Key Insights From Global Protests Amid Los Angeles Unrest

This week in Los Angeles, images of protesters hurling rocks and police deploying tear gas have reflected scenes similar to recent clashes between demonstrators and authorities worldwide.

Public outrage erupted in Los Angeles following a series of immigration raids initiated by the previous administration last Friday. In response to escalating protests, federal authorities deployed the National Guard and military forces. By Tuesday, approximately 700 Marines and 4,000 National Guard troops were expected to be stationed in the city.

Social scientists specializing in protests, politics, and law enforcement note that the developments in California align with a familiar pattern observed internationally. Typically, peaceful protests face strong government crackdowns, which often escalate into violent confrontations. In some cases, governments have exploited civil unrest as justification for increased authoritarian control.

Below are three critical lessons drawn from international protest movements that help explain the dynamics currently unfolding in Los Angeles.

1. Government Crackdowns Influence Public Perception and Protest Momentum

When authorities suppress demonstrations, the resulting images circulated through media and social platforms heavily influence public understanding of the events.

Such visual narratives play a pivotal role in either legitimizing government actions or generating public sympathy for protesters.

According to political experts, harsh repression can foster empathy for demonstrators by portraying the state as an oppressive force unjustly restricting free expression.

However, this effect can be mixed. Violent reactions from protesters, such as property damage or clashes, can shift public opinion in favor of the authorities.

Since most observers are not present at protests, their views are largely shaped by the most widely shared images, which may emphasize violence even if the majority of the protests remain peaceful.

Experts emphasize that controlling the protest narrative requires strong organizational structures within movements, which spontaneous uprisings often lack. For example, protests in Honduras following a contested 2017 election struggled to overcome negative portrayals when demonstrations turned violent, limiting their international support.

2. Aggressive State Responses Often Intensify and Expand Protests

Repressive government tactics tend to provoke further violence and increase protest participation, transforming focused grievances into broader social movements.

As one expert explained, when protesters face gas or force, their instinct is to defend themselves, which can escalate confrontations.

Moreover, crackdowns often broaden the scope of dissent. For instance, Colombia’s 2021 protests began as opposition to a tax reform but grew into a widespread campaign against police brutality following violent state repression.

Similar patterns have been observed globally, with harsh responses linked to hundreds of deaths in Mozambique last year and numerous arrests during protests against citizenship laws in India in 2019.

3. Repressive Measures Can Serve as Foundations for Authoritarian Consolidation

The use of force against protest movements can provide authoritarian governments with opportunities to weaken democratic institutions and extend their control.

By violating established norms, governments project power and can then justify further crackdowns on political opposition and civil society.

A clear example is Hong Kong, where after a year of protests and escalating tensions, Beijing imposed the National Security Law in 2020. This legislation significantly curtailed the region’s autonomy, outlawed pro-democracy groups, and restricted freedom of expression.