Category: Protest

This beauty of democracy is that everyone has the right to speak their own words. But this need to think: not to violate the freedom of speech of anyone else. Peaceful Protest is the right of every citizen. Baba Sahib Ambetkar said that if Constitution will be used for the right things, then everyone will get the benefit.If we start using it wrongly then this provision will have no meaning.But for a few days, what is happening in Shaheen Bagh is neither in the benefit of the country nor of the people.These are the ideologies of some political party and crumbling gangs which break the country.

Today the image of our country is suffering due to the movement of Shaheen Bagh in the world. It is giving a wrong message: about India. This is causing a lot of damage to the image of our country. In a developing country, this kind of movement which has been going on for a long time, hurts the economy a lot.Some countries are using this movement wrongly, which are showing the wrong image of India.Today the people of Delhi are getting a lot of problem because of all the atmosphere of Shaheen Bagh is very tense. Today countries like Malaysia, Pakistan and UK are using it wrongly.What I have seen so far is that some people have been sold fear and have taken advantage of them.

Citizen Amendment Act is a very good step of the Government of India, which will give our people the right to live.When India was united, which they had decided to stay in Bangladesh, Afghanistan and Pakistan after the partition, this act was for them. Because Bangladesh, Afghanistan and Pakistan have declared themselves as Muslim countries.Due to this, there is harassment with minorities in the country every day.They are not religiously independent, they cannot express their religion.His sister and daughter are picked up and raped and their religion is changed. They cannot fight for their rights because they run the Muslim law.

The National Register of Citizens has not yet come to this bill or any date and format has been told by Govt. Then this bill is very beneficial for the citizen of the country. Why are people in our country living without (legal document and visa) intruders and using jobs and resources here, which is the right of us and our children?Secondly, this is a threat to the country’s security.Becausethey have no identity, they indulge in criminal activity. They easily get involved in activities like against the nation, because they have no fear.It is like a termite that is hollowing out the country. If they have to come, then they should come with the proper document and contribute to the development of our country.

National Population Register These are used by government for count population of the country.So that the government makes its own plan ahead how to reach the total scheme to the people. How to change their lives and what else to do in the country, which is necessary for development. BasicallyFor this Governments’ future plan. It cannot cause any harm to anyone and it is for the betterment of India. How to keep the country people connected with the country and its main stream.It is used in betterment of people and his life.

If truth be told, today’s Shaheen Bagh has become a political stage. Where, all the illegal activities are happening in the name of saving the Country. Where, some parties are running their own agenda. People are being misled and their brain is being washed. Some leaders provoke people to his own political benefits. They have nothing to do with this movement; just they are brightening their political careers. This is simple vote bank politics in which people are being misused. Today’s movement has been hijacked by the wrong people and they are using it for their own benefit. They are harming the image of the country. There are some media journalists who are working sincerely for Desh Virodhi Gang. Some organizations are involved in this, where funding is taking place, otherwise such a big movement cannot be done without funds.

As long as the citizens of any country are not aware, these people will always keep taking advantage of them by using them. We have to learn to distinguish between right and wrong and not take what others say to be true. Movement can be done for a country which should be used for right things and not for wrong things. Movement should be in places where no one has problems. Because everyone has the right to speak his words in Sambidana (Constitution), feet do not crush anyone’s rights. The citizens of the country need to be strong against this, because we do not let the intentions of the ‘ Tukde Tukde Gang’ succeed.

Imagine if the person you had followed your whole life was dying. That they never saw the victory they were fighting for finally won. O captain o captain by Walt Whitman was written in the last year of the American civil war; 1865, with the poem being one big metaphor. The repetition of “o captain o captain,” emphasises the melancholy, despaired tone, that their leader has died. The grief and death “you’ve fallen cold and dead” compared to the celebration where “the people all exulting,” is a stark contrast. That despite the united states having won the war and gotten justice for the abolishment of slavery, the captain symbolises the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. “Our fearful trip has done,” references that not only has the war ended, but the journey taken. “The prize we sought is won,” a metaphor that they have come back alive, with their goal accomplished.

Like o captain o captain, the poem A nameless grave was written after the American civil war, in 1874. Formed in a Petrarchan sonnet, Longfellow conveys the somber tone that reflects how lonely and forgotten the nameless grave really is. The alliteration of ‘sentinel’ and ‘scout,’ comes after the internal rhyme of ‘nameless and dateless.’ This establishes how the grave has been abandoned for some time, having stood through multiple wars. Longfellow had a personal connection with war as his son Charley enlisted in WW1. Longfellow’s message is how he feels lucky that he could see his son one last time to say his goodbyes to him. A Nameless Grave honours how not everyone is recognised when they lay down their life for their country, and how sad the nameless man’s family and friends could never give a proper goodbye to him since they never knew which body he was. Longfellow did not support the idea of war as he thought that it was worthless and it wasn’t worth fighting for.

Unlike Longfellow, the poem If we must die was based on something worth dying for, or so Claude Mckay thought. Written in 1921, he used the structure of a sonnet that is usually based around love, to create awareness. Even though slavery was abolished, racial equality wasn’t that prominent at the time, with African Americans receiving hate for the colour of their skin. He wanted them to be proud of where they came from, without being influenced by white stereotypes that affected the relationship that African Americans had with their culture.

“what though before us lies the open grave?” a rhetorical question, which may suggest the outcome of their fight. That although their chances of winning are slim, they won’t give up. That they’ll fight back, even if it comes at the cost of their lives. “shall be constrained honour us though dead!” high modality highlighting the amount of passion Mckay had for the cause, to die with honour, be remembered not for the colour of their skin, but who they were as people. accentuating how it’s a metaphorical war for them every day, to get the recognition and respect they deserve. “mad and hungry dogs” changes to “monsters,” in the poem. A metaphor for whites being superior to them, illustrating what the African Americans saw as evil victimizing helpless people, referencing the whites by dehumanising them. The contrast at the start from “like hogs” to “like men,” indicates how they are seen as animalistic but are actually brave men, ready to stand for what they believe in. The pronouns of ‘we’, ‘us’ and ‘our,’ are there to show that he isn’t the only one willing to fight back, but his whole community as well. This is seen when he calls out “O kinsmen!” Which can be interpreted as a battle cry for his brothers to unite as one.

For generations, Indigenous Australians have had to endure acts of discrimination, prejudice and injustice. Since the arrival of European settlers in 1788, traditional customs and way of life for Indigenous Australians have been majorly altered. When Australian colonies federated in 1901, public policy revolved around the concepts of segregation and assimilation. The inhumane treatment of the Aboriginal people was heavily influenced by the assumption that they were inferior to the Europeans. When the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was ratified in 1948, it constructed the beginning and encouragement of access of basic human rights for those who had been denied of them. The struggle of the American Civil Rights Movement during the 1960’s sparked influence for civil rights activism within Australia. This influence of activism resulted in major changes in the representation, civil and land rights of Indigenous Australians with great success. However, there are still challenges and inequalities that are yet to be addressed and efforts that can be continued to be made in order to tackle these current inequalities.

