Why Would a Government Want Protests?

Crowds fill the streets. Protesters raise slogans against the government. Videos spread across social media, television channels debate the unrest, and thousands of people share messages about what is happening. Some observers see a genuine expression of public anger. Others suspect political manipulation, hidden funding, or an organized attempt to destabilize the country.

But what if the reality is more complicated than either explanation?

Protests are among the most powerful ways people express dissatisfaction, demand accountability, and challenge political authority. They can emerge from rising living costs, corruption, unemployment, discrimination, disputed elections, or a single incident that exposes deeper social problems. At the same time, political parties, powerful organizations, wealthy donors, and foreign governments may attempt to influence protest movements for their own purposes.

This creates an important question: Can a protest begin with genuine public anger and still be exploited by people who have different objectives?

Yes. These possibilities are not mutually exclusive. A movement can represent legitimate grievances while attracting political opportunists, competing interests, or outside influence. Conversely, the existence of political funding or organized leadership does not automatically mean that the protesters themselves are dishonest or that their demands lack public support.

Understanding protests therefore requires more than watching dramatic footage or accepting claims circulating online. It requires examining human psychology, collective behavior, financial incentives, historical evidence, and the relationship between governments and citizens.

This article explores why protests begin, how small gatherings can become mass movements, what research actually says about the famous 3.5% rule, how protest funding works, and why governments sometimes tolerate demonstrations directed against them. It also examines historical examples and practical methods for distinguishing documented evidence from speculation.

The Psychology of Protest: Why Do People Feel They Are Being Treated Unfairly?

To understand a protest, we must first understand the emotions that motivate people to challenge the conditions around them.

People do not evaluate their lives solely by measuring what they possess. They also compare their circumstances with those of other people. A person may have a job, a home, and enough food to survive but still feel deeply frustrated when they believe others receive unfair advantages or enjoy opportunities that remain unavailable to them.

This psychological process is connected to two important concepts: inequity aversion and relative deprivation.

The monkey experiment: Where does the feeling of unfairness begin?

In a well-known 2003 study published in Nature, researchers Sarah Brosnan and Frans de Waal investigated how brown capuchin monkeys responded to unequal rewards.

The monkeys were trained to exchange a token with a human experimenter in return for food. When both monkeys received cucumber, they generally cooperated. However, when one monkey received a more desirable grape while the other received cucumber for a comparable task, the less-favored monkey sometimes refused the cucumber or rejected the exchange. The reactions were particularly pronounced in some conditions where the other monkey received a better reward without making the same effort.

The experiment offered an intriguing insight: responses to unequal rewards may have evolutionary roots and are not necessarily unique to humans.

However, the interpretation requires care. Other researchers questioned whether the monkeys were responding specifically to unfairness or simply becoming frustrated because a more attractive reward was visible. Subsequent experiments have produced mixed results.

Therefore, the experiment does not prove that human political protests originate in the same mechanism. Instead, it provides a useful starting point for understanding why comparisons and perceived unfairness can influence behavior.

Imagine two workers performing similar jobs. One receives a substantial salary increase, while the other receives nothing. Even if the second worker’s salary remains unchanged, the comparison may create a stronger sense of injustice.

A similar dynamic can occur in society. Citizens may become angry when they believe political leaders enjoy privileges, public resources are distributed unfairly, or economic opportunities depend on personal connections rather than merit.

Relative deprivation: Why comparisons can create anger

Relative deprivation describes the feeling that one is disadvantaged compared with a person, group, or standard against which one makes comparisons.

The crucial point is that dissatisfaction does not depend exclusively on absolute poverty. It can also arise from the perceived gap between what people believe they deserve and what they believe they receive.

Consider three examples:

• A university graduate struggles to find employment while seeing politically connected individuals obtain desirable positions.
• A family faces rising food prices while believing that public officials are wasting taxpayer money.
• A community expects equal treatment under the law but believes another group receives preferential treatment.

In each case, the grievance involves a comparison between expectations and perceived reality.

These perceptions may reflect documented inequalities, incomplete information, rumors, or a mixture of all three. The feeling itself can be genuine even when some of the information producing it is inaccurate.

This distinction matters because political mobilization often depends on how people interpret their circumstances, not simply on the circumstances themselves.

When many people independently experience similar frustrations, a private feeling can become a shared grievance. Once individuals discover that others feel the same way, they may begin to see collective action as possible.

That is one route through which social dissatisfaction becomes a protest movement.

The Threshold Model: How Can 10 Protesters Become 10,000?

One of the most interesting questions about protests is why people who remain silent for months or years may suddenly decide to join a demonstration.

