The view that demonstrations should speak with “one voice” is rather undemocratic

Yesterday, in several cities in the Netherlands academics and students protested against budget cuts on higher education. A substantial part of the demonstrators also wants to use this opportunity to draw attention to the ongoing genocide in Gaza. But what exactly is the connection between them?

First, it needs to be explained that our extreme right government is planning to cut a billion euros on higher education in the next years. The main reason is that this government simply hates academic freedom and accessible education. But it also wants to significantly raise the defense budget.

Moreover, the Dutch army spends a substantial part of this budget to purchase weapons and other equipment from Israeli war manufacturers. Israeli weapons are popular among many armies in the Global North – in part, because they are marketed as “fully battle-proven.”

The Dutch government has also continued to ship fighter yet parts to Israel, in defiance of a court ruling. In short, there clearly are connections between this government’s choice to cut on education on the one hand, and its unconditional and uncritical support for the Israeli state.

However, as students and staff members have continued to raise these issues in the context of (protests against) budget cuts, they have also been met with strong resistance from within their own ranks. Critics argue that any ‘additional’ demand will only detract from the movement’s own issue.

Many seem to think that those participating in a demonstration should not only share the same basic demands (i.e. “no budget cuts”), but also for the same reason. But this evinces a flawed understanding of social movements, which are always based on coalitions between various groups and agendas.

What is more, this widespread view that demonstrations should speak with “one voice” also betrays a rather undemocratic idea of protest. There are many ways to phrase a particular, shared demand – from a plurality of perspectives, experiences, agendas and identities.

A movement that can accommodate different groups with various grievances or world views, that can foster debate and contestation within its own ranks, is usually strongest. As we are facing climate change, war, growing inequality, and the extreme right on the rise, we need that kind of movement.

Mathijs van de Sande

(This article was published first as a thread on Bluesky)