The images from Geneva are impossible to ignore. Thousands have flooded the streets, voices raised against the G7 summit, banners demanding everything from climate action to debt cancellation. The air is thick with tear gas and the sound of chants. But as the world watches these clashes, a quieter story is unfolding: the British approach to protest policing is being held up as a model. This is not about jingoism. It is about a fundamental cultural shift in how we view public order, and what it says about our societies.
Let’s be clear. Protests are a sign of a healthy democracy. But the question of how the state responds reveals volumes about its character. In Geneva, scenes of riot police charging crowds, water cannons, and mass arrests have drawn sharp criticism. Meanwhile, UK officials are being praised for their handling of similar summits. Why? Because British policing has largely moved away from the confrontational, militarised approach still favoured in some other nations. There is an emphasis on dialogue, on de-escalation, on tolerating disruption within reason.
This is not to say British protests are perfect. There have been controversies. The heavy-handed kettling of demonstrators in the past, the use of counter-terror powers to monitor activists. Yet the consensus among many observers is that the Met and other forces have learned. They have accepted that a protest is not an enemy to be defeated but a fact of life to be managed. That is a profound cultural shift.
Consider the human cost on both sides. In Geneva, we see young activists with bleeding heads and pensioners choking on gas. There is a trauma that lingers long after the cameras leave. In the UK, while tensions still run high, the default is often negotiation. Officers will speak to organisers, agree routes, allow sound systems to a point. The goal is to facilitate expression, not suppress it. That requires a different kind of police officer – one who is more social worker than soldier.
Why does this matter beyond the streets of Geneva? Because it speaks to how we as a society define order. Is order the absence of dissent, or the peaceful management of dissent? The British model suggests the latter. It acknowledges that a truly stable society is one that can absorb anger and tension without shattering. It is a lesson in class dynamics too. Historically, British protest movements were treated with suspicion, especially those from working class or minority communities. The shift to a more inclusive approach is a recognition that everyone has a stake in the conversation.
Of course, this approach has its limits. The state must still draw lines. Violence against people or property cannot be tolerated. But the emphasis should always be on enabling legitimate expression. The UK is not perfect, but it offers a template. For Geneva, and for other cities that will host future summits, the message is clear: listen first, shoot only as a last resort. The cost of getting it wrong is not just in property damage but in trust, in the very fabric of our civic life.
So as the tear gas clears and the banners are folded, let us remember this. How a government treats its protesters is a window into its soul. And right now, Britain can say with some pride that its window shows a more humane, more thoughtful picture than many others.
