NAIROBI, Kenya – A constitution can promise freedom. An election can bring a new government to power. A court can declare that a citizen’s rights have been violated. Yet, across parts of the world, people are still taking to the streets to demand what the law already guarantees them.
From Kenya’s Gen Z-led demonstrations against taxation and police brutality to the disputed election protests in Tanzania, the long-running struggle over public services in South Africa and the recent unrest in France, a common question is emerging: What happens when citizens lose faith that the institutions meant to protect them will listen?
For generations, the fight for democracy was often framed as a struggle to remove dictators, end one-party rule and establish elections. Today, the challenge is more complicated. Many countries have constitutions, parliaments, courts and regular elections, but citizens continue to question whether those institutions are sufficiently accountable to the people they serve.
The result is a striking paradox of modern governance: citizens may have more formal rights than previous generations, yet feel compelled to protest to make those rights meaningful.
The streets have become a place where citizens challenge taxation, demand accountability for deaths in police custody, oppose corruption, defend public services and insist that political leaders honour their promises.
This is not evidence that every country is becoming a dictatorship, nor that every protest represents the will of an entire population. It is, however, a warning that democracy cannot survive on constitutional language and election-day participation alone.
Democracy Has Changed, But The Struggle For Accountability Remains
For much of modern history, authoritarian governments restricted political opposition, controlled public debate and suppressed demonstrations. Democratic movements challenged that model by demanding competitive elections, civil liberties, independent courts and limits on executive power.
The expansion of democratic institutions during the late 20th century created expectations that governments would increasingly be constrained by constitutions and held accountable through formal institutions.
But democracy is more than the existence of a ballot box.
It requires citizens to be able to criticise their leaders without fear, courts to operate independently, police to respect the law, legislatures to scrutinise the executive and public institutions to respond to the needs of the population.
The distinction matters because a government can win an election and still face serious questions about how it exercises power between elections.
Freedom House’s Freedom in the World 2026 report found that global freedom declined for the 20th consecutive year in 2025. Fifty-four countries experienced deterioration in political rights and civil liberties, while 35 recorded improvements. The organisation also reported that only 21pc of the world’s population lived in countries rated Free, compared with 46pc two decades earlier.
The findings do not mean that democracy has disappeared or that all countries are following the same trajectory. They do show that democratic institutions and freedoms cannot be assumed to improve automatically with time.
For citizens, this creates a difficult reality. The existence of rights on paper does not necessarily guarantee their protection in practice.
When parliamentary petitions appear ineffective, when allegations of police abuse remain unresolved, or when elected representatives seem insulated from public pressure, citizens may turn to demonstrations as another means of demanding accountability.
The question then becomes whether the streets are complementing democratic institutions or exposing their failure to respond.
Kenya: When The Constitution Meets The Reality Of Power
Kenya’s experience illustrates this tension particularly clearly.
The Constitution of Kenya, promulgated in 2010 after years of political struggle and demands for reform, established a comprehensive Bill of Rights and provided mechanisms through which citizens can challenge violations.
Article 37 states: “Every person has the right, peaceably and unarmed, to assemble, to demonstrate, to picket, and to present petitions to public authorities.”
Article 22 allows people to institute court proceedings when rights have been denied, violated, infringed or threatened. Article 23 empowers courts to grant remedies for violations of the Bill of Rights.
These provisions reflect an important constitutional principle: citizens are not merely subjects of government. They are rights holders who can question the exercise of public power.
Yet Kenya’s protest history reveals the gap that can emerge between those guarantees and the experiences of people seeking to exercise them.
The Finance Bill Protests Changed The National Conversation
In June 2024, thousands of Kenyans, many of them young people, took to the streets to oppose the Finance Bill 2024, which proposed additional tax measures amid widespread concern about the cost of living.
The demonstrations grew from online mobilisation and public opposition to a broader challenge to government accountability, taxation and the use of public money.
On June 25, protesters entered Parliament as legislators approved the Bill. The government subsequently withdrew the proposed legislation following the protests.
The demonstrations came at a significant cost. Human Rights Watch reported that security forces abducted, arbitrarily arrested, tortured and killed people perceived to be leaders of the protests between June and August 2024. The organisation also documented allegations of unlawful detention and the use of lethal force.
Amnesty International’s assessment of Kenya’s human rights situation in 2025 reported that at least 60 people had been killed during the 2024 anti-Finance Bill protests.
The significance of the protests extended beyond the immediate tax proposals. They brought questions of public participation, government accountability and the relationship between taxation and public services into the national debate.
