Civil disobedience is an active refusal of a group of people to submit to certain laws, requirements, orders of the government or the occupying country. As a rule, speakers do not intend to use physical violence to achieve their desired goals.
Civil disobedience developed in an attempt to bring about social change when all channels of negotiation failed. Speakers proceed from the vision that existing laws can be unfair, and they, citizens, are endowed with rights that allow them to defend their position. In this article, we will discuss striking examples of rallies, trace the changing demands of society from antiquity to the present, and also think about whether it is possible to justify speakers or whether their position is always logical and correct.
Definition
The term "civil disobedience" was first coined by Henry David Thoreau in an 1848 essay. In the paper, he describes his refusal to pay the state tax imposed by the US government. The proceeds from the tax collection were planned to be used to ensure compliance with the Fugitive Slave Act.
The essay notes that few — heroes, martyrs, patriots, reformers — serve their society with dignity and with all conscience. The government’s perception of these people as enemies seems unfair to the author.
Many after Toro proudly identified their protests as acts of civil disobedience. Thoreau was imprisoned for his disobedience.
Philosophy of resistance
The practice of civil disobedience conflicts with the laws of the country in which it takes place. Proponents of the movement must strike a balance between enforcing laws and fighting for their beliefs. In the case of civilian demonstrations, if no one followed the categorical imperative of I. Kant, there would be a danger of anarchy.
In the framework of democracy, disputes are underway about whether civil disobedience is illegal or not, because, in fact, this is a legitimate expression of people's opinions. When authorities violate an existing social contract, some argue that citizens rightly oppose them. Legislation adopted by the government should not violate natural human rights.
The principle of civil disobedience is recognized to be justified in war crimes. In the Nuremberg trials after World War II, people were held accountable for their inability to confront laws that cause suffering to innocent people.
Public opinion
Civil disobedience is a form of civic engagement that does not imply violence. In stable democracies such as Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States, riots and public violence are rare. What is the reason for this? The fact is that the public reaction to violence will be extremely negative, and therefore more likely to be an obstacle than to help protesters achieve their goals. Public opinion changes over time. If it is important to turn to “public conscience” and “put an end to injustice”, it is necessary to focus on how society responds to protests.
Unjustified behavior
An act of civil disobedience is an act that is easier to justify than violence. However, it may be morally wrong. Thoreau, Gandhi and King protested against serious evil, but if a person mistakenly believes that the law or policy is unfair, then the act of disobedience will not be morally justified. Moreover, if a law or policy is imperfect, their flaws may not be serious enough to justify a violation of the law.
Disobedience should extend to serious cases, and even then it can be unjustified if there are legal means to effectively advance your opinion. Finally, such actions may be wrong if they undermine the value of public institutions.
Only when effective legal means are unavailable, civil disobedience is permissible.
Thus, we can make good arguments in favor of the fact that the will of the population can be morally unjustified under certain conditions. However, disputes are often held regarding the justification of specific acts of civil disobedience.
Prospects
The study of social behavior revealed a wide distance between the classical ideals of democracy and the modern realities of government. In fact, there is a struggle of the majority of the population with minorities that are more privileged and have economic and political power.
Three main factors were discovered that suggest the possibility of a gradual increase in the debt of civil disobedience in the political life of modern democracies, and in some cases not of democratic countries. If state regimes stabilize, legal processes will be more predictable and safer.
One of the factors is knowledge of political behavior and political institutions in democratic countries. The second factor is the influence of Nuremberg's sentences and the Eichmann case on the modern view of the political responsibilities of man. The third factor is the influence of authors such as Camus, and some modern psychologists connecting the growing up of a person with a mature independent public position.
Vivid examples
There were many examples of civil disobedience in every era of mankind and in every generation. They can be found in India, America and other countries. Civil disobedience was used as the main tactic of nationalist movements in the former colonies of Africa and Asia until they gained independence. Denote the most striking examples.
Early christianity
The first Christians did not resort to civil disobedience. Their basic rule was to listen to God. Religious and moral obedience precluded the emergence of civil disobedience. In general, the movement was non-violent, not only because any other way would be stupid, but also because Christ himself called on his followers to turn the other cheek to the enemy (Matthew 5.9, 20–22, 38–48, and 26. 50–52).