After the ratification of the UDHR, the fight for civil rights began. In America, the fight for the civil rights of the African American community gained global attention and would later influence civil rights activism within Australian for Indigenous Australians. After WWII segregation was ruled out in by the US Supreme court, however, southern states resisted against the ruling. On December 1st, 1955 in Montgomery, Alabama, Rosa Parks, a civil rights activist, refused to give up her seat to a white passenger on the bus. Subsequently, Parks’ refusal to give up her seat got her arrested. Her arrest resulted in a 381-day boycott of the Montgomery bus service and the boycott ended as a result of the US supreme ordering the end of segregation of black and white passengers on the bus services within Montgomery. The victory obtained from the boycott earned more support and inspired further activism towards ending segregation in America. Many protests and events followed after the Montgomery bus service boycott, such as the Little Rock Nine (1957), The Freedom Riders (1961), and the Civil Rights Act of 1957. A major figure that contributed to the further success of the civil rights movement in America was Martin Luther King Jnr. King’s engagement in civil rights had inspired protests and paved way to the success of the civil rights movement of America. On 28th August 1963, King led a protest with 250 000 demonstrators participating in the ‘March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom”. It was during this protest that he delivered his influential “I have a dream speech.”. In his speech King stated, “…I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal.””. As a result of the major success of the American Civil rights movement, activism that had begun in Australia on a minor scale would increase significantly to bring many great changes to the policies existing at the time.

The fights for civil rights for African Americans had a profound influence on activism in Australia. Activism for civil rights in Australia began when the sesquicentenary of British settlement took place in 1938, this day was referred to as the “Day of Mourning and Protest”. The Australian Aborigines League and the Aborigines Progressive association planned a protest march for civil rights from the Sydney town hall. This was the first effective indigenous civil rights gathering in Australian history. When the American Civil Rights gained worldwide media coverage, the success of the movement encouraged Australia to take further action to stop segregation and for the civil rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Similarly, the Freedom Riders of Australia followed in the footsteps of the Freedom riders in America influenced by their success. The freedom riders were a group known as the Student Action for Aborigines who toured regional New South Wales as a protest against segregation. The tour in February 1965 as a fact-finding trip so students could witness the horrible living conditions for Aboriginal people but turned into a genuine protest to fight against segregation. The group was led by the late Charles Perkins, who was one of the only two Aboriginal students of the university. The protest brought attention to the shocking living conditions that Indigenous Australians had endured outside of the towns that were toured. Anyone belonging in the Aboriginal community were constantly denied services in shops, hotels, swimming pools, cafes etc.

To aid with ending the segregation, the students would protest against the racial discrimination present at the towns and ensured there was media coverage of the violent responses on news broadcasts. The footage and evidence of harsh treatment towards Aboriginal people was broadcasted and exposed the racism present within the country. People in urban areas were shocked and the national and international media coverage of the protest sparked an influx of support for better treatment for the Indigenous community. The influx of support would develop a movement for further change and political success in public movements to promote the end of racial discrimination. Thus, the success of the American Civil Rights encouraged the further development of methods of successful activism within Australia.

China is one place that has never surprised the world, not when it achieves something great or even when it does something the world should naturally think crazy. However, from April 15 to June 4 1989, it managed to shock the world when it carried out what would be known as the infamous Tiananmen Square Massacre.

The massacre which mostly had students and young people as the victims saw the Chinese government kill thousands who have gathered to protest against the communist government and demand for democracy. Here is all that you may want to know about the tragic event.

Often referred to as the Gate of Heavenly Peace, Tiananmen became one of those places that would see the opening of the gates of hell through this event that left the whole of China never the same again and changed the way the world would see the brutal Asian nation for many years that would come; the Tiananmen Square Massacre.

The massacre climaxed on June 4 1989 from events that began seven weeks earlier. It highlights the murder of between thousands and hundreds of thousands of unarmed students that took to the streets and later the popular square to protest the happenings in the country and demand for the introduction of democracy in the country.

With the calls getting stronger with each passing day and more people joining into the millions, there was the obvious fear that a social change was inevitable and the government would have to give way. However, the government gave a martial law and just when it was believed that the Asian country was on its way to becoming a democratic state, government forces took to the square where many were gathered and they fired live bullets into protesters, leading to the deaths of many and the arrest of even more.

By the morning of the next day, China had changed, but not in the way anyone would have thought. What many people found as much tragic as the remorseless massacre has been the unending effort by the Chinese government to hide all that had happened from the history books of the country. Here are things that happened:

From the 1970s, China had been greeted with many protests from students who were tired of the suppression of their government, issues of freedom of speech, better living conditions, and much more. In culmination, they wanted to have a democratic government for the first time in the country.

Although Hu Yaobang was a member of the communist party, he had a liberal ideology and he became the inspiration for the protests as a result of his pro-revolution stance. When he died on On April 15, 1989, from a heart attack, it became a personal loss for students who to mourn one of the most loved Chinese leaders among the liberals, took to Tiananmen Square. Although there was the belief by the government that the grief of students would not degenerate to any serious protest, they were very wrong as the grief came with frustrations they had endured from the lack political reforms and the corruption that had infected the system.

It can be said that events leading to the Tiananmen Square massacre began in properly on the day Hu was buried; April 22. On that day, more than 50,000 students gathered on the square with a letter for Premier Li Peng stating their case.

In the weeks that followed, the protest kept growing and ordinary citizens started joining, signaling to the government that this was not just any protest like those before. Hu’s loss started a fire for a democratic cry that was loud and clear.

Almost 1.2 million people gathered on May 19 for a rally. To quell the tension, the Premier imposed martial law in the city but that did nothing to stop the protesters. By the next 11 days, there was already a statue of 10 meters that was standing at the center of the square called the Goddess of Democracy.

Never had it ever seemed too close to democracy in China at the time, and so the government had to take a decisive step. On June 3rd, convoys of armed troops made it to Beijing with an order to clear the square using any means; no matter what it would cost.

The tragedy began with civilians who blocked the streets to protect the students in the square; they were shot and killed. Students decided to fight back but unarmed, they were overwhelmed.

By the time the sun was up on June 4, thousands to hundreds of thousands were already dead and many more were arrested. Some among these spent decades behind bars.

The constant creation of newer and more captivating technological devices draws in individuals and captivates them. For organizers behind activist causes, this calls for new techniques to draw attention from the public in order to gain support and attention. Enter slacktivism, the solution to every lazy person’s wish to join a movement, to have a hand in a committed objective that sounds good to be a part of whether it be cancer research donation or saving animals from extinction. Slacktivism is the practice of supporting a political or social cause by means such as social media or online petitions, often involving very little effort or commitment and is often associated with viral movements. But does it really matter? The University of British Columbia found that when people participate in a form of public token support, they aren’t any more likely to participate in a form of more meaningful support in the future. Someone who ‘likes’ a cause on Facebook wouldn’t be any more likely to donate in the future than someone who had no exposure to the cause at all. (Essig 5). These likes and comments are simply from those wishing to jump on the bandwagon of a cause’s popularity. A desire to present a positive image to others and a desire to be consistent in the values one holds as well as the ability to view such advertising are key reasons of influence for either supporting or not supporting a cause is explored by Kirk Kristofferson who investigates reasons as to why slacktivism is not a working method of protest. The method of protest containing consistency problems in results and motivation (Kristofferson 1162). Online activism may start viral movements, but most are often unable to bear results and have little to no government response. Online petitions to the government are often ignored and ridiculed by representatives and lawmakers, with many governments having responded by demonizing and attacking social media (Tufekci 1). Slacktivism as a means of protest does not work due to its ineffectiveness, lack of power, and uncertain outcome of results.