Taxation is a legitimate function of government. States need revenue to finance roads, hospitals, schools, security and social protection. But citizens also have a legitimate interest in how that money is collected, allocated and spent.
When people believe that the financial burden placed on them is not matched by transparency, accountability or improvements in public services, a fiscal debate can become a broader dispute over the social contract between the government and the governed.
The Finance Bill protests demonstrated how quickly that dispute can move from formal public participation to mass mobilisation.
They also revealed the risks involved when peaceful demonstrations are met with unlawful force, as alleged and documented by human rights organisations.
Saba Saba: A Historical Demand For Democracy Returns To The Streets
On July 7, 2025, Kenyans returned to the streets to mark Saba Saba Day, the anniversary of the pro-democracy demonstrations of July 7, 1990.
The original Saba Saba movement challenged one-party rule and demanded political pluralism at a time when opposition to the government carried significant risks.
The return of mass demonstrations on the same date decades later reflected the enduring significance of public protest in Kenya’s political history.
But the 2025 demonstrations were also marked by deaths, injuries and arrests.
Amnesty International Kenya and other members of the Police Reforms Working Group reported that, by July 11, at least 38 people had died and more than 500 civilian and police injuries had been recorded. The coalition called for investigations into alleged unlawful killings, excessive force and other abuses. These figures were reported by the organisations involved and should be distinguished from any final, independently established casualty count.
The events raised a fundamental question about constitutional democracy: how can a country commemorate the struggle for political freedoms while citizens continue to allege that those freedoms are being violated?
The right to protest is not a licence to loot, assault people or destroy property. Equally, the presence of violent individuals does not remove the rights of peaceful demonstrators or justify indiscriminate punishment.
A democratic state must distinguish between peaceful dissent and criminal conduct, investigate offences impartially and ensure that the use of force complies with the law.
That distinction is central to the credibility of both the police and the institutions responsible for oversight.
The Death Of Albert Ojwang And Renewed Anger Over Police Accountability
In June 2025, the death of blogger and teacher Albert Ojwang in police custody triggered fresh demonstrations and renewed scrutiny of police conduct.
Human Rights Watch reported that Ojwang had been arrested by plainclothes officers on June 7 and taken to Nairobi’s Central Police Station, where he died the following day. The organisation cited an autopsy report indicating that he had allegedly died as a result of torture.
His death became a rallying point for people demanding accountability for alleged abuses by security officers.
Reuters also reported demonstrations following Ojwang’s death and the anniversary of the 2024 Finance Bill protests. The protests were accompanied by clashes, property destruction and allegations of unlawful police shootings. Reuters reported that murder charges had been approved against six people, including three police officers, in the Ojwang case; the accused pleaded not guilty.
The distinction between an allegation, an arrest and a conviction is important. Accountability requires investigations that establish what happened, identify individual responsibility and allow cases to be determined through due process.
But the broader public concern is equally important: if citizens believe that people who die in state custody will not receive justice, confidence in the institutions responsible for protecting them can deteriorate.
This is one reason protests can continue even after a government announces reforms or promises investigations. Citizens may demand evidence that those commitments are being implemented.
Taxes, Fuel Costs And The Everyday Economics Of Protest
The demands driving demonstrations in Kenya have also been shaped by the cost of living and concerns over household finances.
Taxes, fuel prices, transport costs, food prices and access to healthcare affect how people experience government policy in their daily lives.
Fuel costs, for example, can affect the price of public transport, agricultural inputs, goods distribution and household expenditure. Tax changes can influence disposable income and the cost of essential goods. When these pressures accumulate, citizens may view them not as isolated economic questions but as evidence of a wider failure to respond to their needs.
However, each protest has its own immediate trigger, and claims about particular fuel-price demonstrations or their causes should be assessed against the relevant dates, policy changes and organisers’ stated demands.
The wider pattern is that economic grievances can become questions of political legitimacy when people feel they are carrying a disproportionate burden or lack meaningful influence over decisions affecting them.
Kenya’s experience since 2023 shows how concerns over living costs, taxation, police conduct and public accountability can overlap, creating a protest movement whose demands extend beyond any single policy.
Tanzania: What Happens When Elections Lose Public Credibility?
Kenya’s protests have largely centred on taxation, accountability and police conduct. Tanzania’s 2025 election-related unrest illustrates a different route through which public anger can challenge the legitimacy of political institutions.
Following Tanzania’s October 2025 election, demonstrations erupted amid allegations that the electoral process was unfair and concerns over the exclusion of prominent opposition candidates.
