73 Countries, Over 120 Uprisings: What Global Unrest Means for Your Wealth

There is a number worth remembering. The Carnegie Endowment, one of the world's most respected foreign-policy think tanks, counted over a twelve-month period at least 120 significant anti-government protests in at least 73 countries — the most since 2017. Not isolated demonstrations, but large, in some cases government-toppling movements, across all continents.

For most people this is one news item among many: images of burning barricades from distant capitals, forgotten the next day. For anyone who owns wealth, it is something else. For the saver, global unrest is what a falling barometer is to the sailor: not the storm itself, but its reliable harbinger. For instability is historically the phase in which states reach for the measures that hit their citizens' wealth hardest — capital controls, bank closures, wealth levies.

This dossier puts the situation in context. It shows the scale of the current protest wave with hard data, not with moods. It names the drivers fuelling it. And it draws the line that no news broadcast draws: from unrest in the streets to the question of how reachable your wealth remains, when protest becomes instability and instability becomes state access.

Part I — The numbers

Let us begin with the facts, and from serious sources, not from the rumour mill.

The Carnegie Endowment systematically tracks anti-government protests worldwide with its "Global Protest Tracker." Its finding for the past twelve months: at least 120 significant protests in at least 73 countries — the highest level since 2017. As the primary trigger Carnegie identifies state corruption, followed by anti-democratic developments and economic hardship.

The analysis house Maplecroft, specialised in political risk, goes a step further and looks ahead: based on the frequency and intensity of protests over the last twelve months, it expects civil unrest to be even more disruptive in 2026 than in 2025. Especially alarming for wealth holders is a second finding: in 53 countries attacks on commercial property have increased — protests increasingly target private and commercial property too, with damages in the hundreds of millions. Maplecroft ranks the US as one of the biggest risk hotspots, with the sharpest increase in protest size within a year.

The Munich Security Conference too struck a dark tone in 2026: its annual security index bore the title "Under Destruction" and examined the effect of political movements that aim at destruction rather than reform. Across the surveyed G7 states, only a small share of people still believed their government's policies would leave future generations better off.

Three independent, serious sources, the same picture: unrest is increasing, it is broadening, and it increasingly hits property too.

Part II — The world map

Numbers stay abstract. A look at the map makes tangible how broadly the wave runs.

Asia. India, the world's most populous democracy, recorded the most demonstrations worldwide according to the conflict monitor ACLED — driven by farmers, by autonomy demands in the Ladakh region, and by disputes over social legislation; a Gen-Z-shaped movement played a central role. Indonesia, the most populous Muslim country, saw protests over the economy and corruption.

Europe. In France protests against education cuts began in September 2025 in poorer Paris suburbs and spread nationwide to around 140 cities. In Belgium students took to the streets in October 2026 against education reforms and budget cuts; in Italy, Ireland and Germany too protests over soaring university costs were called. Greece, Slovakia and Romania saw sustained, in part recurring protest waves.

Africa and Latin America. A wave of Gen-Z-led protests filled the streets of capitals around the globe and in several cases brought entire governments down — among others in Nepal, Madagascar and Peru; in the Philippines corruption allegations drove the movement, in Madagascar extreme poverty and lack of access to water and sanitation. In Kenya protests over rising living costs gained momentum.

What stands out: these are not a handful of unstable states. They are democracies and dictatorships, rich and poor countries, large and small — simultaneously. On 1 May 2026 internationally coordinated protests took place, from Washington to Paris. The movement has become, for all regional differences, a global phenomenon.

Part III — The drivers

Why now of all times, and why so broadly? The analyses name a remarkably consistent set of causes.

Living costs and inflation. By far the most frequent driver. Risen prices for energy, food and housing hit broad layers. Rising energy costs in the wake of geopolitical conflicts aggravated the situation further.

Austerity. From France through Spain to Chile and Belgium, protests target savings programmes — cuts in education, the public sector, social benefits. It is the classic constellation: highly indebted states try to save, the population bears the burden, the street reacts.

Inequality and corruption. The feeling that the burdens are unfairly distributed and the elites help themselves runs through almost all movements. Carnegie names corruption as the main driver.

A new generation and new tools. Much is carried by young people who organise themselves lightning-fast via social media — across borders, without classic parties or unions. That explains the simultaneity across continents.

These drivers are not new, but they reinforce one another, and in no serious forecast do they point downward. Maplecroft warns expressly that a rising share of protests could turn violent and, combined with growing political polarisation, escalate into more dangerous unrest.

Part IV — Why unrest and wealth are connected

Now to the decisive line that is never drawn in the news coverage. What does a student protest in Brussels or a hunger riot in Nairobi have to do with the account of a German saver?

The answer lies in a historical pattern. Unrest destabilises; instability threatens the currency and state finances; and threatened states reach, to protect the system, for their citizens' wealth. Not out of malice, but out of logic: when capital threatens to flee and trust fades, the fastest lever a state has is access to what lies in the country and in the banking system.

History is full of examples, and they are all documented, no speculation:

• Cyprus 2013: At the height of the crisis, the decision fell over a weekend to convert bank balances above 100,000 euros partly into shares — at the Bank of Cyprus around 47.5 percent. The banks stayed closed for twelve days, capital controls accompanied the island for about two years.
• Greece 2015: Overnight the banks closed, cash machines dispensed only 60 euros a day, capital controls were imposed and only fully lifted in 2019.
• Argentina 2001: In the "Corralito" bank accounts were frozen, withdrawals limited to small weekly amounts, dollar balances later forcibly converted into devalued pesos.
• Iceland 2008: After the banking collapse the country imposed capital controls that remained in place for almost a decade.

