Image source, AFP via Getty Images
A wave of protests floods several countries in Europe.
In France, demonstrations began over demands to improve education. In Spain, the eviction of the elderly Maricarmen from the house in which she lived rented for decades, unleashed another movement with people camping out for weeks in Madrid's central Puerta del Sol. And in Italy, young people and unions are also protesting against the country's "war economy."
Portugal, Belgium, Albania.
The list goes on and on.
The protests that began two years ago in Serbia have also taken a turn in recent months. In September, the country's president, Aleksandar Vucic, resigned and, in early elections this week, the veteran leader conceded defeat to a student movement.
In some cases, as was seen in Paris a few days ago and this Saturday in Germany, some of the protests turned violent.
What motivates these mobilizations? What makes them different?
BBC Mundo interviewed Yanina Welp, political scientist, expert in the study of democracy, political participation, parties and social movements.
End of Most read
The academic is also a senior researcher at the Albert Hirschman Center on Democracy in Geneva, at the Geneva Graduate Institute (Switzerland) and is also a Research Professor at the University of Girona (Spain).
image copyrightYanina Welp
All the news you need is on BBC World Service
Download it here
End of Ad app
We are seeing a wave of protests, of different types, in several countries in Europe: France, Italy, Serbia, Spain. Do they have something in common?
Yes they have it. But, also, let's look with historical perspective. There are waves of protests about every 10 years, and we can see it in Europe and beyond.
Between 1999, 2000 and 2001 we had the protests of the anti-globalization movement, which began in Seattle and expanded. In 2010, 2011 and 2012 there was the indignant movement, Occupy Wall Street.
More or less at the same time, the Arab Spring occurred, which responded to a different context. In 2017 the yellow vests began (in France) and, shortly after, in 2019, in Ecuador, Chile, Colombia, and around the world, student movements took to the streets. And, now, we can talk about this new wave that has Europe as its epicenter.
So the questions are always: what do they have in common? How much imitation is there?
In sociology, studies on social movements show that there are usually elements in common when protests like this occur in a more or less delimited space.
There are similar contexts and actors. Although, later, they get complicated.
And what do these specific ones have in common?
The most general label, the common umbrella, would be the loss of capacity of the welfare state in the European context.
In France and Belgium the trigger for the protests was due to the conditions of education; In Spain and Portugal, housing is at the center, although in Spain there are also demands for education.
When we see them and go deeper into them, there are common elements that have to do with this crisis or weakness of the welfare state and with young people, I would say, as the main affected, both in the present and in their future prospects.
image source, Andreas SOLARO / AFP via Getty Images
Are mostly young people protesting?
Taking the previous tour, we can go even further back, to the French May (in 1968), which had its epicenter in France, but also manifested itself in other places, such as China or Mexico. That is a year of youth protests around the world.
The same thing happened with the fall of the Berlin Wall. Young people are usually the protagonists, along with unions, where they exist and are strong.
Because of their enthusiasm, their ability to dedicate time, they tend to mobilize more. Although this is not always the case by default. For example, the 2019 protests in Ecuador, their origin is in the indigenous movement.
Although youth is a central actor, it is not the only one and in any protest that is sustained over time we will see that more actors join.
Because, furthermore, one thing is protest, going out into the streets and demonstrating, which is very reactive, and another thing is obtaining demands and being able to transform them into demands to which the political system can respond. And then we can also ask ourselves if the political system wants to respond. And how will you respond.
How do these types of movements appear?
We must distinguish between the trigger, what lights the fuse, and the conditions.
Sometimes there are structural conditions and the question is: why does no one protest if this is so bad?
Until, suddenly, Maricarmen is evicted. Then the neighboring country or the neighboring cities say: 'we can't take it anymore either.'
So there you have a wave. It is not that it is imitation by magic, no, the conditions were given and something was missing that would operate as a trigger.
image copyrightGustavo Valiente/Europa Press via Getty Images
How feasible is it that the current movements within Europe will be able to achieve their demands in relation to the crisis of the welfare state?
We are in a time of extreme pessimism from which we must escape, because politics is always the possibility of change. It is also true that in general the demands are very radical and the achievements are always minor, when they exist.
But there is always a way out.
Although there is a certain trap in European politics in which it is said that young people have less weight in aging societies, we know that, when there are (electoral) emergencies, they mobilize. In the case of young men, they do so for the radical right and, against the radical right, women.
But in general the political system tends to give answers to those who have more electoral weight.
What is happening now is that there is great intergenerational inequality with different dimensions, including political influence. And that is putting a lot of strain on the current system.
Regarding generational inequality, has it always been like this or is there an even bigger gap?