Slacktivism may bring some light to a cause but there aren’t many cases of successful results after a movement occurs. This may be because of lack of genuine interest. It is easy to like a post, retweet an article or change a profile picture, and never actually participate. If someone donates, they’re more likely to stay updated or even increase interest in the cause. But what comes after sharing or retweeting is the problem. After liking a post or commenting on it, further effort to be a part of a cause is minimum because from a slacktivist’s perspective, they’ve already “done their part” with the share or retweet. It is good if a cause is just looking for more awareness, but if it needs real support, then the cause doesn’t get what it needs and the supporter on social media hasn’t made the difference they thought they did. “Raising awareness is a lazy objective. Awareness is a given, action is what you want to promote,” (Essig 14). Although millions may contribute to a campaign on social media, little actual effort may be taken by the same supporters. An online organization may promise to donate $10,000 or plant 20 million trees if their post garners thousands of likes, but there is no guarantee that they will keep their promise. More than 13% of total reported fraud cases in the American work force took place at nonprofits according to ACFE. And the Ernst & Young study found that one out of five workers personally knew of fraud in their workplace. (Zack 1). Fraud within nonprofits are increasing at an alarming rate.

Simply liking a post or commenting does not really have much effect immediately. By contrast, mass in person protests can form rapidly but then, lacking the resilience created over time, often lost focus, direction, and, most important, their potential to effect change such as what is seen during the current Hong Kong protests for freedom from Mainland China which has become violent and vandalism based instead. Effective protest requires not just the right of the people to gather, but accessible public spaces in which gathering is possible and citizens who understand what those rights are. (Malchik 6). Direct action such as showing up to show support in person for a cause is needed in order to directly enact desired changes. Protesting in person shows a supporter’s true dedication while slacktivism is more casual, thus bearing less results.

It is known that slacktivism and social media are both associated with many viral movements that seemingly blow up overnight, however many a times, the cause gains it’s fifteen minutes of fame before fading-without any action taken to generate positive outcome. This was notably seen with the “#BringBackOurGirls” movement. When in April of 2014, 276 schoolgirls were kidnapped from the Nigerian town of Chibok by Boko Haram, a lawyer tweeted the hashtag #BringBackOurGirls to bring global attention to the problem. The campaign was endorsed by social media influencers such as Kim Kardashian and was also supported by First Lady Michelle Obama. It went on to become one of Africa’s most popular online campaigns and was shared more than four million times over the next month on Twitter. But after the hashtag fizzled out, more than half the girls were still missing and life in Chibok remained in terrible conditions with nothing to show for a result of the campaign (France-Presse 8). The government dismissed the claims with a wave and nothing else was done to make change. Such actions by state governments are commonly seen soon after, many government officials see the social media movements as a campaign against their positions that may be fabricated to harm them. Although other state governments may offer help to take action, it is often denied or not followed up by the original government. “With this speed comes weakness, some of it unexpected […] The ease with which current social movements form often fails to signal an organizing capacity powerful enough to threaten those in authority” (Tufekci 2). Viral movements created by slacktivists do have positive results, but more often than not, they are not always guaranteed to happen. The ratio of slacktivism movements with action and results to no accomplishment is heavily weighed to the side with no achievement.

Slacktivism can be an opportunity for causes to raise more awareness, and in some cases, it can even create so much awareness that it increases donations or supportive public protest. Creating groups that are willing to show public support for a cause, online or offline, is never a bad thing. The problem arises when an organization gains 10,000 followers on a social media site, but never reaches their goal financially or can’t get volunteers to help out when needed-and the reason is that the followers feel as if they’ve already “done their part” by engaging on social media. Slacktivism isn’t enough, but it is a start. If nothing else, sharing something will bring light to an issue that needs to be solved. The solution towards real change is nonprofits need to tell their story in a compelling enough way that the community wants to get involved in-more than just liking or sharing-and the public has to be willing to put some real effort in to make real change in the world.

It is essential to point out that Algeria is the largest country in the African continent after the nation of South Sudan obtained its independence. Therefore, in terms of population size, Algeria is the most populated country in the African continent. The state also serves as the most significant supplier of gas to the European Union. However, it is remarkable to acknowledge that this country could take a more substantial role, only if its political stability was in order. The rule of democracy would facilitate an efficient economy that maintains the youth within their country instead of pushing them abroad. Algeria has been undergoing a constant wave of demonstrations in demand for significant structural changes in the government. The locals are holding their leaders accountable for the widespread forms of corruption, as well as state repression that has been taking place for many years. Therefore, Algeria has been crippled by the increased tensions and deteriorating economy.

It is remarkable to point out the acute threat of instability that has been increasingly developing in Algeria since February 2019. In the same vein, Fridays have been known as a day of protests, characterized by the city’s activities being brought to a halt whereas the shoppers display brightly colored banners (Serrano, 2019). The hundreds of protestors are significantly made up of the young population that continues to present their views against the nepotism and in-built power structures that have affected the nation for a couple of decades. Most scholars argue that there is a high chance of witnessing protests following the ouster of a dictator. The protests are an attempt to drive an emphasis on commitments. However, seven months later, the Algerian protestors seem not to be growing tired of the demonstrations. Notably, the weekly protests can be compared to a double-edged sword that frustrates the efforts of the non-protestors but also affects democracy among its citizens. As the protests continue to escalate, the security forces are being deployed near the parliament buildings ahead of the protests. This essay endeavors to focus on the protests in Algeria as well as the causes behind such protests.

It is essential to note that the rapidly increasing demonstrations taking place in Algeria are against the conditions of gradual change. Way back in 2011, the federal government of Algeria implemented various reforms to the constitution as a way to respond to the protests that erupted in the country. The implementations went into effect in 2016, making critical headways upon some matters. For instance, set up the presidential term limits and expanding the authority granted to parliament.

The decision made by the sickly 82-year old President Abdelaziz Bouteflika to seek for a fifth-year term is what sparked protests among the Algerians (Grewal et al., 2019). It is essential to appreciate the fact that the president’s approval for his candidature for another term in office is not yet apparent. It is necessary to understand that the National Front of Liberation is the dominating party in Algeria. Therefore, in the presence of at least 2000 militants, the party announced the president’s interest to run for another term. In that connection, the declaration led to the most massive protests and demonstrations along the streets. A significant number of Algerians expressed that the president’s bid was not only a way to humiliate the people’s democracy but also stripping citizens of their dignity. It is remarkable to acknowledge that the resident has been serving since 1999 (Grewal et al., 2019). However, after being affected by a stroke in 2013, the president has been making a rare presence on the political grounds. Political analysts point out that his candidature could be a façade whereby the business elite and the political-military express selfish-interest. On the other part, the recent polls indicate that despite the ruling party’s failure, many Algerians stand a high chance of voting for him once more. This could be attributed to the fear that his departure could bring about instability in the government and negative consequences for the entire nation.

It is crucial to acknowledge the fact that the threat of the escalating political instability has a severe effect on the economy. In the same vein, therefore, the economy of Algeria is in dire trouble. Remarkably, the country is rich in natural resources like oil and gas. These resources account for at least 30% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (Aïssaoui, 2001). Therefore, this finances approximately 60% of the budget revenues as well as 95% of the earnings on export. For decades now, the country has been struggling with mismanagement of the energy sector.

On the other part, regular leadership turnover not only discourages foreign investors but also hinders the establishment of new gas and oil assets. In the same vein, the revenue realized from one of the state companies declined drastically from $76 billion in 2008 to $33.2 billion in 2017 (Aïssaoui, 2001). This drastic cut down is attributed to the decreasing energy prices that occurred in 2014. Besides, the increased consumption of energy at the local level explains the low quantity that is available for transport. The tight condition of Algeria’s economy has interfered with the state’s ability to offer services as it used to do in the past. Inflation causes the cost of living to skyrocket, thus making it so difficult for many people to provide for their daily needs. Therefore, the citizens conduct peaceful protests across the country due to the inadequate provision of essential services such as healthcare, electricity, water supply, pensions as well as housing.

