Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedIs civil disobedience just in a democratic society?
Results so far:
| Just | 82% | 56 votes | Total: 68 votes | |
| Unjust | 18% | 12 votes |
Just
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesAlthough Democracy is held to be the best form of government yet devised ( at least in the 'West'), it is not perfect. Neither are the voters, nor the politicians. For these reasons, individuals and groups may, from time to time, need to show dissent.
In modern democracy we, the people, devolve to our elected representatives the right to exercise power over us for the common good. We accept that the will of the majority shall prevail in choosing these representatives and that the policies which follow will be those desired by that majority. So much for the theory!
In practice, it can happen that 'the majority' abuses its power to ensure the return of politicians who favor one group unreasonably at the expense of another. Consider the issue of racial segregation in the southern USA before the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. When Rosa Parks showed civil disobedience on that bus all those years back, it can hardly be argued that it was SHE who was being unjust! Democratic society had conspired to oppress an entire race for nearly 100 years since slavery had been ended and in the end it was civil disobedience which provided the momentum to force change.
The Protestant/Loyalist majority in Northern Ireland used its political dominance to visit injustice upon the Catholic/Republican minority. It was all perfectly 'democratic', but it can now be seen to have been clearly unjust. Although civil disobedience in this case became swept up in the IRA's terror campaign, civil disobedience played an important part in the struggle which has finally brought peace, greater equality and a semblance of normality to Ulster.
These two examples argue powerfully for the justness of civil disobedience, even in democratic societies, when the 'common good' is not promoted but is supplanted by narrow, sectional, intersets. This is not the only justification though.
In delegating power to our politicians, we place temptation in their way. Some are better able to resist it than others. Lord Acton (1834-1902) perceptively observed that, 'Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely'. For this and other good reasons there are regular elections in democracies at which the people can remove their representatives if they see fit. In the interim, however, politicians can diverge from the promises they made. New problems can emerge. Even unwise or unpopular wars can be entered into (Vietnam and Iraq by the USA, Suez and Iraq by Britain for examples). If citizens see their politicians attempting to force through unpopular policies for which they have no mandate, they have a right to express their opposition and, if ignored, to oppose them through civil disobedience if they feel strongly enough. Anything less leaves them languishing under what is, effectively, an elective dictatorship.
People in positions of political power tend to attract ( and be attracted to ) the rich and the famous. For some strange reason, these people imagine they are worth more than one vote and often try to use their positions to skew government policies in ways not desired by the general public. Consider the power of the 'media barons' ( no names, but an Australian-American comes to mind!). IF people see policies not conducive to the 'common good' resulting, why should they not show dissent? The impact of professional lobbyists, too, is generally pernicious in a democracy. It is rare that they put the 'common good' above vested interests.
For all these reasons, it should be considered that civil disobedience can be just even in a democratic society. The mere awareness, in the minds of politicians, that civil disobedience can erupt within society when power is abused and vested interests are put ahead of the common good or the clear will of the people, is surely one of the most powerful and important checks on any tendency of the rulers to forget whom they serve.
Learn more about this author, Mark Hopkins.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Unjust
The democratic state is fundamentally predicated upon an implicit contract between the government and the people. Individuals sacrifice their absolute liberty in exchange for the state's insurance of social liberties. I lose the right to punch my neighbor just as he loses the right to punch me. Under this agreement, it is each individual's obligation to obey the laws of the state.
Moreover, a nation in which individuals were justified in disobeying any law they personally held to be unjust would rapidly descend into anarchy. Regulations are inherently disagreed with by the regulated, else the regulated would not take those actions in the first place. For example, drug-abusers don't find their actions morally wrong, else they would not take them. As such, all laws would be disobeyed by exactly the population they were intended to regulate.
Finally, ignoring law undermines democratic government. Participation in civic life is vital precisely because that is the accepted avenue for reform. If every group could disobey all laws they disagreed with, elections and democracy would become superfluous and so collapse.
My opponent argues that disobedience spurs change by highlighting the problem and checks abuse by an oppressive majority. However, he overlooks two facets of modern democracy. First, lawful alternatives exist. Groups who feel wronged can seek recourse by suing through the judiciary. The courts are not elected by the majority and so are free from popular power. Moreover, critical Supreme Court cases are much more able to attract widespread publicity than a single crime. Even failed appeals spur massive reform. The court's decision against Dred Scott ignited a renewed wave of abolitionism that legislated against the blight of slavery. Second, majority and minority groups are always shifting. Modern politics no longer runs single-issue candidates. Instead, political parties and alliances are built upon multiple issues. As such, even a pro-choice democrat can win in a conservative state by focusing on other issues such as the economy.
Ultimately, civil disobedience is nothing more than a fancy term for unjust and unnecessary law-breaking. It is an excuse to do whatever one pleases, at the grave cost of social order and democracy itself. It foreshadows a return to barbarism and anarchy. There is nothing civil about disobedience.
*The above article is a general case presenting arguments for one side of a debate. It is not a holistic representation of the author's personal views.
Learn more about this author, Larik Sonfar.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Political & Economic Theory
- Is there a unique American mission in the world today?
- Is capitalism and the free market system best for America?
- Does the Federal Reserve control the US economy?
- Should nations unite to provide a stable, single currency to all people?
- Is government secrecy compatible with democracy?
- Should the United States abandon the Federal Reserve?