I think it has grown a lot due to the confluence of processes of different kinds. For example, for a working family 40 years ago it was possible to take out a mortgage and buy an apartment in 10 years. Now that is completely impossible. The relationship between capital and labor has changed and inequality has expanded enormously.
On the other hand, there have been successive educational reforms that have made it increasingly more expensive to study courses that are shorter, but then you have to go to a master's degree, you have to pay for the master's degree.
There are also sociodemographic changes that make young people, in political terms, lose weight and capacity to influence. And everything makes intergenerational inequality increasingly pronounced.
image source, Kiran RIDLEY / AFP via Getty Images
Do you see anything different in these protests compared to previous waves?
A novelty that we have seen not only in Paris, but also in other places, is that a way of implementing repressive policies that was not so strong 10 or 15 years ago, and that was not well regarded, has been legitimized.
And it looks even aesthetically. You can see how local police have been armed. In the City of Buenos Aires, for example, the equipment that the local police have are suddenly like something out of a movie, there is an overreaction of what order implies.
This, of course, penalizes protest, which is a right, and saying that protest is a right has nothing to do with legitimizing violence.
In fact, saying that protests legitimize violence removes from the negotiating table or the possibility of dialogue a series of demands that are much larger and that transcend that violence, which also exists, and against which we must act.
Just showing violence disqualifies them. It is extremely problematic.
And furthermore, now, everything that happens anywhere in the world is understood in a domestic key and the protests are read in places in Latin America as "this is what the left is going to bring us if it triumphs", for example, 'they are going to burn everything'.
But the dynamics of protest, the actors, the institutions, have a lot of specifications that do not respond to that.
What do you think is due to this escalation in the visibility of the use of force?
To make it short: to the extreme toxic polarization that we are experiencing.
image copyrightVeronique de Viguerie/Getty Images
These protests, which are demands for improvement of the welfare state, appear in a context in which Europe's political pendulum swings to the right.
It is complex because, for example, part of Marine Le Pen having real opportunities to lead the Executive in France is related to the fact that she began to talk about the welfare state. But with the concept of a chauvinist welfare state, that is, only for "the French."
Yes, like Vox in Spain with its "national priority."
Clear. There are actors who directly reject the welfare state, but the situation is not so linear. There is a kind of complete break between right and left around issues linked to the welfare state, but I would say that what currently divides these groups most is the anti-immigration policy in sectors of the extreme right and what they call the "cultural battle", more than the welfare state itself.
Nobody dares to speak against the welfare state, as Milei does in Argentina, because they know that this would take away a lot of votes.
These protests, these social movements that are emerging in Europe, who can they benefit and who cannot?
When we have a process of this type, the outcome depends on how each person plays their cards.
If you look at France, I think it's the most prominent example. Right now, Jean-Luc Mélenchon is with the people protesting, and Marine Le Pen is with the police.
The first thinks "this is going to give me electoral returns", the second, "the fear of disorder is going to give me electoral returns". Who is going to win? It depends on how it evolves. But, it is clear that, in the case of France, the one who has everything to lose is Emmanuel Macron.
Although, back to the violence, the constant bombardment about this benefits the right, fearful of disorder. But, if the message gets through that we cannot continue living like this, political systems have to respond to young and old, and there will be more opportunities for the left.
Politics is a constant movement, we live in a process where there is greater acceleration, less reflection and more impact, and that really weakens the capacity for democratic deliberation.
Who is going to win? We don't know. Yes, we could make scenarios and see how likely it is that one thing or another will happen. But, luckily, politics leaves some room for uncertainty and agency.
image source, Andrej ISAKOVIC / AFP via Getty Images
Is there any formula to get out of this pessimism that seems to reign right now, not only in Europe, but in something more general?
First of all, I think we must aim to be more autonomous and critical in relation to the information we receive.
I say this a lot to my students. They are very young, they come with that narrative of 'this is a disaster'. Well, let's have a little perspective. I was born and, shortly after, there was a dictatorship [in Argentina]. It is not the same as comparing a dictatorship with a government that I do not like at all.
On the other hand, I think that some sectors benefit from promoting this narrative of catastrophe, against which it seems that we can do nothing. But you can always do things, always. I think we have to get out of that relative passivity and act.
We also have to get out of the hyperlocal narratives, because it makes us think that, since things are so graceful, we can't do anything. But in our environment we can do a lot. And many "environments" doing things change the world.
So, I guess there is nothing new under the sun. It is about recovering full awareness of what politics entails, what change entails.
And also, again, some criticism and more common sense when evaluating where we live and how we live. With this narrative that we cannot be worse, be careful, because we can be worse. Much worse.
Discover more
Video
End of Video