The Associated Press reported that opposition candidates from the two main opposition parties had been barred from running, leaving incumbent President Samia Suluhu Hassan to face candidates from smaller parties. Demonstrators demanded that the electoral authorities stop announcing results they considered lacking credibility.
The unrest was accompanied by clashes between protesters and security forces, a nationwide internet shutdown, curfews and the deployment of the military.
The United Nations reported credible information indicating that at least 10 people had died in the demonstrations, according to the AP report. The actual toll and circumstances surrounding individual deaths require careful verification.
The events illustrate why elections alone cannot guarantee public confidence in democracy.
An election is not simply a procedure for counting votes. Its legitimacy also depends on whether candidates can compete meaningfully, voters can make informed choices, opposition parties can organise and electoral complaints can be considered through credible mechanisms.
When significant sections of the public believe those conditions are absent, disputes over an election can move beyond courts and electoral commissions into the streets.
That does not mean every allegation of electoral fraud is proven, or that violence is justified. It means credible electoral institutions and transparent dispute-resolution processes are essential to preventing political disagreements from escalating into a crisis.
Tanzania’s experience also highlights the risks of restricting communication during unrest. Internet shutdowns may limit the spread of rumours, but they can also obstruct access to verified information, hinder documentation of alleged abuses and make it harder for families and communities to communicate.
A state seeking to restore public confidence must therefore demonstrate not only its capacity to maintain order, but also its willingness to protect civil liberties and allow independent scrutiny.
South Africa: Democracy Tested By Unmet Promises
South Africa presents another version of the same tension.
The end of apartheid in 1994 established a constitutional democracy founded on equality, political rights and the protection of human dignity. Its Constitution and Constitutional Court have become important safeguards against abuses of public power.
Yet the country continues to experience frequent protests over basic services, including housing, electricity, water, sanitation and refuse collection.
Freedom House’s assessment of South Africa describes a vibrant protest culture in which demonstrations over shortcomings in public service delivery are common, although some turn violent. The organisation also notes that freedom of assembly is constitutionally protected and generally respected.
Research discussed by The Conversation in August 2025 described how service-delivery protests had become a prominent feature of post-apartheid public life. The analysis noted that such demonstrations have sometimes involved road barricades, marches to government offices and property destruction.
The South African case demonstrates that the presence of democratic institutions does not automatically resolve inequality or guarantee reliable public services.
For residents without dependable water, electricity, sanitation or adequate housing, the constitutional promise of equality can feel remote from everyday life.
The protests are therefore not necessarily demands to abandon democracy. In many cases, they are demands that the democratic state fulfil its existing obligations.
At the same time, destruction of property and violence can undermine the rights of other residents and businesses, while creating additional costs for communities already facing hardship.
The challenge is to ensure that public frustration leads to effective accountability and service improvements rather than cycles of confrontation that leave the underlying problems unresolved.
France: When Public Services And Living Costs Ignite Unrest
France is often associated with established democratic institutions, competitive politics, a strong legal system and a long history of protest.
But its experience demonstrates that even mature democracies can face serious public-order crises when economic pressure, political division and distrust converge.
On October 17, 2026, nationwide demonstrations over rising living costs and declining public services were accompanied by widespread looting, vandalism and clashes with police in several French cities.
Y News reported on October 18 that the unrest had left one demonstrator dead following a cardiac arrest, hundreds of police officers injured and nearly 1,800 people arrested. The report also described damage to public buildings and shops, as well as a large number of arrests in Paris.
In a televised address on October 18, President Emmanuel Macron condemned the violence and announced a review of whether intelligence gathering or police preparedness had failed. He also called for students, teachers, lawmakers, trade unions and business representatives to develop proposals addressing the crisis.
The protests exposed several competing pressures: rising prices, concerns over public services, public safety, political polarisation and the government’s need to control public debt.
France’s experience is not identical to Kenya’s or Tanzania’s. The countries have different political systems, institutions and protest histories. In France, the immediate demonstrations were driven by domestic economic and public-service grievances, while Tanzania’s unrest centred on electoral legitimacy and Kenya’s recent protests have included taxation and alleged police abuses.
Nevertheless, all three cases raise questions about how governments respond when citizens lose confidence in the political process.
France also offers an important reminder that the right to demonstrate and the right to public safety must be protected together. Peaceful protesters should not be treated as rioters simply because they participate in a demonstration, while those responsible for violence should face lawful and proportionate consequences.
