Civil Disobedience

Perhaps I am old fashioned, or better yet, perhaps I am an idealist, but I believe in the system of government outlined and created in our nation’s earliest document: the declaration of independence. Perhaps I also believe in the American spirit, and I do not mean the extremely nationalistic, kill the terrorists, take what we want kind of American spirit of today. No, I mean the spirit that lead people to come to this land, and when that was not enough, to come together as a nation of individuals, a veritable patchwork quilt, and found a country that suited them. Americans are supposed to be dissenters, truth seekers, and individuals, and we created a government by Locke’s philosophy, which is a government which exists at the discretion of the people. But I do not believe that only Americans are this way, no, I believe that this spirit resides in all human beings, I believe it is part of the very soul of all humanity, a spirit that gives human beings the audacity to venture forth from their smoky caves into the outside world and establish themselves in the way they see fit. It is this spirit that lead men like Thoreau to pen the words: “The Only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at anytime what I think is right.” I would like to put quotation marks on that second “right,” because Thoreau does not mean right as in what one individual believes to be right, he is referring here to the moral right. I believe this is what the act of civil disobedience is founded on: the moral right, and every individual’s obligation to uphold it. I believe civil disobedience is justified, if not a requirement, in situations where grave injustices are being committed in the name of law and governance.
John Rawls, in his essay The Place of Civil Disobedience in a Constitutional Democracy, provides us with a definition, and justification for the act of civil disobedience. Based on his essay, we may say that an important element to civil disobedience is respect. Respect in the sense that a governed minority is asking for respect and understanding from the majority; respect of the legal system; and respect for the rights of others. These are the key principles for the conducting of civil disobedience.
The first respect principle refers to the reason for using civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is justified as a last resort. It is to be conducted only after all legal measures have been conducted. This builds legitimacy for the movement. After taking grievances to the judicial system, through the polls, to the streets (in nations where such actions are protected by law), then, finally civil disobedience might be used. Parties using civil disobedience should not seek to topple their government, they simply seek to persuade the majority to reconsider the position of the minority. This is an important distinction to make. In a revolution or insurrection a party is attempting to overthrow it government in favor of a new one, and there is a certain similarity to civil disobedience in that both revolution and civil disobedience break laws. However, revolutions are not asking for respect from the governing party. Revolution lacks the mutual respect of civil disobedience
This takes us to the principle of respect for the legal systems of governance in civil disobedience. Rawls said: “Being completely open about one's acts and being willing to accept the legal consequences of one's conduct is a bond given to make good one's sincerity.” To be justified, civil disobedience must accept some of the governing aspects of their governments legal system. The party is, in a sense, respecting the legal system by choosing to break only certain laws considered unjust, and accepting the consequences. There is a public aspect to civil disobedience. In order for it to be justified participants must commit their acts in a manor that leaves them un-obscured and in the public eye, and accept the punishment for their action. In this way one is not being subversive, and one is not wholly rejecting the legal system, only a certain law found to be unjust. For example, a civil disobedience tactic used in the civil rights movement was for blacks to sit in at lunch counters that were designated for whites only. The law allowing for segregated lunch counters was being broken, however, in respect to the legal system, participants willingly went to jail for their actions. To be justified civil disobedience cannot advocate for anarchy like a revolution does, it must operate within the legal constructs of society. It is this that creates the distinction between simply breaking laws, and civil disobedience. I’m breaking the law if I am sitting at a lunch counter where society says I do not belong and when the cops come I run away. This is unjustified. To be justified, and to be considered civil disobedience, I must make that action, but accept the consequences.
I would also say that there are restrictions on which laws can be broken in a justified civil disobedience campaign. Despite my convictions, I am not justified in protesting laws using civil disobedience that make murder and other such acts illegal. This is because civil disobedience must protest unjust laws, and it must be nonviolent. This addresses the third principle of civil disobedience: respect to others. By using violence we interfere with the basic human rights of others, and by doing so, lose justification. If civil disobedience is to be used to make a moral argument to society, then we cannot do so by using immoral methods.
Is there not also a moral obligation that we have to disobey unjust laws? By consenting to be governed by them are we not consenting to them? Martin Luther King Jr. had this to say “I must affirm that it is just as wrong, or perhaps even more so, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends.” By upholding an immoral law we make ourselves immoral. By allowing southern state governments to uphold segregation we were all upholding segregation. Thoreau recognized this, and was jailed for refusing to pay taxes, which went to fund the military in their conquest of Mexico. If, as Jefferson said in the Declaration of Independence, and as Locke said before him, that governments act at the consent of the governed, then any action by the government is an act of the people. Thus, any unjust law is an injustice sanctioned by every one of us. It stands to reason then, that if all other measures of appeal are exhausted, then it is the duty of the people to disobey said laws.
If Civil Disobedience meets the requirements stated above then it is not only the right of the minority, but also the obligation of the entire people. As Thoreau stated “It is not desirable to cultivate respect for the law, so much as for the right.” Rather than socialize ourselves to unthinkingly abide by laws, we should instead seek to abide by what is just, to cultivate our conscience. As a people of a democratic nation nothing is more important than an education to make decisions, and a conscience to guide those decisions, and that is precisely what Civil disobedience is: the conscience of the people, guiding the systems of society.