A crowd of people moving in orderly fashion from A to B to express a political opinion.
A protest march looks a lot like an army, albeit a rather disorganised one. People move in rank, carrying banners like military standards.
In the past, when long distance communication was difficult, marches enabled people from remote areas to express their opinions to their
rulers.
It was also, I suspect, a veiled threat of
violence or even
revolution. The size of the crowd would give an indication of the popularity of the cause, both to the
rulers and to bystanders who might or might not be sympathetic. A show of strength, rather like the displays of
ritualised aggression common in the animal kingdom.
Sometimes the
rulers sent the
army to attack the crowd. Sometimes they gave in to the demands of the protesters out of fear. Rulers do not like to be seen as weak. Fair, democratic, benign, paternal, ruthless, yes. But not weak. Many
protesters don't like to admit that they would ever use threats and intimidation to get their way. The result: a myth, propagated by
rulers and
protesters that simply walking peacefully through the streets of a major city can achieve political change. Marches are more likely to pass peacefully, if the
protesters achieve their aims. Not vice versa.
Ghandi showed that it is possible to be a
pain in the ass to those in power, without using violence. This is
progress. He was a
pain in the ass though. This is also known as
civil disobedience. Being a
pain in the ass without using
violence was the original aim of
reclaim the streets.
Protest marches are likely to be physically attacked by the authorities if:
1) The
rulers have successfully suppressed free speech to such an extent that the protesters are introducing an ignorant public to a
subversive but
attractive idea. In extremely
repressive societies, the majority of ideas are
subversive and
attractive.
2) The
rulers suspect (rightly or wrongly) that some of the protesters are intent on violence.
rulers sometimes suffer from
paranoia.
3) The protesters are a non-violent
pain in the ass. e.g they may be deliberately obstructing a road. The best method is to provoke the protesters to violence, attack them, and then blame them for everything.
Nowadays, most protest marches in Britain are pre-arranged months in advance, and their organisers consult with the police over routes, timings etc. so as to minimise disruption. Opinion polls make it possible for democratic
rulers to estimate the strength of opinion for or against a particular policy, and the likelihood of it swinging an election. They do not need to see a large crowd of people voicing that opinion.
The modern day protest march is often a way for protesters to let off steam. It often suits the
rulers, because their political opponents are engaged in something time consuming and largely pointless. The
protesters may be able to get their opinions to a wider audience, but there are easier and better ways to do this. Often they end up
talking to themselves, also known as
preaching to the converted. This is known as
civic action.
I once went on a
CND march to
RAF Fylingdales, a remote military base on the
North York Moors, involved in the
star wars program. Several hundred
CND members turned up, listened to speeches and sang
"We shall overcome". Two women chained themselves together in front of the gates. This was opposed by many in the crowd, who felt that this behaviour would damage the cause. Afterwards, they all went home. The outside world knew nothing about it.