Algeria, as a country, has been undergoing immense struggle in an attempt to cut down the country’s heavy reliance on hydrocarbons (Aïssaoui, 2001). The subsequent economic development aspired to transform Algeria into a modern state through the cheap energy that would construct a robust energy department. However, the policies enacted did very little in offering protection to the population from both economic and social vulnerability. This is what flickered prolonged protests from society.

Algerian citizens also experience an acute lack of infrastructure. This is particularly concerning healthcare. Therefore, sick patients are forced to travel to the capital in a bid to access healthcare services. Consequently, this comes not only at a hardship but also at a high cost. Notably, only 3% of development funds have been directed towards the appropriate task, whereas the rest of the funds benefited an undeclared entity. This, too, is another reason that has sparked protests around the country. Despite the knee jerk reaction towards the ongoing protests by the ruling class, the government of Algeria has to restore Algeria’s rich heritage in a bid to regain trust from the citizens.

It is worth considering that the military has assumed a primary role in politics upon the formation of a close alliance with the National Liberation Front about 6o years ago. However, there have been a series of conflicting mandates on the role of the military in Algeria. Notably, the renegotiation of the civil relations in the military restructured the powerful state intelligence. Despite their traditional reluctance to participate in the military affairs abroad, the civilian authorities demand the external corporations, therefore, bringing conflict of interests.

The Algerians do accept the military together with the forces of law enforcers play a significant role in supporting and representing the population. However, the military has been blamed for suppressing internal threats as well as rejecting the external ones. On the other hand, the law enforcement department, which is responsible for controlling the protests are not only under-resourced but also overextended. Therefore, this situation has sparked.

Learners from various institutions spearheaded the protests movement witnessed across the country. It is worth considering that Algeria’s population is significantly made up of youth below the age of 3 (Cordall, 2019). Therefore, the idleness of the young generation due to unemployment has cultivated anger in the government. In the youth demonstrations, various slogans used include; ‘Game Over,’ ‘Algeria, free and democratic’ (Cordall, 2019). Remarkably, the initiative that was begun by the youth has developed into a wide-embracing movement that cuts across various sections of the society. Hence, the campaign has attracted support from the elite group made of teachers, doctors, lawyers, journalists, as well as judges who carry out demonstrations across the country.

One should bear in mind that unlawful flag-waving is another form of protest witnessed in Algeria. In that connection, at least 40 protestors were put behind bars after they were found guilty of waving and possessing the Amazigh flags in the city of Algiers, Chlef, and Annaba (Grewal et al., 2019). According to the investigative team, this group of protestors was charged with causing harm to the integrity of the national territory. In the same vein, under the penal code article 79, such an offense attracts a prison term of between one and ten years.

It is crucial to appreciate that dating from the 1980s, carrying Amazigh flags, and pro-Amazigh activism are frequent activities in Algeria. By so doing, some activists intend to promote Amazigh culture, whereas others seek greater political autonomy while others ask for independence. Notably, the demand for autonomy while others aim for democracy.

June 23rd saw one of Algeria’s supporters of the country’s football club arrested for carrying a slogan written, ‘No God but God; Yetnehaw Ga’.’ The second section is written in Algeria’s dialect implies They Must All Leave. This slogan was used in the ongoing protest in the country and is used about the executive officials serving under the former president Bouteflika (Aljazeera News, 2019). Their ruling party is thought to retain absolute authority. The individual was therefore detained for one year for the public display of a paper that is cap[able to cause harm to the interest of the nation. It is worth noting that Serdouk’s conviction goes against the right of expression. According to the human rights law, criminal law is responsible for making a clear definition of the offense of the culprit.

It is crucial to appreciate that the current events in Algeria rely on the principles of noninterference of the internal matters of a country. In the same vein, Algeria rejected the military intervention in Libya way back in 2011. Besides, the state declined assistance from the International Monetary Funds (IMF) in the economic downturn of the 1980s. This implies that the resistance to foreign intervention means that the European allies and the United States can only impact the country in a limited manner. As mentioned in the essay, the protests in Algeria could largely be attributed to the complex economic and social conditions suffered by the citizens (Guerin, 2019).

The conditions leading to protests include youth unemployment, inability to lead decent lifestyles, lack of development chances, inadequate essential services, among others. As a way to respond to the above grievances, the government of Algeria termed such protests as not only illegal but also a riot that calls for immediate imprisonment of the perpetrators. Notably, in 2001, the Algerian authorities enacted a ban on any demonstrations without obtaining a license for the same.

Secondly, in a bid to slow down the spread of information about the ongoing protests across the country, the ruling authority ensured that the internet was disrupted in several parts of Algeria. Those who are in opposition to the demonstrations fought back by involving false information, trolls as well as creating fake accounts. For instance, the Facebook pages of the activists attract trolls that make negative comments on their pages and even engaging in name-calling. Notably, the fake accounts came into effect after the protests began and had a habit of repeating the negative comments on several posts.

Despite all the protests going on, Algeria’s opposition government considers the riots as a mere play of time. The newly appointed Prime Minister Noureddine Bedoui seems to be under struggle with his bid to establishing a credible government. A significant percentage of the political actors seem to distance themselves from the suppressing regime.

It is worth noting that Algeria hugely relies on oil as its economic pillar. In a bid to resuscitate the struggling economy, the government should aim at increasing the accountability and transparency within the institutions of the state as well as the private sector. Secondly, the government should implement opportunities for vibrant youth to curb unemployment. The political dislocation in Algeria has been transferred to the people, whereas the power instruments remain in the hands of a few dictators. Therefore, there is an urgent need to solve the political strife in Algeria. Every time there erupt violent conflicts, and it is advisable to identify the roots back at the community level. Therefore, during such turmoil in Algeria, the community leaders should team up with the law enforcers as well as the government officials in a breakdown that aims to sort out the issues raised by the citizens. The current protests are a reflection of the indications of the corrupt dealings that have become a real threat to the security of the nation and its citizens. For instance, the ruling government must direct all its attention to increasing the economic opportunities as well as rebuilding the infrastructure. When citizens have easy access to basic primary needs such as education and healthcare, the citizens are guaranteed of their citizenship in Algeria. On the other hand, the elected leaders who chose to erode democracies due to their selfish needs need to be ousted out through conducting peaceful demonstrations. All leaders should respect the electoral standards outlined in their constitution without causing harm to the democracy of their countries or subjects.

It is essential to appreciate that the protests in Algeria have attracted international media attention. Remarkably the United States of America has got very little economic and military exposure to Algeria. Therefore, the ongoing protests made saw the United States offering training to the Algerian Law enforcement through the assistance of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) team.

On the other part, other governments that have raised a concern about the prolonged protests in Algeria include Italy and France. Besides, both Rome and Paris argue that the political instability of the country could enhance an increase of Europe migration through the Mediterranean.

Many people take what they have for granted, when it comes to excess food that is wasted, luxuries that are discarded, or certain rights abused, many people don’t know how lucky they are. For example, citizens in the US have many freedoms that other people are still fighting for. Currently in Hong Kong, people are fighting for the rights that they feel they deserve and they either never had or feel are being taken away.