In each of these cases a phase of instability preceded the crisis — economic, often also social and political. And in each case the measure hit what was visible and recorded in the system: accounts, deposits, balances in the national currency. Whoever had positioned their wealth more broadly beforehand remained able to act; whoever held everything at one point was at the mercy of events.

Unrest is not the cause of these measures. But it is the environment in which they become more likely. The more countries are unstable at once, the greater the risk that protest becomes economic hardship and economic hardship becomes the grab for wealth.

Part V — Property in the crosshairs

There is a second, more direct connection between unrest and wealth, and it is new in its breadth.

The Maplecroft finding that attacks on commercial property have increased in 53 countries marks a shift. Protests no longer target only governments, but increasingly visible private and commercial property — shops, buildings, businesses. Damages run into the hundreds of millions, plus business interruption. In Europe, according to Maplecroft, protests are not only growing in size but also damaging private property more frequently.

For the wealth holder this means: not only the account is exposed, but also physical, place-bound property at the site of the unrest. A property, a business, a warehouse cannot be brought to safety over a weekend. What stands at the crisis centre shares its fate.

This is the uncomfortable insight behind the news images: wealth that is locally and systemically bound to a single, possibly unstable point carries the full risk of that point — whether through state access from above or the street from below.

Part VI — The intensification in Europe

One might object: all this concerns distant, anyway fragile countries. Yet the data show the development is moving closer.

Maplecroft names Europe and the US expressly as regions where the seeds of unrest are taking root. The protests in France, Belgium, Spain, Greece are no footnotes, but mass movements that shake governments. The growing political polarisation — named by the Munich Security Conference as a defining feature of the era — raises the risk that protest becomes escalation. And the economic basis is everywhere the same: high state debt, pressure to save, rising living costs.

Precisely this constellation — high debt, social tension, fading trust — is the one from which, historically, wealth levies and capital controls have emerged. The International Monetary Fund has already calculated that a one-off wealth levy of around ten percent would suffice to return the euro area's debt ratios to pre-crisis levels. That is not a forecast but an official calculation — and it lies in the drawer, for the day the pressure is great enough.

Part VII — What this means for your wealth

From this follows no panic, but a sober attitude. No one can say whether and when unrest crosses a particular threshold. The question you can influence is another: how strongly does your wealth hang on the fate of a single place, a single system?

The logic is the same as with any risk diversification — only applied to the question of access rather than of return:

• Wealth that lies entirely domestically, in one currency, in one banking system, carries the full risk of that one system — with capital controls from above as with unrest from below.
• Wealth spread across more than one place, more than one jurisdiction, more than one form, is more resilient against the failure or access of a single point.
• Decisive is the distance to the crisis centre: not geographic flight, but the question of whether part of the wealth lies outside the reach of the most endangered system — legal, declared, but not bound to a single point.

That is the core: unrest is the barometer. It does not say the storm is coming, and certainly not when. But it is the signal to check whether one's own wealth is positioned for bad weather — while the barometer is only falling and the storm is not yet here.

Part VIII — Frequently asked questions

Are 120 protests in 73 countries really exceptional? Yes — according to Carnegie the highest level since 2017. Maplecroft expects a still more disruptive situation in 2026 than in 2025.

Doesn't this concern only unstable countries? No. France, Belgium, Spain, Greece and the US are expressly on the list; Maplecroft names Europe and the US as risk regions.

How does a protest in Nairobi connect to my account? Not directly. But unrest is the environment in which states historically reach for capital controls and wealth levies — Cyprus, Greece, Argentina, Iceland. The broader the instability, the higher the risk.

Does this mean I should move my money out of the country? Not necessarily. It means first: check whether everything hangs on a single system. Distribution and distance to the crisis centre are the goal — legal and declared.

Isn't this pure speculation? The protest figures come from Carnegie and ACLED, the risk assessment from Maplecroft, the historical cases are documented, the IMF calculation is official. Speculative is only whether and when — not the pattern.

Conclusion — the falling barometer

An experienced sailor does not run below deck in panic when the barometer falls. But nor does he ignore it. He secures the cargo while the sea is still calm.

Over 120 uprisings in 73 countries, the most in almost a decade, a risk forecast expecting still more for 2026, and a historical pattern that links instability with the grab for wealth — that is a falling barometer. It does not say the storm will reach your wealth. It says now is the time to secure the cargo.

The honest question is therefore not whether unrest will one day stand at your door. It is: how much of my wealth hangs on the fate of a single place, a single currency, a single system — and for which part could this dependence be smaller?

---

Sources: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, "Global Protest Tracker" (at least 120 significant protests in at least 73 countries, highest level since 2017; corruption as the main driver); Maplecroft, civil unrest outlook 2026 (more disruptive than 2025; attacks on commercial property in 53 countries; US as a hotspot); ACLED (protest data, India); Munich Security Conference / Munich Security Index 2026 "Under Destruction"; 2026 May Day protests; country examples France/Belgium/Spain/Greece/India/Indonesia/Kenya/Nepal/Madagascar/Peru/Philippines. Historical cases: Cyprus 2013; Greece 2015; Argentina 2001 (Corralito); Iceland 2008. IMF Fiscal Monitor (one-off wealth levy of ~10 %).