The education demonstration on 25 November in The Hague was a success and managed to move politics to some extent. How different things turned out during the protest on 14 November in Utrecht: this demonstration was cancelled due to threats of violence from a group of pro-Palestine protesters. An example of how the right to demonstrate can be undermined by violence.
Shortly before, it became clear that violent protests against the war in Gaza in May caused 4.1 million euros in damages to the University of Amsterdam. This is money the university now has to cut from its education and research budgets – in addition to the government cutbacks that the Utrecht protest had aimed to oppose.
“Those who commit violence provoke violence”, wrote Erasmus. He referred to the words of Jesus Christ, who said that those who take up the sword will perish by the sword. The Christmas season invites reflection, and one thing that has stood out to me recently is that the use of violence is increasingly being accepted. By protesting farmers or violent climate activists, by anti-vaccine demonstrators or pro-Palestine activists: from right to left, some activists thought that violence was legitimate in their demonstrations. Particularly appalling were the raids against Jewish people in Amsterdam in November. It seems as though violence is becoming more normalised and is being seen as a part of protest movements.
The use of violence is not progressive but conservative: in countries where violence is commonplace, it is often progressive people who are its victims. Demonstrations are a part of democratic debate and should therefore take place in full openness, not hidden behind masks. After the riots, the chair of the Executive Board at the University of Amsterdam engaged in talks with people whose faces were covered. The message he sent was wrong: that violence can pay off as a way to achieve political aims. In my life, I have participated in many actions and often sought to push boundaries – that is part of the right to demonstrate. However, the use of violence is not and should never be accepted.
Erasmus’s opposition to violence was not naïve idealism or soft pacifism but stemmed from his experiences during a time of war and religious strife. For the philosopher, avoiding violence was essential to living in freedom. It is important for people to fight for what they hold dear, and it is understandable when they believe other views must give way to their cause. What cannot be condoned is the notion that violence may be used in such struggles, as this jeopardises the freedom of everyone.
If everyone uses violence to assert their own righteousness, Erasmus argued, no one will prevail because violence begets more violence. Rather than strengthening the right to protest, violence undermines it. Acts of violence can render the peaceful exercise of our democratic rights impossible. I hope that 2025 will be a year full of protests. Protests, too, against those who seek to hijack demonstrations through violence.