Though the conflict is quite recent, everything began in the mid 19th century when british merchants began using Hong Kong’s harbors for trade. Eventually, Hong Kong island was surrendered to Britain after the first Opium War and soon after China relinquished many more territories. From then on, Hong Kong lived under a totally different government than the rest of China. They were directed by a governor that was elected by the monarch to regulate Hong Kong and represent them. Even as 1997 rolled around, the due date of which Britain was supposed to give back Hong Kong, they still continued to have a unique government, though technically Hong Kong was now part of China is shared a “one country, two systems” policy which allowed them to keep a large amount of political independence. As a result, Hong Kongers had more freedom than the rest of China, and they wanted to keep it that way. On April 3rd, 2019, Hong Kong’s government introduced a new plan that would allow people suspected of crimes to be transported and trialed in China instead of in Hong Kong. It was called the Hong Kong Extradition Bill and people were not happy. Many believed that if they were trialed under chinese law they would be wrongly accused of crimes and believe that China will abuse this new power and begin to arrest anyone with strong opposing political views. China currently is a communist country, while many Hong Kongers advocate for a democracy, they feared that those advocates would be detained, so they began to protest.

The first big protest was on June 9, 2019 when an estimated 1 million people marched toward the government headquarters in protest of the bill. Protests continued until Hong Kong leader, Carrie Lam, caved. On June 15th, she stated that she would indefinitely delay the bill thinking that that would stop the protests, unfortunately for her, people were still not satisfied. They wanted the bill to be fully withdrawn. The next day they went to the streets and protested for the bill to be withdrawn and for Lam to resign. Finally, on September 4th, 2019, Lam released a video to calm unrest, and announced her four steps to help alleviate tension, “First, the government will formally withdraw the bill in order to fully allay public concerns… Second, we will fully support the work of the IPCC (The Independent Police Complaint Council)… Third, from this month, I and my principal officials will reach out to the community to start a direct dialogue… Fourth, I will invite community leaders, professionals, and academics to independently examine and review society’s deep-seated problems and to advise the government on finding solutions.” Even though Lam took action, many say she has done too little in this situation and too late. At that point, it was not only about the bill, the people wanted so much more. Since the protests didn’t have a leader or a strong way to organize there were many ideas of what they wanted next. Overall, the people were now protesting for total democracy, police accountability and investigation of police brutality, for those who were arrested to be released, and for Carrie Lam to step down.

Though the government tried to comply, this bill was the kick-start the people needed. Those protests were just the beginning, now Hong Kong citizens will not rest until they have all of the freedoms they deserve. It started with this extradition bill but it could end anywhere, protests still continue and people will still try to fight for their rights, and maybe one day they’ll get them. For now, they will continue to revolt and inspire others to do so too.

The anti-war movement was a reflection of a time period when individuals started to vocalize their opinions on political and social issues. The era of conformity and submission to higher powers was commencing its decay with the rise of the common man’s recognition of his or her authority and rights in response to certain societal dilemmas. This particular movement fully embodies this radical recognition. Hence, the anti-war movement in the United States, to a large extent, influenced the US withdrawal from the Vietnam War. The popularity, which several prominent protests against the war gained, served to pressurize the US government to withdraw from Vietnam as it highlighted the shift in thinking of the American masses that the government could not counteract. In addition, the methods that individuals utilized during their protests proved to heavily impact American society in support of ending the war, and thus it served to attract exponential support for the movement. As a result, the US government was pressurized to withdraw from the war. However, President Nixon’s denial of the popularity of the AWM, as well as his denial of the magnitude of its influence, emphasizes his adamancy of continuing and justifying US involvement in Vietnam, regardless of the various protests.

There were several prominent protests against the Vietnam War that radically shifted individuals thinking into opposing the war. This phenomenon served to gain immense popularity for the movement and in doing so it served to pressurize the US government into withdrawing from Vietnam. One major protest was organized by the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) on the 27th of November 1965. This protest was significant as it played a major role in gaining civilian support for the AWM as a speech concerned about America’s abandonment of ‘democratic principles’ received widespread media attention. This served to attract individuals to the AWM who held the same viewpoint. Another prominent protest would be the protest at the Lincoln Memorial, on the 21st of October 1967. Furthermore, another significant rally was held at the Washington Monument, on the 15th of November 1969, which consisted of thousands of supporters against the Vietnam War. Hence it must be noted that with each successive two years, the protests against the war grew exponentially, with each receiving media attention. Especially due to the media attention, these protests, and the ideology behind them, were broadcast to the American public, hence actively shifting the generally conservative thinking of individuals into opposing the war. The sheer number of protests serves to emphasize the strength and growing popularity of activists against the war. Thus, the AWM gained significant popularity, and as a result, President Nixon began reducing the number of US troops in Vietnam in order ‘to quash domestic dissent’. Hence these collective protests that kept growing in magnitude sent a strong message to the US government about the unpopular decision of its involvement in the war, and it ultimately influenced the US withdrawal from Vietnam.

Furthermore, the methods used in some of the protests served to attract individuals to support an end to the war. As a result, there began an increase in support for the AWM, and this served to turn the tides against the US government, as this buildup of support pressurized the US government to withdraw from Vietnam. An embodiment of this can be seen in the actions of the Students for a Democratic Society. The SDS held several sit-ins and blockades in military recruiting centers to protest against the war. They also incited draftees to disobey orders and they had targeted ways to disrupt draft recruitment and functionality. Hence due to their radical actions, they were able to gain significant publicity and could then spread their ideals and beliefs to a myriad of American individuals. Additionally, the televised sight of crippled war veterans, protesting against the war in wheelchairs and clutches, was a graphic method that caused people to be in favor of the AWM. Another notable method that peace activists utilized was their peaceful teaching, to individuals, about the true horrors of war and the communication of their opinions on the war, not only to the students but to the press as well. Over 120 campus teach-ins were held, and as a result, individuals developed a thorough understanding of the war in Vietnam. This enabled more people to gain in-depth knowledge about the war that the US government did not disclose to the public. This knowledge served to increase support against the war as it could have instilled fear and a sense of morality against what would be perceived as an immoral US invasion of Vietnam. Gradually a range of bodies, including church organizations, government officials, labor unions, students, and lower-class individuals, decided to partake in the movement. These various methods enabled the AWM to become more supported and popular, and as a result, the Johnson administration suspended the bombing of North Vietnam and began peace talks. Eventually, the US Congress was forced to end the war. Hence, the methods incorporated in the AWM served to persuade multiple individuals into opposing the war, thus resulting in an increase in the popularity of the movement. This increase pressurized the US government to withdraw from Vietnam, thus this movement did heavily influence this government’s decision.

However, it must be recognized that President Nixon played a role in disregarding the magnitude and prominence of the AWM. This highlights his adamancy in not withdrawing US involvement from Vietnam, regardless of the popularity of the protests. President Nixon indicated that the AWM protesters were ‘minorities’ and that they served to ‘drown out’ the majority of individuals who support the war. This downplaying of the magnitude of the movement indicated that personally Nixon would not be influenced by the protests when deciding on the future of the war. However, Nixon’s statement about not being ‘the first American President to lose a war’ outlines his policy of Vietnamization, and hence his response to the AWM protests. As this was his first step toward US withdrawal from the Vietnam War, it can be seen that he did recognize the magnitude and power of the protests. In this sense, the AWM did heavily influence this gradual withdrawal.

Hence, the significant protests, as well as the methods used for several protests, served to gain immense popularity for the AWM. As a result of this popularity, the AWM, to a large extent, influenced the US withdrawal from Vietnam. However, Nixon’s adamancy to ignore the movement in regard to political decisions was also evaluated with regard to his policy of Vietnamization.

