IS CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE JUSTIFIED?
“The death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment". 1
“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed individuals can change the world. Indeed, it 's the only thing that ever has."2 History has shown us through the likes of Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. who went against the greater power of their time to fight for injustice. These few respectable men made that difference that the world needed at that time and upheld the very principle of democracy to its roots. It goes without saying that citizen participation to make a country’s democracy as legitimate and true is of paramount
…show more content…
This further proves that such resistance which is against unjust state law and policies are essentially justified.
Non-violence is another imperative feature of civil disobedient acts whereby the act of resistance is done without consideration of any extremist measure such as damaging property or harming other civilians. This element of non-violence corresponds with the public nature of the civil disobedience that are normally undertaken such as peaceful march, candlelight vigil , hunger strike and the famous Salt Satyagraha which was undertaken by Mahatma Gandhi and is deemed as one of the most effective and influential part of his civil disobedience actions in his fight for India`s independence.13
Anna Hazare is another example of an influential figure in India who has adapted Gandhi`s practice and initiated hunger strike movement in India last year to pressure the government to introduce a stringent Anti-Corruption Bill whereby corruption is deemed as the major problem in current India. The Bill was passed due to pressure initiated by the civil disobedience act which was public and essentially non-violent and received international level of support primarily from Indian and non-Indian citizens within the country and in overseas.14 India as the world largest democracy serves as the testament whereby such civil disobedience act ,provided that it is done in certain measures bear
All through history governments and empires have been overthrown or defeated primarily by the violence of those who oppose them. This violence was usually successful however, there have been several situations, when violence failed, that protesters have had to turn to other methods. Non-violent protesting never seemed to be the right course of action until the ideology of Mohandas Gandhi spread and influenced successful protests across the world. Non-violent methods were successfully used, most notably, by Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Nelson Mandela.
Civil disobedience is necessary if citizens see (and believe) that their leader is turning their leadership into oppression. In Gandhi’s case, he led a march to the Indian Sea in response to the British trying to take over India and dominate every aspect of these people’s lives. The point is, Gandhi’s reasons for disobedience was justifiable. He saw that Great Britain was trying to change their lifestyle, take away their wellbeing, and did something about
One popular example of peaceful resistance to our laws is the Rosa Parks incident. Parks peacefully disobeyed the segregation laws which required her, and other people of color, to move to the back of the bus in order for white people to have the front seats. When Parks broke the law, she also made a statement. She had harmed no one, and done no harm to any property. All she did was refuse to move to the back of a bus. Her act of disobedience prompted the skepticism of segregation laws and helped prove the fact that just because something is lawful, does not mean it is moral and just because
Throughout history, people's opinion on how the government should govern has shifted back and forth. Some men think that it should be all ruling and powerful, while others think that it should have a very menial role in society. One of the men that thought it should have a menial role in society was Henry David Thoreau and he made that evident in his document called Civil Disobedience. Thoreau believed he was simply asking for a "better government" but in reality he was stirring up the thoughts of many others. Thoreau's opinions are presented in a clear, strong, powerful, convincing and intelligent manner,
Civil disobedience has been an act practiced by free societies across the globe. It has been a highly controversial topic in the Unites States over the years, as some believe the so-called "peaceful resistance" exemplifies too much defiance to the government. However, most believe that performing civil disobedience exercises many rights incorporated in the Constitution. Civil disobedience positively impacts a free society by allowing its citizens to express their opinions in a matter which draws the attention of the government, and heightens public awareness.
Throughout history, violent reformation movements were traditionally used, but non-violence has been proven just as effective. Gandhi was one of the first to use peaceful resistance and civil disobedience to successfully change India. Civil Disobedience is the active refusal to obey laws set by the government with Nonviolent resistance and respectful disagreement. He used this concept to fight off not only the colonial rule but also racial discrimination and social divisions such as the untouchables in society. Mohandas Gandhi was born in India in 1869. At the age of 19 he went to London to study Law and he was impressed by English laws.His ambition to gain India's independence of all class, wealth, and educational distinction was successful.
What is civil disobedience? Civil disobedience is the opposing of a law one finds unjust by refusing to follow it and accepting the consequences. So many people have performed acts of civil disobedience from Martin Luther King Jr. to everyday people. But what people did as civil disobedience a hundred years ago is completely different today. It is such an important part of a free society because it helps to define what a free society is, shows the true meaning of freedom of speech, and shows the government that citizens are not willing to follow an unjust law without violence.
Civil Disobedience is classified as the refusal to comply with certain laws or to pay taxes and fines, as a peaceful form of political protest. This idea was brought into focus in the essay “Resistance to Civil Government (Civil Disobedience)” by American transcendentalist Henry David Thoreau. Thoreau’s opinion on the subject was that the government was involved in everyone’s business, trying to make the country better yet they had the opposite effect. His opinion was that there is a need to prioritize one’s conscious over the dictates of law. Though there are many things that Thoreau touches on, the three main issues that he discussed were The Mexican war, slavery, and the taxes that he was protesting against.
Civil Disobedience is remarkably effective without the violence that many had thought necessary. Several famous examples include the Salt March of Mahatma Gandhi, the Civil Rights movement of Martin Luther King Jr., and even the sit-ins of the factory workers during the industrial revolution. Although, many still argue that civil
America was founded on a principle of civil disobedience. With the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the Founding Fathers set forth a powerful precedent. The Declaration said in part, that when institutions of government becomes destructive or abusive of unalienable rights, it is the right of the people to alter it or to abolish it. The history of our nation tells us that civil disobedience is a civic responsibility, and in the alleged words of Thomas Jefferson, “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism”. From the Boston Tea Party to the Stonewall Riots, the United States Constitution and advances in racial, social, and gender equality support the idea that peaceful resistance positively contributes to a freer society, and a more equitable America.
Gandhi's choice to suspend the common noncompliance development as concurred under the Gandhi-Irwin Pact was not a retreat, in light of the fact that:
Civil disobedience is a form of political participation because it is a way make others see that change is wanted. In the Constitution it says “the right of the people peaceably to assemble”. The Constitution gives the people the right to protest, assemble peacefully, to oppose a law, and to criticize a law. Civil disobedience is the best way to show that you don’t agree with a law, government, or there is something you would like to protest.
A weakness of democracy is the “Tyranny of the Majority”. This is an inevitable pitfall, because in a democracy, the power is vested foremost in the people the constituting the society itself. Alexis de Tocqueville wrote on this concept:
one essential conviction, expressed in the word democracy itself: that power should be in the hands of the people. Although democracy today has been slightly inefficient in this idea, with the wealthy, elite class challenging this right, “it nevertheless claims for itself a fundamental validity that no other kind of society shares….” To completely understand the structure of democracy, one must return to the roots of the practice itself, and examine the origins in ancient Greece, the expansion in the Roman Empire, and how these practices combined make what we recognize as today’s democratic government.
Additionally, in more precarious democratic governments such as India’s, peoples right to power is still recognized. Ronojoy Sen remarks of India’s 2009 elections that, “a handful of successful professionals and entrepreneurs even ran”(cite). Despite implying that only successful peoples were exercising their liberties, elucidated in this article is the potential of any citizen to attain political power, demonstrating true liberal democracy in its purest form. Communism does not give its people these liberties, the party is the “agent for creating political development” (Janos, pg. 2) and there is little need for elections as the outcome is pre-determined. In the case of Nazism, while Hitler utilised democracy to attain power, once in control democracy was replaced with autocracy.