Civil Disobedience

Last updated: June 20, 2016

When is it justifiable for protesters and activists to break the law for the sake of their cause?

Civil Disobedience
Yes because...

Even in democracies, we only have a chance to have a say in how the country is run every four years ...

Even in democracies, we only have a chance to have a say in how the country is run every four years or so, and then only indirectly by voting for a political party. This is insufficient for the opinions of the people to be heard properly, and in certain circumstances civil disobedience is a powerful method of making the will of the public count if it is being ignored. Against powerful interest groups who dominate politics through their financial muscle and control of the media, civil disobedience is also the only way to get attention for a cause.
No because...
In a democracy civil disobedience cannot be justified. National elections take place regularly, and governments are accountable and can be changed. Members of the public who are unhappy can always lobby their representative or protest within the law, for example by organising marches, petititions, advertising campaigns, or even running candidates of their own for election. All these provide ways of changing laws and policies without the need for deliberate law-breaking.

Civil Disobedience
Yes because...

Not every just cause can be pursued through the courts (e.g. the campaign for Indian indepence). No...

Not every just cause can be pursued through the courts (e.g. the campaign for Indian indepence). Not every democracy has a written constitution or charter of rights, appeal to which allows the courts to override the will of the legislature (for example, the UK does not). Even in cases where a case could theoretically be taken through legal channels, the courts are often controlled by the same political elite as the government, and there is no guarantee of justice. And in any case, challenging an unjust law in court requires civil disobedience. Someone has to break that law deliberately, in order to be arrested and prosecuted for it, so that the case arrives in court in the first place.
No because...
Most democracies also allow appeal to the courts against laws which are obviously unjust. If the law can be shown to be in conflict with the country’s constitution or charter of rights, then courts can usually overturn it. People who are unhappy with such a law should take their struggle to the courts, rather than taking to the streets and undermining the rule of law itself.

Civil Disobedience
Yes because...

If a certain law is oppressive it cannot be opposed in principle but obeyed in practice out of conce...

If a certain law is oppressive it cannot be opposed in principle but obeyed in practice out of concern for legality - it must be broken. Not to do so implicates us too in repression. National laws cannot be the ultimate authority - men and women are also under higher laws. It was established in the Nuremberg trials that sometimes international laws must override national ones. Many Christian thinkers (such as Martin Luther King) and other philosophers have argued that the law of God, or “natural law” is paramount, and that national laws which do not accord with it are unjust and should be resisted. Even under the theory of social contract, the state can be resisted if it becomes oppressive and so breaks its side of the contract.
No because...
We must obey the law even if we think it is wrong, or anarchy will result. The widely-held idea of the “social contract” teaches that by living under a state we accept the benefits it brings us (for example protection, health care, education, etc.), and by accepting these benefits we consent to its laws. If individuals placed their own values, whatever they are based upon, over the collective laws of the state, the state would dissolve and none of its benefits would be available to any of us.

Civil Disobedience
Yes because...

Civil disobedience has a history of overcoming oppression and unpopular policies where all other met...

Civil disobedience has a history of overcoming oppression and unpopular policies where all other methods have failed. For example, Ghandi’s civil disobedience was instrumental in winning liberty for India, and Martin Luther King’s tactics won basic rights for black people in America. In 1998 rioters in Indonesia successfully protested against the despotic system of government that existed under the Suharto regime. In all of these cases there was no other avenue open to redress grievances; law breaking, whether Ganhdi’s non-violent marches or King’s encouragement of the burning of rate books, was the only way to protest effectively.
No because...
Peaceful protest is quite possible in any society, and there is no need to go further into actual law breaking to make a point. For example, the ‘Carnival against Capitalism’ in London in 1999 descended into self-indulgent violence and destruction of property in the city, achieving nothing but notoriety for its cause. The racist attacks on the Chinese in the Indonesian riots also demonstrate how civil disobedience can break down into lawlessness, and indeed can be counter-productive by associating the cause with terror and violence. Some historians argue that the illegal activities of the suffragettes in the UK in the early 20th century actually set back their cause.

Civil Disobedience
Yes because...

In actual fact, it is the conflict with the authority that gives the protest its power and urgency, ...

In actual fact, it is the conflict with the authority that gives the protest its power and urgency, and brings an issue to a wider audience. The suffragettes, the civil rights movement and the anti-Apartheid struggle are all examples of an eventually successful cause that won by its confrontation with authority, where more sedate methods would simply not have succeeded. In all these cases, any violence against people was not initiated by the protesters, but began because of the heavy-handed and violent response of their oppressors.
No because...
Too often civil disobedience involves ‘productive violence’ directed against innocent members of the public, or against the police, often causing serious injuries. The Broadwater farm riots and the miner’s strike are both instances where groups have injured or killed policemen. Animal rights activists and anti-abortion campaigners have also been noted for their violence in the past. No cause is worth the sacrifice of innocent lives; protest must be peaceful or not at all.

Civil Disobedience
Yes because...

Given a choice, anarchy is to be preferred to despotism. But this is a false choice, as in the real...

Given a choice, anarchy is to be preferred to despotism. But this is a false choice, as in the real world campaigns of civil disobedience have not led to the breakdown of law and order generally, or the collapse of the state. Those who advocate civil disobedience are usually careful to set boundaries on their actions, setting out what kind of disobedience is justified and what is unjustifiable. Martin Luther King, for example, held that justice demanded that unjust laws (i.e. segregation laws) be broken, but that just laws (e.g. against trespass, violence against property or the person) must be upheld.
No because...
Even if a particular cause is just, those promoting it should not break the law. By doing so they set an example of illegality and contempt for law and order which others, with less worthy causes or no cause at all, will follow. Winning a change in the law is worthless, if obtaining it has destroyed the ability of the state, its police and its courts to uphold any law, just or unjust.


1
Continue the Debate - Leave a Comment

1 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
1 Comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of