1. The democratic promise of free expression

 .  .  .  .   The right to peaceful assembly is one of the essential pillars of a democratic society, ensuring that citizens are free to express their opinions and contribute to political changes [1]. International human rights instruments such as the UDHR and the ICCPR all recognize the right to assembly as a fundamental human right.

However, reality shows that the voices of protest in democracies are being suppressed by stringent repression and legal obstacles from governments, targeted at even peaceful assemblies. In 2025, protests on climate change or the Palestinian conflict have documented police arrests, prosecutions, and the use of force against thousands of protesters, journalists, and even passersby; as well as outright bans on assembly to further silence voices [2]. Furthermore, many governments - particularly in Europe, North America, and Australia - have enacted anti-protest legislation, notably the UK's Crime and Policing Bill 2025 [3]. This has created legal barriers to assembly, reduced the likelihood of obtaining protest permits, and further expanded police authority.

​

 .  .  .  .   As these actions led to accusations of human rights violations, governments often cite national security and public order, even framing assembly as a form of "terrorism" to justify repression [4]. We have to ask: Does this truly bring security and progress to democratic societies, or will it further fuel resistance in the people?

 

2. The test for democracy 

 .  .  .  .   That said, silence or oppression by the authorities cannot simply extinguish the flame, and there are repercussions for democracies in the long run. Once protests are primarily responded to through limitations, the relationship between citizens and democracies begins to change over time, compromising the principles democracies seek to uphold. The most noticeable repercussion would be the erosion of trust in democracy's values. Over thousands of years of history, a myriad of definitions, understandings, or perspectives of liberal democracies have been devised; however, it is widely believed that democracy is consistently built on the foundation of public trust, with the ultimate aim of promoting the public's benefits [5]. From that foundation, public assemblies and associations serve as an “experiment” in reflecting democracy in responding to challenges within society. Therefore, the authorities are inadvertently delivering a message that they are solely protecting their legitimacy by oppressing public dissent. A democracy, hence, is paradoxically rejecting its foundational principle. Additionally, restrictions on public assembly are the root cause of the ramifications of violent dissent. Once official channels of communication are impeded, the “relief valve” that ensures public order no longer exists, resulting in a circular phenomenon in which the oppression sparks anger, and it is that anger that sparks more violent dissent. [6]  

 

3. Is regulation as bad as imagined?

           But as the renowned 18th-century philosopher Montesquieu once quoted, “Liberty is the right to do what the law permits”, there must be an extent needed for the right to protest. Freedom is not only a demand of protesters, but also boils down to the will of the common society. When protesters implement “lock-on” (to lock oneself tightly to an object so as not to be easily moved), “sit-in” (non-violent protest), or deliberately block transportation under the banner of “legitimate” rights of expression, it is no longer freedom, but an infringement on the rights of other citizens not involved in their assemblies [7]. 

Protest-related regulations are not about the arbitrary means that law enforcement agencies use to silence expression, but rather necessary measures to accommodate the rights of both protesters and non-protesters in the public [8]. Under international human rights law (particularly ICCPR), often a global blueprint for human rights protection, certain restrictions are also explicitly permissible to rebalance the public order and individual safety during periods of political or social ụpheaval [9]. 

 

4. From expression to engagement 

 .  .  .  Therefore, the freedom of expression has long been recognized as a cornerstone of a democratic society. However, this right only carries true weight when the voices of citizens are genuinely heard and respected. Consequently, what we need lies not only in ensuring the right to speak, but also in building an environment and mechanisms that integrate listening into the very process of social development in which we live [10]. No individual should ever feel hesitant to speak up because they fear not being heard or scared of any form of violent reactions. A healthy environment of dialogue is one where voices are neither ignored nor dismissed, but are given a platform, in which they can make a real impact.

In the end, what is the value of free speech if every voice is met only with silence?

​

(Posted in March 2026)​

​

 

AUTHORS

Duong, Doan Thuy - Faculty of International Law, 51st Cohort, Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam;

Hieu, Le Minh - Faculty of International Law, 52nd Cohort, Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam;

Kim Ngan, Nguyen Thi - Faculty of International Politics and Diplomacy, 52nd Cohort, Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam;

Bao Anh, Le Nguyen - Faculty of International Politics and Diplomacy, 51st Cohort, Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam.

​

GRAPHIC DESIGNER

Nguyễn Vân Anh, Graphic Design, 20th Cohort, FT University. 

​

REFERENCES

1. United Nations. (2023). OHCHR | Freedom of assembly and of association. OHCHR. https://www.ohchr.org/en/topic/freedom-assembly-and-association

2. Civicus Monitor. (2025a). Tactics of Repression - Global Findings 2025. Civicus Monitor. https://monitor.civicus.org/globalfindings_2025/tacticsofrepression/

3. Gall, L. (2026, January 7). Silencing the Streets. Human Rights Watch. https://www.hrw.org/report/2026/01/08/silencing-the-streets/the-right-to-protest-under-attack-in-the-united-kingdom

4. Civicus Monitor. (2025a). Tactics of Repression - Global Findings 2025. Civicus Monitor. https://monitor.civicus.org/globalfindings_2025/tacticsofrepression/

5. Christiano, T., & Bajaj, S. (2006, July 27). Democracy. Stanford.edu. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2025/entries/democracy/

6. Rød, E. G., & Weidmann, N. B. (2023). From bad to worse? How protest can foster armed conflict in autocracies. Political Geography, 103, 102891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2023.102891

7. Brown, J. (2020). Police powers: policing protests. Commonslibrary.parliament.uk, 05013. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn05013/

8. Downs, W. (2024, July 16). Policing and protests. House of Commons Library. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/policing-and-protests/

9. Sapienza, E., Manzotti, G., & Patel, L. (2024). Protests, human rights and conflict prevention. Proposals to rethink the models of state response to social mobilization. In Policy Documents Series No. 49. United Nations Development Programme. https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/2024-06/pds-number49_protestas_en.pdf

10. Civicus Monitor. (2025b). Recommendations - Civicus Monitor. Civicus Monitor. https://monitor.civicus.org/globalfindings_2025/recommendations/