People in the street, chanting, barracading, marching to the beat of the same drum. People occupying buildings, boats, forests and roads, chaining themselves to the nearest stationary object. People refusing to work, withdrawing their labour from the market. From the placid holding of hands at a "sit-in" to the linked arms and screaming of a confrontation with armed forces, protests are a way of unifying voices of discontent and anger. They're strength in numbers. They're about being seen and they're about being heard. But, these days, is anyone really listening? And, if they are, does this mean they'll do anything about it? While it may seem that the glory days of People Power are over, some recent events have shown that protest still has the power to change the world we live in, even if its just one step at a time.

For those who marched against the invasion of Iraq, it might be hard not to feel that the days of a protest leading to the desired result are gone. Literally tens of millions of people took to the streets of cities around the world and yet the invasion still went ahead. I personally felt as much hope - or lack of - protesting French nuclear testing in the Pacific in 1996 ("Fark Jark Chirark!") as I did marching against Iraq in 2003 ("One, two, three and a bit, George Bush is full of shit!"). It felt good, sure, and I would've felt terrible had I not done it, but where, I thought at the time, will this lead? Will Jacques Chirac give a merde about some Tasmanian students skipping classes? Does Bush even know where Melbourne, Australia is? Has the impact of protest, now a fixture of modern life, been lessened? Are people basically over it? The difficulty with protest, or "non-violent conflict" is that it is very difficult to gauge the effect and effectiveness of any given protest. The desired result of this conflict is not a concrete one, like territory or resources, but an abstract one: the changing of minds. How then do we measure the success or otherwise of this?

Both Greenpeace and Amnesty International's websites make claim to success in "raising awareness" and "influencing decision-makers" but few, if any, specific decisions that have been made in their favour are cited. The "Day Without Immigrants" on May Day of this year was large in its scope; that all immigrants in the US go on strike, stay home from school and buy nothing for one day to demonstrate how reliant the US is on immigrants' contribution - but the jury is still out about its final effect. While some claimed it effectively quashed a proposed legislation to treat not only illegal aliens but also those who aide them as felons, others felt it only added fuel to the flames. The "we're-better-off-without-them-anyway" attitude was out in force, on blogs, radio talk-shows and the conservative media. Members of congress were even sent bricks in the mail; an unsubtle hint that they wanted an anti-immigrant wall built sooner rather than later.

In hindsight, things seem simple. We can now clearly credit the Gandhi-led non-violent protests with building the road that led to Indian Independence. We can also credit the Martin Luther King Jnr-led protests such as the "Long Walk Home" of 1955 with the civil rights victories for African-Americans. We can even attribute the many and varied anti-Vietnam protests around the world with influencing the various governments to finally pull out of that war. It seems that "People Power" once had such force that it could even bring a country to its knees. The 1968 May protests and extended general strikes in France were so profound and far-reaching that large reforms followed and a whole generation was named after this one event alone. Those who were there and involved are now known as "soixante-huitards" or "68ers", a term used variously with pride or derision but always with nostalgia.

A remembrance of idealism and activism lost. But it need not be only the stuff of nostalgia. In more recent history, the 1986 and 1989 peaceful revolutions of the Philippines and Czechoslovakia respectively were also clear examples of victories over oppressive regimes by means of taking to the streets.

In March this year we were reminded of the potential changing power of protest when millions of French students and striking workers took to the streets against a proposed labour-reform legislation they felt to be potentially exploitative. The protests continued over several weeks and involved cities all over the country, uniting and dividing opinion in equal measure. They disrupted universities and day-to-day life and were such a display of united outrage that many excited comparisons were made to 'May '68'. And finally, not only did the protestors get what they wanted - the legislation was eventually withdrawn - but the mass opposition to the legislation is considered to have fatally wounded its instigator, Dominique de Villepin, in his chances for the presidential campaign next year. All this just from shouting and carrying on a bit (not a huge stretch for the French, it has to be said).

If the French example can remind us of the power of large-scale organised protest, let us not forget the smaller victories. In London, November 2003, a small group of people marched outside a shoeshop on Camden Street to protest the sale of Caterpiller boots, objecting to the fact that this company also made tanks and bulldozers used by the Israeli army against the Palestinians. It was as simple as it was effective. After some singing and dancing, the manager of the store pulled the product from its shelves and penned a letter to Caterpiller explaining why. Thinking globally and acting successfully locally. If only it were always so simple, so sure of a result.