If thousands of people are dissatisfied with a government, why do they not all protest at the same time? And how can a small gathering grow into a mass movement within days?

Sociologist Mark Granovetter addressed a related question in his influential 1978 paper, Threshold Models of Collective Behavior. His model explains how an individual’s decision to participate in collective action can depend partly on how many other people have already participate.

What is a participation threshold?

A threshold is the point at which a person decides that participating in an activity is worth the perceived risks and costs.

Imagine a town where ten people are considering joining a protest.

• Person A is willing to demonstrate even if nobody else joins.
• Person B will participate if at least five people attend.
• Person C will participate if twenty people attend.
• Person D will join only when the demonstration appears large enough to have a realistic chance of producing change.

These people may share similar complaints but have different levels of willingness to act.

If the first few participants attract others, the crowd can grow. As the gathering becomes more visible, people who previously considered participation too risky may reconsider.

The process can create a chain reaction: participation encourages further participation.

Why social media can accelerate mobilization?

Modern communication can make this process faster by allowing people to observe, discuss, and share information about demonstrations.

A photograph of a small gathering might initially attract little attention. If it is followed by reports of arrests, a widely shared speech, or evidence of a grievance affecting many communities, the perceived importance of the protest may change.

People may also become more confident when they discover that friends, colleagues, or neighbors share their concerns.

However, online visibility is not the same as actual participation. A post can receive millions of views without producing a comparable number of demonstrators. Fake accounts, repeated sharing, misleading captions, and coordinated promotion can also distort the impression of public support.

The threshold model explains one possible mechanism behind rapid mobilization. It does not prove that a particular protest is spontaneous, manipulated, or secretly coordinated. Those conclusions require evidence about the specific movement.

The 3.5% Rule: Can a Small Minority Challenge a Government?

The so-called 3.5% rule is frequently discussed in articles and videos about political protests. It is associated with research by political scientist Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan on nonviolent resistance campaigns.

The basic idea is that sustained participation by a relatively small proportion of a country’s population can sometimes exert extraordinary pressure on political authorities.

The figure became prominent because historical data showed a strong association between large-scale participation in nonviolent resistance campaigns and their likelihood of success. But it is often misunderstood.

What does the rule actually claim?

The popular version suggests that no government can withstand a nonviolent movement involving 3.5% of the population at its peak.

That is too absolute.

Chenoweth has subsequently emphasized that the figure is a descriptive finding from historical cases, not a guaranteed formula for overthrowing a government. Research updates have also identified exceptions, including campaigns that failed despite exceeding the proposed participation threshold. Organization, strategic leadership, sustained mobilization, and broader public support all matter.

For example, a country with a population of 10 million would need 350,000 people to reach 3.5% of its population if that proportion were measured against the entire population.

But even this calculation does not tell us whether the movement will succeed.

A demonstration that attracts hundreds of thousands of people for one day may have a different political impact from a smaller movement that maintains participation for months, gains support from professional associations, and persuades influential institutions to change their position.

Why participation alone is not enough?

Governments do not respond only to crowd size. They also consider economic disruption, public opinion, legal obligations, elite divisions, the behavior of security forces, and the possibility of continued resistance.

Some movements win concessions without changing the government. Others achieve substantial participation but face repression or internal divisions.

The useful lesson is not that 3.5% is a magic number. It is that large, sustained, organized nonviolent participation can create serious political pressure, although the outcome depends on circumstances.

Where Does Protest Funding Come From?

One of the most politically sensitive questions about a protest is who pays for it.

Organizing a large demonstration can require transportation, printed materials, sound systems, legal assistance, food, safety equipment, office space, communication tools, and trained volunteers. Large campaigns may also need professional staff, researchers, media teams, and digital infrastructure.

Funding is not inherently suspicious. Many legitimate civil society organizations depend on donations and grants to carry out public-interest work.

The important questions are who provides the money, how it is used, whether the funding is disclosed, and whether financial support affects the movement’s decisions.

Seven possible sources of protest funding

The following categories describe common possibilities; they should not be interpreted as evidence that any particular protest has received money from these sources.

1. Individual donations: Ordinary citizens contribute money, food, transportation, or supplies to support a cause they believe in.

2. Membership contributions: Unions, community organizations, student associations, and advocacy groups may collect membership fees to finance activities.

3. Charitable foundations and grants: Foundations may fund research, civic education, human rights advocacy, environmental campaigns, or community organizing.

4. Trade unions and professional associations: Organizations representing workers or professional groups may support demonstrations connected to wages, working conditions, or public policy.

5. Political parties and allied organizations: Parties may provide organizational resources, staff, publicity, transport, or other assistance to demonstrations aligned with their objectives.

