions. Critics of European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen argue that permissive migration policies have weakened borders and strained public services. The Commission points to tighter screening, border procedures and returns under the EU’s new migration framework. The unrest could intensify calls for stricter migration policies across Europe. Who Leads the Protest? Social media can turn a local grievance into a mass protest within hours, without a political party or formal leadership. Peaceful demonstrations can be disrupted by extremists, agitators or opportunistic criminals, shifting attention from the original demands to violence and looting. Images of destruction can overshadow the grievances that brought people onto the streets. Governments then face a difficult question: who speaks for a leaderless crowd? Unlike trade unions or political movements, digitally mobilised groups may have no leaders who can negotiate or call off protests. With no clear chain of command, even a genuine attempt at dialogue may struggle to reach the people on the streets. When violence disrupts legitimate demonstrations, distinguishing democratic dissent from organised disorder becomes harder. The economic fallout can be widespread. Blocked roads disrupt transport, strikes affect supplies, and violence hurts businesses and tourism while raising policing costs. Social disruption can thus become a powerful tool of political pressure. What Happens Next? Europe faces a difficult balance. More riot police may restore order, but governments must also address the grievances behind the unrest. Legitimate grievances do not justify violence, just as public disorder should not be used to dismiss peaceful protest. That means tackling housing costs, declining public services, education and energy insecurity, while enforcing clear migration and integration policies. Governments must also address public concerns rather than dismiss them as extremism, leaving political extremes free to exploit them. Protests in France and Belgium may fade, but economic insecurity, political grievances, misinformation and online mobilisation will remain challenges. The question is not just how to stop the unrest, but why so much discontent has built up. Recent protests in Delhi, Mumbai and other Indian cities offer a limited comparison. Despite different grievances, social media has shown how quickly discontent can move from smartphones to the streets. Mobilisations around electoral roll revisions, including those backed by opposition parties, are part of democratic politics. India’s institutions have so far absorbed such episodes without major disruption. Claims of foreign interference, however, require evidence. The causes and scale of unrest differ between India and Europe, even if the methods of mobilisation share similarities. (The writer is an advocate, legal, geopolitical and public policy analyst. Views personal.)

Regime Change

Correspondent
2 hours ago
2 min read

Democracy gives citizens the right to protest, governments the obligation to answer legitimate grievances and institutions the duty to remain accountable. But none of these principles confers a licence to manufacture perpetual disaffection, delegitimise constitutional institutions or romanticise political disorder. India’s self-appointed liberal establishment, however, has too often behaved as though acknowledging it would compromise its ideological credentials.


In his annual Dussehra address, RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat sounded a timely warning against attempts to engineer regime change through agitation and public discontent. Citing upheavals in France, Bangladesh and Nepal, he argued that similar efforts were being attempted in India. His larger point was that protests must seek solutions rather than cultivate animosity, and movements cannot substitute for dialogue. Bhagwat further cautioned against political mobilisation as an instrument for electoral opportunism or the pursuit of cheap popularity.


These are not arguments against dissent but for distinguishing democratic opposition from a politics that treats instability as an end in itself.


India has witnessed vigorous protests, fierce electoral contests and bitter disagreements without abandoning constitutional government. Indeed, the peaceful transfer of power through elections remains the strongest answer to those who portray the country as incapable of democratic self-correction. While governments can and should be criticised and their policies challenged, what should not be normalised is the insinuation that a government’s electoral mandate is inherently illegitimate merely because its opponents dislike the result.


The controversy surrounding slogans demanding regime change during protests against the Election Commission makes this distinction particularly pertinent. While criticism of the poll body is legitimate, allegations cannot become self-validating verdicts.


The double standards become more glaring when one considers sections of the Left-liberal intelligentsia that routinely invoke constitutional morality while extending indulgence to figures such as Umar Khalid. Why is radical rhetoric so often contextualised, intellectualised or excused when it emanates from ideological favourites, while the nationalism of their political adversaries is treated with reflexive suspicion?


Bhagwat’s emphasis on dialogue, social cohesion and the dangers of manufactured victimhood also merits attention. India’s diversity is a civilisational strength, but diversity should not be weaponised into permanent antagonism. Differences of faith, language and political conviction need not become declarations of mutual estrangement. National unity cannot be sustained by silencing disagreement; neither can it survive the systematic cultivation of distrust.


The answer to destabilising politics is not censorship or the suppression of peaceful protest. It is a confident democracy that protects dissent, enforces the law impartially and refuses to confuse provocation with courage. Political leaders must answer grievances; protesters must respect constitutional boundaries; and intellectuals must apply the same standards to allies and adversaries.


India’s democratic resilience depends on precisely this balance. Dissent is a right, not a licence to undermine the republic. And defending constitutional freedoms requires more than invoking them selectively when they serve an ideological cause.

Comments

bottom of page