Across the globe, many polities are currently marked by the eruption of ‘direct action’ campaigns: for environmental protection; for peace; and  against racial, gender, and class inequality. People march, demonstrate, disrupt, occupy, and boycott. They typically justify these actions as a legitimate response to the failures of political authorities. They also present their actions as an authentic form of ‘direct’ or ‘participatory’ democracy. Political elites sometimes tolerate these campaigns and selectively incorporate their demands. Increasingly, however, they seek to restrict the scope for ‘direct action’, and to portray ‘direct action’ as a threat to legitimate order, and as a violent assertion of minority interests.

Conflicts around ‘direct action’ and ‘democracy’ have a long history, seldom referenced in contemporary political argument. In this lecture, I trace that history, from the 1890s until the present. This helps to establish that the tension between insurgent protest and formal authority is not new. It also establishes that the prevailing meanings of ‘direct action’ and ‘democracy’ have changed over time, as each has shaped the other. An historical perspective also suggests a practical conclusion: attempts to limit and restrict protest threaten the vitality of democracy, along with its capacity for renewal.