6. Businesses and wealthy donors: Companies or individuals may support campaigns because they agree with the cause or expect political, economic, or reputational benefits.

7. Foreign governments or international organizations: External actors may provide funding, training, technical assistance, or political support to organizations working on issues of international interest. Such relationships vary considerably in their transparency, purpose, and influence.

These sources can overlap. A protest movement might receive small donations from citizens while also benefiting from an established organization with paid staff and international grants.

The existence of financial support does not establish that a movement is controlled by its donors. To make that judgment, investigators would need evidence about the funding arrangements, communications, decision-making authority, and actual conduct of the participants.

Astroturfing: When manufactured support looks like a grassroots movement

Astroturfing is the practice of creating a misleading appearance of spontaneous public support for a cause when that support is being organized or financed by a concealed sponsor.

For example, an organization might fund a public relations campaign that presents its policy preferences as the demands of ordinary citizens. It might recruit apparently independent voices, distribute coordinated messages, or conceal its financial connections.

The technique is not limited to protests. It can also appear in advertising, online reviews, political campaigning, and lobbying.

The tobacco industry’s historical public relations activities provide a documented example of organizations seeking to influence public debate through ostensibly independent groups and third-party messaging. Research examining industry documents has traced efforts to cultivate apparent grassroots support and challenge research unfavorable to commercial interests.

However, a campaign receiving professional communications support is not automatically an astroturf operation. Genuine grassroots movements also use public relations professionals, websites, social media, and coordinated messaging.

The decisive issue is whether the campaign misrepresents who is behind it or the degree of independent public support it enjoys.

What about paid crowds and commercial protest services?

Commercial services can provide event staffing, audience recruitment, promotional assistance, or people for public appearances. The phrase “crowds on demand” has also been used in media discussions of paid participants and crowd services.

But the existence of such services does not demonstrate that a particular political demonstration was staged. That conclusion requires case-specific evidence, such as contracts, financial records, credible testimony, or reliable investigative reporting.

A photograph of a person receiving money is not enough on its own to establish who paid them, why they received it, or whether the broader movement is genuine.

A careful investigation separates three questions: whether money changed hands, what the payment was for, and whether the payment influenced the protest’s message or participation.

The 1953 Iran Coup: When Protest Mobilization Became Part of a Covert Operation

One of the clearest historical examples of foreign intelligence agencies influencing political upheaval is the 1953 overthrow of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq.

Mosaddeq had become a central figure in Iran’s struggle over national sovereignty and control of the country’s oil industry. His government’s nationalization of the oil industry intensified its conflict with Britain, while the United States and Britain became increasingly concerned about Iran’s political direction during the Cold War.

Declassified documents confirm that the CIA and British intelligence participated in a covert operation intended to remove Mosaddeq and install a government more favorable to Western interests. The operation became known as Operation TPAJAX, commonly called Operation Ajax.

How did the operation work?

The operation involved more than a single street demonstration. It included political maneuvering, propaganda, relationships with influential groups, efforts to secure support from the Shah, and coordination with Iranian political and military actors.

Historical records describe covert financial contributions and assistance to anti-Mosaddeq forces. Demonstrations and political activity became part of the wider campaign. On August 19, 1953, pro-Shah demonstrators and military forces played a decisive role in the overthrow of Mosaddeq’s government.

This is a documented case in which outside intelligence agencies helped shape political events inside another country.

What does the Iranian example teach us?

It demonstrates that public demonstrations can exist within a larger political operation and that covert sponsorship can influence the course of events.

However, three distinctions are essential.

First, not every person who participated in the demonstrations necessarily knew about foreign involvement.

Second, Iranian political divisions and domestic actors mattered. It would be inaccurate to reduce every participant to a foreign agent or to claim that all opposition to Mosaddeq was fabricated.

Third, evidence from 1953 cannot automatically establish that a modern protest is foreign-funded or secretly controlled. Each case requires its own documentary evidence.

The lesson is not that every protest is a coup in disguise. It is that covert political intervention has occurred historically and should be investigated when credible evidence warrants it.

Agent Provocateurs: Can Violence Be Deliberately Encouraged?

An agent provocateur is someone who seeks to provoke another person or group into taking actions that can then be used to discredit, expose, disrupt, or justify action against that group.

The concept is particularly controversial during protests because the appearance of violence can dramatically change how the public understands a demonstration.

A peaceful crowd demanding accountability may receive public sympathy. If violence erupts, coverage can shift toward property destruction, clashes with police, and threats to public safety.

That shift may benefit political actors who want to weaken a movement’s legitimacy. But violence can also emerge from genuine confrontations, anger, opportunistic criminal behavior, or decisions made by individual protesters without outside direction.