A government can condemn disorder and still be required to investigate whether its own security preparations were adequate.
The Common Thread: Rights On Paper, Accountability In Practice
These examples reveal different forms of democratic tension, but several themes recur.
First, citizens increasingly expect governments to justify major decisions affecting their livelihoods. Taxation, public spending, healthcare, education and employment are no longer viewed only as technical matters for officials and legislators. They are subjects of public scrutiny.
Second, people expect institutions to investigate alleged wrongdoing regardless of the rank or political connections of those involved.
Third, citizens are using digital platforms to organise, share evidence and challenge official explanations. This can help expose abuses and widen participation, but it can also spread misinformation and make it harder to distinguish verified evidence from unsubstantiated claims.
Fourth, protests can become a substitute for institutional accountability when citizens believe their concerns are being ignored.
That last point is especially important. Demonstrations can force governments to reconsider unpopular policies, as Kenya’s Finance Bill episode showed. But protests alone cannot sustainably replace independent courts, effective legislatures, transparent public finances and accountable police services.
If every major policy dispute requires mass mobilisation before officials respond, the deeper question is whether the ordinary channels of democratic accountability are working as intended.
Have Citizens Become The Enforcers Of Their Own Rights?
The phrase captures a real dilemma, but it needs qualification.
In a constitutional democracy, citizens are not expected to surrender their rights to the goodwill of political leaders. They have a legitimate role in demanding accountability through elections, petitions, peaceful demonstrations, journalism, civil society and court proceedings.
In Kenya, Article 22 explicitly provides routes for people to seek judicial enforcement of rights, while Article 37 protects peaceful assembly and demonstrations. These are complementary mechanisms, not competing ones.
Protest becomes particularly significant when other mechanisms appear inaccessible, ineffective or unresponsive.
But citizens should not have to choose between exercising their rights and protecting their lives. Nor should the burden of enforcing constitutional guarantees fall exclusively on people who are willing to face arrest, injury or death.
Governments have an obligation to uphold the law. Police have a duty to protect life and maintain public order lawfully. Courts must be able to review alleged violations independently. Legislatures must scrutinise the executive, and oversight bodies must investigate credible allegations of misconduct.
Where those responsibilities are neglected, public demonstrations can become a powerful means of demanding that institutions fulfil their mandates.
The challenge is to translate the pressure generated in the streets into durable institutional change.
Why Democracies Cannot Afford To Ignore Peaceful Protest
Protests are not always representative of an entire population, and the loudest voices at a demonstration do not automatically speak for every citizen.
Nor are all protest demands necessarily compatible with one another. Some demonstrators may prioritise lower taxes, others better public services, and others accountability for alleged abuses by security agencies.
Democratic governments must therefore listen without assuming that every demand should automatically become policy.
The appropriate response is to examine the evidence, engage affected communities, explain decisions transparently and provide credible avenues for resolving disputes.
Where allegations of unlawful killings or excessive force arise, independent investigations and fair judicial proceedings are essential. Where economic grievances dominate, governments should explain their fiscal choices and demonstrate how public resources are being used. Where election results are disputed, credible and accessible dispute-resolution mechanisms are necessary.
A government that treats every demonstration as a threat risks criminalising legitimate dissent. A movement that treats every political disagreement as proof that democratic institutions are beyond repair risks weakening the very safeguards citizens need.
The objective should be to preserve space for peaceful disagreement while ensuring that both public authorities and protesters remain accountable under the law.
Democracy Is More Than Removing A Dictator
The central lesson from Kenya, Tanzania, South Africa and France is not that democracy has failed everywhere. It is that democracy is a continuing process whose quality depends on how power is exercised and challenged.
Removing a dictator or establishing competitive elections can be a historic achievement. But the work does not end there.
Citizens must be able to demand explanations for taxes, challenge abuses of power, obtain reliable public services and seek justice without having to risk their lives to be heard.
Constitutions must operate as practical limits on government authority, not simply documents celebrated during national anniversaries. Elections must provide meaningful choices. Courts must offer remedies. Public institutions must be transparent, and security agencies must remain accountable to the law.
When people repeatedly take to the streets to demand these things, the question should not simply be why citizens are protesting. It should also be what has prevented ordinary democratic institutions from resolving their grievances.
That is the real test of a constitutional democracy: not whether it can survive a protest, but whether it can respond to legitimate demands without violating the rights it exists to protect.
A democracy is not measured only by the freedom to choose leaders. It is also measured by whether citizens can hold those leaders accountable after the votes have been counted.