This investigation is important as it evaluates the effect and impact of civilian protests. In doing so, it highlights the power of the common man against the government, and hence against authority. The significance of this investigation is that it discussed a movement that actively broke the ideologies of civilian submission to the government, and in doing so, initiated an era of vocalization for all the individuals being affected by societal issues. This is exceedingly relevant today as there are myriad problems facing our society, including sexual misconduct and the discrimination of certain individuals. Prominent movements in today’s times, namely the #MeToo Movement, as well as the #BlackLivesMatter Movement, have dominated the media and have brought about necessary awareness of pressing matters. Investigating the influence of the anti-war movement on one of the most disastrous wars enables us to understand the power of speaking up. This in itself is a powerful lesson to society. The anti-war movement and its effects have had a profound influence on society that is still felt today, and it laid down the foundations for civilian protest, as it served to inspire many, for generations to come.

May 1968 saw some of the largest protests in contemporary French history witnessing a month of demonstrations, university buildings being taken over and economic standstill resulting in a snap legislative election. An article published in The Guardian on May 13th highlighted a number of reasons why these protests had broken out such as a lack of lecturers, the expansion of student numbers, authoritarian regulations and the loss of freedom suggesting that “France [had] only herself to blame…” for the unrest. This essay will analyze three of the reasons: gender segregation in university accommodation, the desire for political reform and flaws within the education system, and determine which of these was of most significance in terms of causing discontent in university students in France 1968.

One reason for student discontent was the segregation of men and women in accommodation. The 1960’s was a period of cultural and sexual revolution inspired by social movement in the US as well as the passing of the Neuwirth Law in December 1967 lifting the ban on contraception. At the university of Nanterre, male and female students were unable to mix within dormitories which groups such as the Union Nationale des Etudiants de France (UNEF) said “epitomized the paternalism of the Gaullist society” (Reader, 1993). This led to the start of protests where male students would camp in female dorms. In January 1968 Minister for Youth and Health, François Missoffe, attended the opening ceremony of the Nanterre campus swimming pool at which he was confronted by sociology student Daniel Cohn-Bendit who asked why Missoffe had avoided the topic of sexual frustration in his newly published book. Missoffe suggested that Cohn-Bendit should take a swim in the new pool to which Cohn-Bendit replied “That’s the kind of answer you would get under a fascist regime” (Ibid.) and is said to be where unrest began. It may be argued that protests were not just students demanding “the abolition of the separation of the sexes in student residences” (Wasserstein, 2017), but more so a sign that the old conservative, patriarchal views on women and sex were causing discontent as well. Literature such as ‘The Second Sex’ (1949) by Simone de Beauvoir, which looked at the disadvantaged position women had been placed at throughout history, would have been a major source of inspiration for women of the time and led to demand for increasing level of enfranchisement as well as equal pay and opportunities within the workplace. However, in the 1960’s gender concerns were fairly low on the agenda with prominent women’s liberation movements only coming into light in the 1970’s. An example of this would be the ‘Mouvement de Libération des Femmes’ which advocated for bodily autonomy, the collectivization of social services provided free by housewives” and equality in jobs (Beauvoir, 1972). Furthermore, these protests led to men over the age of 21 being allowed to have female visitors in their rooms and so the aims of many protesters had been met. It was said that the concept of sex was “only associated with the events of 1968…not because sexuality had become political but because politics has suddenly seemed sexy” (Bourg, 2007). Although the change to university policy appeased a large number of those who had started the protests, many continued to demonstrate which indicates that misogyny and sexism in France were issues that people wanted dealt with quickly and efficiently. Therefore, while it may not have been the most important reason for discontent in university student it was indeed a catalyst for the continued protests for women’s rights which continued into the 21st century.

A second reason for discontent in university students was the desire for political reform. The Fourth Republic began to deteriorate at the end of the 1950’s but former soldier of the French Army, Charles de Gaulle helped amend the constitution which formed the Fifth republic leading to his election in January 1959. In 1968, free press and elections still existed but de Gaulle had begun to control a number of media outlets such as the radio station ‘Europe 1’ and the French National Public Broadcasting Service (ORTF) meaning his government could influence the news which was broadcast to French citizens. Around this time France had also attempted to block the UK entering the Common Market and had withdrawn from NATO. France was now a very conservative state being governed by an authoritarian leader which many people were unhappy with. However, it wasn’t just the students who were dissatisfied; on the night of May 10th 1968 some 40,000 people including workers and members of trade unions such as CGT, CFDT and the FEN had joined students in the Latin Quarter. The use of brute force and violence by French police on the ‘Night of the Barricades’ did not tame the crowds but merely cause more upheaval (Wolin, 2017). By May 13th the number of people protesting had increased to between 750,000 and one million. The protests made it clear that citizens saw the political system as outdated and restrictive therefore it could be argued that the influx of workers and unionists joining the student-led movement solidified the idea that these protests were stance against the current political system regardless of their origins. On May 29th de Gaulle visited leader of the French Army, General Jacques Massu in order to seek support in case protests continued to grow showing that de Gaulle was perhaps scared of a revolution. The next day, de Gaulle dissolved the National Assembly and called for an election to be held on June 30th which would put the power into the people’s hands. If they were content with de Gaulle’s leadership, they would re-elect him; if not they would elect a new leader. Many young students (as well as other activists and working-class citizens) believed the authoritarian regime was ineffective yet many saw de Gaulle as an integral figure who improved the French economic situation. The vote in June saw the re-election of de Gaulle and the UDR indicating that the vast majority of voters didn’t see the need for socio-political reform and were content with the system (Pickles, 1968). The attempt of the leftist students to seek change in conservative France was admirable, yet some may argue that their vision of the French left being in power was entirely based on the success of the communist leaders they idolized such as Che Guevara and Mao Zedong. Although the UDR had won, the defeat of the left should not be used to discredit their efforts in seeking reform which would not only have benefited them, but workers and trade-unionists as well and therefore the failure to take advantage of the opportunity to elect a new leader means the desire for political reform was not the most important reason for discontent in May 1968.

Finally, the flaws within the education system were another reason for increasing discontent in students. Between 1946 and 1968 the French population rose from 40.5 million to 49.7 million with the student population almost trebling (Wolin, 2017). The increasing number of students was not matched with an increase in budget nor resources which saw classes become overcrowded, lecturers scarcely available and worsening conditions. The University of Nanterre was built in 1963 as a solution to overcrowding in the Sorbonne. The campus was in the Parisian suburbs where transport links were unreliable making it difficult for students to get to school. Political meetings were forbidden, facilities were inadequate and there was little autonomy for students. It was said that “Nanterre had become the symbol of all that was wrong with the French educational system” (Bourg, 2007). On May 2nd 1968 a group of anti-imperialist protesters took over the Nanterre campus only to be shut down immediately. Demonstrations moved to the Sorbonne where riot police made a number of arrests, leading to them receiving violent backlash. Clearly students were unhappy with their quality of the education and so began to protest for reform, wanting de Gaulle to increase spending as well as increasing the levels of administrative autonomy universities had. A survey showed that found that students had “anxiety about the probability of finding a job related to one’s studies” which may justify why so many were unhappy with the system. However, the unemployment rate stayed below 1.7% between 1960 and 1966 (Malinvaud, 1986) and on November 7th 1968, the National Assembly announced the introduction of the ‘Orientation Act of Higher Education’ which aimed to modernize the university system by granting an increased level of administrative, scholarly, and financial autonomy as well as the introduction of student governing bodies in order to tackle the problems that students highlighted. Yet after the implementation of the act, only 44% of students voted on who they wanted to represent them (Greenberg, 1969) suggesting that the lack of autonomy only bothered a small number of student and that there was a bigger issue at hand. The French government also increased the number of universities from 22 to 65 with around 13 of these campuses being located in the capital, ultimately helping to ease overcrowding which many students saw as a major problem. Although some progress was made in terms of improving the quality of education and increasing the level of self-sufficiency (Fomerand, 1975), the difficulties in finding a job after graduating was still a worry. Students were right to be concerned about the lack of prospects available as the unemployment rate increased to 2.7% by 1972 (which can be accounted for by the increasing number of women working in the labor force). The amount of time spent focusing on improving university standards meant French secondary schools were overlooked leading to falling standards and more protests. Therefore, it could be argued that the flaws within the French education system were a major cause of discontent in university students in May 1968, as their lack of prospects, uninspiring lecturers and overcrowded classrooms would not only affect them while in full-time education but would affect the rest of their working lives, explaining why they decided to demand an improved system.