Documented infiltration versus unverified accusations

There are documented cases of undercover police officers participating in political groups.

For example, in 2022, the UK’s Criminal Cases Review Commission referred historical convictions of three anti-apartheid protesters for appeal after the undisclosed participation of an undercover police officer in their protest group came to light.

That case establishes that undercover participation in protest movements is not merely a theoretical possibility.

It does not, however, prove that the officer was responsible for provoking violence. Infiltration, surveillance, incitement, and deliberate sabotage are different allegations and require different evidence.

A further caution comes from an investigation into anti-shale-gas protests in New Brunswick, Canada. Protesters alleged that individuals who set police vehicles on fire were undercover provocateurs. The commission recorded these allegations and the circumstances witnesses described, but the existence of those allegations alone does not establish that police agents committed the arson.

This is why videos showing a masked person throwing an object or damaging property should be examined carefully. A reliable investigation needs more than an assumption about the person’s identity or motive.

Useful evidence may include verified footage from multiple angles, witness testimony, forensic findings, police records, and an independent investigation.

Why Would a Government Allow Protests Against Itself?

At first glance, allowing people to demonstrate against one’s own government may appear irrational. Why would political leaders permit an activity that could undermine their authority?

The answer is that governments do not always benefit from suppressing every protest.

Authorities may tolerate demonstrations because they want to preserve democratic legitimacy, avoid creating martyrs, gather information about public dissatisfaction, prevent escalation, or demonstrate that political opposition is permitted.

A protest may also be too small to threaten the government’s survival, or its demands may concern a policy that officials can change without risking their position.

Research on protest and repression shows that governments weigh political threats and the possible consequences of their responses. Repression can sometimes deter participation, but harsh treatment can also generate backlash and encourage further mobilization.

Six possible government responses

hese are analytical categories, not a universal sequence followed by every government.

1. Negotiation and concessions

Authorities may meet protest leaders, investigate complaints, withdraw a controversial policy, or promise reforms. Concessions can address legitimate grievances while also reducing political pressure.

2. Attrition and delay

Officials may allow a demonstration to continue while waiting for participation to decline. Fatigue, lost wages, transport costs, internal disagreements, and competing public events can reduce turnout over time.

3. Public messaging and counter-narratives

Governments may explain their decisions, challenge protesters’ claims, highlight disruption, or accuse political opponents of exploiting the situation. Such claims should be evaluated against evidence rather than accepted automatically.

4. Policing and legal restrictions

Authorities may impose crowd-control measures, arrest individuals suspected of specific offenses, restrict access to locations, or disperse demonstrations. The legality and proportionality of these measures depend on the circumstances and applicable human rights protections.

5. Political division and selective engagement

Officials may negotiate with some groups, emphasize disagreements among organizers, or try to separate peaceful participants from people committing violence. These actions can be legitimate or politically manipulative, depending on how they are carried out.

6. Communication restrictions

Authorities may block platforms, restrict communications, or shut down internet access during unrest. Governments sometimes justify these measures on security grounds, but broad restrictions can also hinder reporting, prevent people from accessing information, and limit peaceful assembly.

Internet restrictions are a particularly important example. UNESCO has warned against internet shutdowns during political crises, noting their effects on freedom of expression, access to information, and public participation.

Is a protest really under government control?

The idea that a riot lasts only as long as the government allows it is too simplistic.

Governments have considerable power through policing, courts, regulations, and control over certain public spaces. Their decisions can influence whether a protest continues or escalates.

But crowds are not perfectly controllable. Police tactics may provoke backlash, communications restrictions may spread uncertainty, and divisions within security institutions may limit the authorities’ options.

The outcome depends on the interaction between protesters, officials, institutions, and the wider public. Government decisions matter enormously, but they do not determine every development.

The Rally ‘Round the Flag Effect: Why Can Fear Increase Support for Leaders?

Political scientists use the term rally ’round the flag effect to describe a possible increase in public support for political leaders during major international crises or perceived external threats.

The concept is associated with political scientist John Mueller’s research on presidential approval and foreign-policy crises.

When people perceive a serious threat to their country, they may temporarily place greater importance on national unity and security. Political disagreements can become less prominent as citizens focus on protecting the nation.

The effect is not automatic. Research has found that the scale and duration of public support vary with circumstances, media coverage, and the nature of the crisis. Other studies have found that international disputes can reduce support for leaders rather than increase it

In the context of domestic unrest, political leaders may frame protests as a threat to national stability or public safety. That framing can persuade some people to prioritize order over the protesters’ demands.

