I’ve been on my share of peaceful protests – they should be part of any mature democracy

From anti-apartheid vigils to the massive marches against the Iraq War and Brexit. All were well organised and good-humoured – with professional and disciplined policing, writes Vince Cable

‘The next level up in provocation to authority are the protests involving passive resistance and obstruction but which are non-violent’ (AFP via Getty Images)

Democracies define themselves by their toleration of protest and the right to assemble and demonstrate. They do so because it is right to tolerate dissent – and because peaceful protest defuses tensions that might otherwise find more violent expression. Autocracies hate protest because it challenges their authority and may lead to their demise.

That simple distinction often does not survive contact with the real world. There are semi-democracies and semi-autocracies. There are peaceful protesters on one hand, and violent demonstrators and provocateurs on the other. Among them are varying degrees of tolerance for policing, and among the public varying degrees of tolerance for disruption. That is the murky world opened up by Priti Patel’s Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill.

The bill gives the police additional powers – beyond public order and other provisions – to ban or break up demonstrations which are deemed too “disruptive”: causing too much “disturbance”, including too much noise. In judging our response to the bill, we need to look not just at the history of British policing; but to the role demonstrations have recently played in marking the limits of democracy in the United States, Myanmar, Belarus, Russia, Hong Kong, Nigeria, India and elsewhere.