When assessing the importance of each of the three reasons highlighted, the flaws within the education system seems to be of the highest significance. The dissatisfaction with facilities as well as worries of being unable to find a job after graduation not only heightened the feeling of discontent but pushed students to the point where they felt the need to take direct action. The failing standards in universities would not only affect them but also future generations of academics. If students had not taken to the streets to protest, standards would have stayed exactly as they were which would certainly have taken a toll on the next generation of students and their ability to find a rewarding career linked to their degree. The desire for political reform was important to a certain extent as it did lead to the eventual resignation of Charles de Gaulle however it did not come immediately after the protests. There was no real yearn for a political reform – particularly not in the older generations. Although many people protested, their quick return to work after his re-election suggests it was of limited importance and was not something they felt strongly enough about, therefore the failure to use the opportunity to elect a new leader shows that the desire for political reform was not the most important reason for discontent in university students. Finally, the segregation of men and women in university dorms and their sexual frustrations was of least significance. After universities changed their policies to allow men over 21 to have female students in their dorms, many of those who had protested against gender segregation were happy. However, the fact that many continued to protest against the patriarchy and for the further enfranchisement of women suggests that gender segregation was more so a catalyst for equal rights rather than a main reason for discontent and therefore less significant than failing standards of education and the desire for an overhaul of the political system.

Bibliography

1. Beauvoir, SD. (1949) Le Deuxiéme Sexe, Éditions Gallimard, Paris.
2. Beauvoir, SD. (1972). In: An interview by the Women’s Liberal Movement. Available at: http://hist259.web.unc.edu/womensliberationmovement/
3. Bénéton, P. and Touchard, J. (1993) The Interpretations of the Crisis of May/June 1968. In: The May 1968 Events in France. Palgrave Macmillan, London.
4. Bourg, J. (2007) From Revolutions to Ethics: May 1968 and Contemporary French Thought. McGill-Queen’s University Press, Montreal.
5. Fomerand, J. (1975) Policy Formulation and Change in Gaullist France: The 1968 Orientation Act of Higher Education. Comparative Politics, Volume 8 Issue 1. pp 58-89.
6. Greenberg, D.S. (1969) Nanterre: A Year Later at Campus Where French Student Revolt Began. In: Science. Volume 164, Issue 3885. pp 1261-1264.
7. Malinvaud, E. (1986) The Rise of Unemployment in France. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. Volume 53. Issue 210. Pp 197-217.
8. Pickles, D. (1968) France in 1968: Retrospect and Prospect. In: The World Today. Volume 24, Issue 9. Pp 393-402.
9. Przeworski, A. et al. (1980). The Evolution of Class Structure in France 1901-1968. In: Economic Development and Cultural Change. Volume 28, Issue 4.
10. Reader, KA., and Wadia, K. (1993). Reproductions and Interpretations. In: The May 1968 Events in France: Reproductions and Interpretations. Palgrave Macmillan, London.
11. Rubin, A.J. (2018) May 1968: A Month of Revolution Pushed France Into the Modern World. New York Times, New York City.
12. Wasserstein, B. (2007) Barbarism and Civilization: A History of Europe in Our Time. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
13. Wilson, F. (1969). The French Left and the Elections of 1968. In: World Politics. Volume 21. Issue 4. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
14. Wolin, R. (2017) Events of May 1968. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc. Available at: https://www.britannica.com/event/events-of-May-1968
15. Wright, G. (1975). France In Modern Times. Fifth Edition. WW Norton & Co. New York City.

May 1968 saw some of the largest protests in contemporary French history witnessing a month of demonstrations, university buildings being taken over and economic standstill resulting in a snap legislative election. An article published in The Guardian on May 13th highlighted a number of reasons why these protests had broken out such as a lack of lecturers, the expansion of student numbers, authoritarian regulations and the loss of freedom suggesting that “France [had] only herself to blame…” for the unrest. This essay will analyze three of the reasons: gender segregation in university accommodation, the desire for political reform and flaws within the education system, and determine which of these was of most significance in terms of causing discontent in university students in France 1968.

One reason for student discontent was the segregation of men and women in accommodation. The 1960’s was a period of cultural and sexual revolution inspired by social movement in the US as well as the passing of the Neuwirth Law in December 1967 lifting the ban on contraception. At the university of Nanterre, male and female students were unable to mix within dormitories which groups such as the Union Nationale des Etudiants de France (UNEF) said “epitomized the paternalism of the Gaullist society” (Reader, 1993). This led to the start of protests where male students would camp in female dorms. In January 1968 Minister for Youth and Health, François Missoffe, attended the opening ceremony of the Nanterre campus swimming pool at which he was confronted by sociology student Daniel Cohn-Bendit who asked why Missoffe had avoided the topic of sexual frustration in his newly published book. Missoffe suggested that Cohn-Bendit should take a swim in the new pool to which Cohn-Bendit replied “That’s the kind of answer you would get under a fascist regime” (Ibid.) and is said to be where unrest began. It may be argued that protests were not just students demanding “the abolition of the separation of the sexes in student residences” (Wasserstein, 2017), but more so a sign that the old conservative, patriarchal views on women and sex were causing discontent as well. Literature such as ‘The Second Sex’ (1949) by Simone de Beauvoir, which looked at the disadvantaged position women had been placed at throughout history, would have been a major source of inspiration for women of the time and led to demand for increasing level of enfranchisement as well as equal pay and opportunities within the workplace. However, in the 1960’s gender concerns were fairly low on the agenda with prominent women’s liberation movements only coming into light in the 1970’s. An example of this would be the ‘Mouvement de Libération des Femmes’ which advocated for bodily autonomy, the collectivization of social services provided free by housewives” and equality in jobs (Beauvoir, 1972). Furthermore, these protests led to men over the age of 21 being allowed to have female visitors in their rooms and so the aims of many protesters had been met. It was said that the concept of sex was “only associated with the events of 1968…not because sexuality had become political but because politics has suddenly seemed sexy” (Bourg, 2007). Although the change to university policy appeased a large number of those who had started the protests, many continued to demonstrate which indicates that misogyny and sexism in France were issues that people wanted dealt with quickly and efficiently. Therefore, while it may not have been the most important reason for discontent in university student it was indeed a catalyst for the continued protests for women’s rights which continued into the 21st century.