India
Gandhi first used his ideas of satyagraha in the districts of Champaran (state of Bihar) and Khed (state of Gujarat) in India in 1918. In response to poverty, scarce resources, alcoholism, general British indifference and hegemony, he proposed satyagraha - non-violent mass civil disobedience. Gandhi offered a real way out that helped the oppressed people of India survive.
The first step was a campaign of civil disobedience to Swaraj, or the famous Salt March. The government monopolized salt trade. Since the salt tax affected everyone, this turned out to be a great reason to protest. Gandhi traveled 400 kilometers (248 miles) from Ahmedabad to Dundee to mine salt near the sea. For 23 days (from March 12 to April 6), the march brought together thousands of people. Once in Dundee, Gandhi encouraged everyone to mine and trade salt. In the following weeks, thousands of people illegally bought salt, and by the end of the month more than 60,000 people were arrested. This was one of Gandhi's most successful campaigns.
He strictly adhered to non-violence throughout his life. His dream of a united and independent India was not achieved, since he was killed. Nevertheless, his ideals lived, inspired, because they allowed the use of non-violent civil disobedience against a repressive and unjust government.
South Africa
Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Steve Biko opposed apartheid. The essence of their movement is revealed in such prominent campaigns of civil disobedience as the Purple Rain of 1989 and the Peace March in Cape Town, which defied the laws of apartheid.
On September 2, 1989, four days before the elections in the racially segregated parliament of South Africa, violet-colored police water cannons were sent to thousands of pro-democracy supporters who arrived in the city trying to infiltrate the South African parliament located on Burgh Street in Cape Town .
The protesters were warned of the need to disperse, but instead they knelt down and the water stream went into the crowd. Some remained on their knees, while others left the streets. About 250 people marching with a banner saying “People will drive” dispersed at the intersection of Darling Street and Sir Lowry Road after police blocked their path.
USA
The United States has a long history of population resistance. Martin Luther King, Jr. is one of the most famous activists who used active civil disobedience to achieve his goal. In 1953, at the age of twenty-four, King became pastor of the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church in Montgomery, Alabama. He correctly thought that an organized nonviolent protest against the racist system of southern segregation, known as the laws of Jim Crow, would lead to widespread media coverage of the struggle for equality and the rights of African Americans.
King organized and delivered speeches regarding voting rights, labor and other basic civil rights of blacks, and desegregation. Most of these requirements have been successfully enshrined in US law with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Vote Act of 1965.
Thousands take to the streets throughout Russia
Manifestations of civil disobedience in Russia are rare, but occasionally happen. The government is trying to engage in dialogue with the population, thereby preventing the emergence of speeches in the initial stages.
On February 25, 2018, tens of thousands of people took to the streets of Moscow, St. Petersburg and other Russian cities on the anniversary of the murder of Boris Nemtsov, who was shot dead in central Moscow. About 30 thousand people went through the central part of Moscow with calls "Russia will be free." Some carried bright posters with the slogans: "I'm not afraid," "Who is next?" Boris Nemtsov was a prominent leader among the opposition, journalists and critics.
Punishment
The last question to consider is: “How should authorities respond to civil disobedience?” First of all, the state law enforcement agencies must answer this, because it is they who decide whether to intervene in the civil protests, as well as how to behave with the protesters, that is, to charge or arrest.
This also applies to prosecutors considering pre-trial decisions. Finally, this applies to judges and jurors, because they are responsible for deciding whether or not to convict people and what punishment should be imposed.
Our days
Some theorists argue that issues of civil disobedience are outdated and overrated. The reason for this lies in the fact that they do not reflect and do not take into account the current forms of political activity.
Herbert Storing believes that the most striking characteristic of civil disobedience is its inappropriateness to the problems of our time. Of course, there is much evidence that Herbert Storing was mistaken in his predictions about the popularity of rebellion as a way of dissent.
Although in recent years there have been changes in the paradigm of forms of civil disobedience, nevertheless, these shifts have mainly occurred in the framework of conscientious and open interaction with the authorities.
The historical paradigms of Gandhi, King, suffragists and Mandela are indicative of the disobedience of the population to the current political system, which was aimed at ensuring legal protection of the fundamental rights of a certain segment of the population.
At present, civil disobedience is concentrated not on fundamental human rights, but on more global issues and narrowly focused interests. Actual issues of modern society are the environment, animal rights, nuclear disarmament, globalization, foreign policy and others.