Yet it is important to distinguish a genuine security threat from an attempt to portray peaceful dissent as disloyalty. Criticism of a government is not automatically an attack on the country.

Why Do Protests Sometimes Move Away From Their Original Demands?

A protest may begin with a clear, specific demand: lower prices, an investigation into corruption, a change in a law, or accountability for an incident.

As participation expands, however, different groups may bring different priorities. Some want a policy reversed; others demand the resignation of officials; still others may seek deeper constitutional or economic reforms.

Research on mass mobilization identifies demands, strategy, the social composition of the movement, and organizational strength as important factors affecting its direction and outcomes. Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO)

This development can happen without a conspiracy.

A broad coalition may unite around one immediate grievance while disagreeing about what should happen next. Political parties may try to shape the agenda, prominent organizers may gain influence, and new incidents may change what participants consider most urgent.

There are also cases in which political actors deliberately attempt to redirect a movement toward objectives that serve their interests.

To determine which explanation fits a particular protest, researchers should examine how demands changed, who advocated the changes, what evidence exists of coordination, and whether participants themselves supported the new objectives.

A changing protest agenda is a reason to investigate, not proof that the movement was secretly controlled.

How to Protect Yourself From Protest Misinformation: The RUKO Checklist

During political unrest, information can become a battleground. Old footage may be presented as current, unrelated events may be combined into one narrative, and unsupported allegations can spread faster than verified reporting.

A useful habit is to pause before sharing emotionally charged claims.

The following RUKO checklist is a practical framework developed here for evaluating information. It is not presented as a scientifically validated test.

R

R — Research the source

Who originally published the claim? Is it a named journalist, a credible news organization, an official record, an eyewitness, or an anonymous account? Check whether the source has a record of correcting errors.

U

U — Understand the context

Check the date, location, original caption, and circumstances. An authentic video can still mislead if it is old or unrelated to the event being discussed.

K

K — Keep checking other evidence

Look for independent reporting, official documents, full-length footage, and corroborating witnesses. Multiple accounts repeating the same unverified post do not necessarily constitute independent confirmation.

O

O — Observe before sharing

Ask whether the claim is supported by evidence, whether important context is missing, and whether the post is designed primarily to provoke fear or anger. If verification is not possible, do not present the claim as established fact.

Why does emotional manipulation work?

Fear, anger, and outrage can make information feel urgent. A message claiming that an enemy has attacked a community or that a protest has been secretly funded may encourage immediate sharing before verification.

Political actors of different kinds can exploit this tendency, but ordinary users can spread misinformation unintentionally as well.

The safest response is neither to believe every claim nor to dismiss every allegation. It is to ask what evidence would establish whether the claim is true.

For allegations of secret funding, that might mean financial records or corroborated testimony. For claims of police infiltration, it might mean independently verified identities, credible investigations, or court findings. For claims about crowd size, it might mean transparent estimates using verifiable imagery and a stated methodology.

Evidence should determine the conclusion, rather than the conclusion determining which evidence we accept.

Real Public Anger and Political Manipulation Can Coexist

Protests cannot be understood through a single explanation. Human psychology, perceived inequality, social networks, financial resources, political organization, and government decisions can all influence how a movement develops.

Research on relative deprivation helps explain why people compare their circumstances with those of others. Granovetter’s threshold model illustrates how collective action can grow as participation becomes more acceptable or less risky. Research associated with the 3.5% rule highlights the potential power of sustained nonviolent mobilization, while also showing why no numerical threshold guarantees political success.

History also demonstrates that covert political intervention is possible. The 1953 Iran coup provides a documented example of foreign intelligence involvement in a political overthrow. Yet historical evidence of manipulation in one case cannot substitute for evidence about another.

Similarly, protest funding does not automatically imply deception, undercover activity does not automatically establish provocation, and a changing protest agenda does not necessarily indicate a hidden controller.

Governments may tolerate protests, negotiate with demonstrators, wait for participation to decline, or impose restrictions. Their choices influence the outcome, but protesters, institutions, and broader social conditions also shape events.

Ultimately, two things can be true at once: people can have legitimate reasons to protest, and other actors can attempt to exploit their grievances for political gain.

Recognizing that possibility should make us more careful, not more cynical. It should encourage us to examine funding transparently, question unsupported accusations, distinguish peaceful dissent from violence, and evaluate evidence regardless of which political side it appears to favor.

The next time a protest dominates the news or your social media feed, ask three questions: What are people actually demanding? What reliable evidence explains how the movement developed? And who benefits from the version of events I am being encouraged to believe?

Those questions are a stronger defense against manipulation than automatically trusting a government, a protest leader, a political party, or a viral video.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)