A second reason for discontent in university students was the desire for political reform. The Fourth Republic began to deteriorate at the end of the 1950’s but former soldier of the French Army, Charles de Gaulle helped amend the constitution which formed the Fifth republic leading to his election in January 1959. In 1968, free press and elections still existed but de Gaulle had begun to control a number of media outlets such as the radio station ‘Europe 1’ and the French National Public Broadcasting Service (ORTF) meaning his government could influence the news which was broadcast to French citizens. Around this time France had also attempted to block the UK entering the Common Market and had withdrawn from NATO. France was now a very conservative state being governed by an authoritarian leader which many people were unhappy with. However, it wasn’t just the students who were dissatisfied; on the night of May 10th 1968 some 40,000 people including workers and members of trade unions such as CGT, CFDT and the FEN had joined students in the Latin Quarter. The use of brute force and violence by French police on the ‘Night of the Barricades’ did not tame the crowds but merely cause more upheaval (Wolin, 2017). By May 13th the number of people protesting had increased to between 750,000 and one million. The protests made it clear that citizens saw the political system as outdated and restrictive therefore it could be argued that the influx of workers and unionists joining the student-led movement solidified the idea that these protests were stance against the current political system regardless of their origins. On May 29th de Gaulle visited leader of the French Army, General Jacques Massu in order to seek support in case protests continued to grow showing that de Gaulle was perhaps scared of a revolution. The next day, de Gaulle dissolved the National Assembly and called for an election to be held on June 30th which would put the power into the people’s hands. If they were content with de Gaulle’s leadership, they would re-elect him; if not they would elect a new leader. Many young students (as well as other activists and working-class citizens) believed the authoritarian regime was ineffective yet many saw de Gaulle as an integral figure who improved the French economic situation. The vote in June saw the re-election of de Gaulle and the UDR indicating that the vast majority of voters didn’t see the need for socio-political reform and were content with the system (Pickles, 1968). The attempt of the leftist students to seek change in conservative France was admirable, yet some may argue that their vision of the French left being in power was entirely based on the success of the communist leaders they idolized such as Che Guevara and Mao Zedong. Although the UDR had won, the defeat of the left should not be used to discredit their efforts in seeking reform which would not only have benefited them, but workers and trade-unionists as well and therefore the failure to take advantage of the opportunity to elect a new leader means the desire for political reform was not the most important reason for discontent in May 1968.

Finally, the flaws within the education system were another reason for increasing discontent in students. Between 1946 and 1968 the French population rose from 40.5 million to 49.7 million with the student population almost trebling (Wolin, 2017). The increasing number of students was not matched with an increase in budget nor resources which saw classes become overcrowded, lecturers scarcely available and worsening conditions. The University of Nanterre was built in 1963 as a solution to overcrowding in the Sorbonne. The campus was in the Parisian suburbs where transport links were unreliable making it difficult for students to get to school. Political meetings were forbidden, facilities were inadequate and there was little autonomy for students. It was said that “Nanterre had become the symbol of all that was wrong with the French educational system” (Bourg, 2007). On May 2nd 1968 a group of anti-imperialist protesters took over the Nanterre campus only to be shut down immediately. Demonstrations moved to the Sorbonne where riot police made a number of arrests, leading to them receiving violent backlash. Clearly students were unhappy with their quality of the education and so began to protest for reform, wanting de Gaulle to increase spending as well as increasing the levels of administrative autonomy universities had. A survey showed that found that students had “anxiety about the probability of finding a job related to one’s studies” which may justify why so many were unhappy with the system. However, the unemployment rate stayed below 1.7% between 1960 and 1966 (Malinvaud, 1986) and on November 7th 1968, the National Assembly announced the introduction of the ‘Orientation Act of Higher Education’ which aimed to modernize the university system by granting an increased level of administrative, scholarly, and financial autonomy as well as the introduction of student governing bodies in order to tackle the problems that students highlighted. Yet after the implementation of the act, only 44% of students voted on who they wanted to represent them (Greenberg, 1969) suggesting that the lack of autonomy only bothered a small number of student and that there was a bigger issue at hand. The French government also increased the number of universities from 22 to 65 with around 13 of these campuses being located in the capital, ultimately helping to ease overcrowding which many students saw as a major problem. Although some progress was made in terms of improving the quality of education and increasing the level of self-sufficiency (Fomerand, 1975), the difficulties in finding a job after graduating was still a worry. Students were right to be concerned about the lack of prospects available as the unemployment rate increased to 2.7% by 1972 (which can be accounted for by the increasing number of women working in the labor force). The amount of time spent focusing on improving university standards meant French secondary schools were overlooked leading to falling standards and more protests. Therefore, it could be argued that the flaws within the French education system were a major cause of discontent in university students in May 1968, as their lack of prospects, uninspiring lecturers and overcrowded classrooms would not only affect them while in full-time education but would affect the rest of their working lives, explaining why they decided to demand an improved system.

When assessing the importance of each of the three reasons highlighted, the flaws within the education system seems to be of the highest significance. The dissatisfaction with facilities as well as worries of being unable to find a job after graduation not only heightened the feeling of discontent but pushed students to the point where they felt the need to take direct action. The failing standards in universities would not only affect them but also future generations of academics. If students had not taken to the streets to protest, standards would have stayed exactly as they were which would certainly have taken a toll on the next generation of students and their ability to find a rewarding career linked to their degree. The desire for political reform was important to a certain extent as it did lead to the eventual resignation of Charles de Gaulle however it did not come immediately after the protests. There was no real yearn for a political reform – particularly not in the older generations. Although many people protested, their quick return to work after his re-election suggests it was of limited importance and was not something they felt strongly enough about, therefore the failure to use the opportunity to elect a new leader shows that the desire for political reform was not the most important reason for discontent in university students. Finally, the segregation of men and women in university dorms and their sexual frustrations was of least significance. After universities changed their policies to allow men over 21 to have female students in their dorms, many of those who had protested against gender segregation were happy. However, the fact that many continued to protest against the patriarchy and for the further enfranchisement of women suggests that gender segregation was more so a catalyst for equal rights rather than a main reason for discontent and therefore less significant than failing standards of education and the desire for an overhaul of the political system.

Bibliography

1. Beauvoir, SD. (1949) Le Deuxiéme Sexe, Éditions Gallimard, Paris.
2. Beauvoir, SD. (1972). In: An interview by the Women’s Liberal Movement. Available at: http://hist259.web.unc.edu/womensliberationmovement/
3. Bénéton, P. and Touchard, J. (1993) The Interpretations of the Crisis of May/June 1968. In: The May 1968 Events in France. Palgrave Macmillan, London.
4. Bourg, J. (2007) From Revolutions to Ethics: May 1968 and Contemporary French Thought. McGill-Queen’s University Press, Montreal.
5. Fomerand, J. (1975) Policy Formulation and Change in Gaullist France: The 1968 Orientation Act of Higher Education. Comparative Politics, Volume 8 Issue 1. pp 58-89.
6. Greenberg, D.S. (1969) Nanterre: A Year Later at Campus Where French Student Revolt Began. In: Science. Volume 164, Issue 3885. pp 1261-1264.
7. Malinvaud, E. (1986) The Rise of Unemployment in France. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. Volume 53. Issue 210. Pp 197-217.
8. Pickles, D. (1968) France in 1968: Retrospect and Prospect. In: The World Today. Volume 24, Issue 9. Pp 393-402.
9. Przeworski, A. et al. (1980). The Evolution of Class Structure in France 1901-1968. In: Economic Development and Cultural Change. Volume 28, Issue 4.
10. Reader, KA., and Wadia, K. (1993). Reproductions and Interpretations. In: The May 1968 Events in France: Reproductions and Interpretations. Palgrave Macmillan, London.
11. Rubin, A.J. (2018) May 1968: A Month of Revolution Pushed France Into the Modern World. New York Times, New York City.
12. Wasserstein, B. (2007) Barbarism and Civilization: A History of Europe in Our Time. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
13. Wilson, F. (1969). The French Left and the Elections of 1968. In: World Politics. Volume 21. Issue 4. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
14. Wolin, R. (2017) Events of May 1968. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc. Available at: https://www.britannica.com/event/events-of-May-1968
15. Wright, G. (1975). France In Modern Times. Fifth Edition. WW Norton & Co. New York City.