Discuss
In this essay we will aim to come to a conclusion on whether civil disobedience can be justified under a system of rule that draws its authority from the democratic will of the people. We will also discuss what civil disobedience is and is not to different scholars and try to make our own judgement from the evidence presented from these sources. Before discussing civil disobedience, we must first address the term ‘Democracy’: in what kind of democracy would acts of civil disobedience be justified? Let us, for the purpose of this essay, focus on modern representative democracy for the most part, as this is both relevant to our society and as is used as the focus by many of our scholars (extraneous constrains would not allow for a discussion of democracy in this essay). What counts as ‘civil disobedience’ rather than as crime, rioting, etc, is also a hotly debated matter and in the course of the essay we shall cover these views.
Civil Disobedience is “the knowing and deliberate violation of the law for vital social purpose”[1], although many scholars have added extra detail to this basic definition, this definition will be alone given here, as it can be regarded as one that could be universally agreed upon by the different schools of thought.
Carl Cohen states that any acts of ‘civil disobedience’ should be “conscientious, public, non-violent- and... they act in such a way as to exhibit their general acceptance of the legitimate authority of government”[2]. His argument stems from the belief that in a democracy the authority of the government is derived directly from the majority of the people, therefore dissenters have no right to challenge the rule of the people for their own agendas, their protests although seeking change must not break the ‘social contract’ between the government and the electorate, as is found in a democracy. Unlike in an autocratic society the people have a “legal means” of affecting change through the system; therefore civil disobedience at any level other than merely a physical demonstration of disapproval cannot be justified. The purpose of these demonstrations would be to gain publicity, to rally support for a cause, and to show the intensity of public opinion, any attempts to ‘force the hand’ of the government should be done through petitions to the elected representatives of the people.
This argument against ‘civil disobedience’ seems to assume a Rousseau-like democratic system, built on foundations of direct democracy and socio-economic equality; however in representative democracy this is not apparent. To assume that elected representatives of the people can make laws on behalf of the people is folly, “Will cannot be represented”[3] and even if it could be there is no guarantee that elected officials, safe in their positions for 5 years (as in England) would stay true to the electorate, as Charles De Gaulle famously (and perhaps cynically) said “In order to become the master, the politician poses as the servant”[4]. Two scholars of great political difference both drew similar conclusions: Burke concluding that members of parliament, once elected, were free to act independently of his electors[5], and Marx writing that “The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them”[6].
Another argument to touch upon briefly is the theory of given consent, that is to say, a citizen gives consent (by paying taxes, participating in democratic process and using the what the state provides, etc) to their government, and reaps the benefits such as enjoyment of infrastructure, health care and police protection, therefore they, as an individual or as a group, cannot justify disobedience when the state sees fit to ‘violate their rights’. However this can be easily rebuked as one does in fact not given consent to be governed, one does not have a choice. Imagine an afro-American during the 1950’s believes the state oppresses him and so decides to leave, this theory would see their use of the roads on their departure as an act of giving consent, which it is clearly not.
It is a common view that ‘violation of rights’ justifies civil disobedience, but I would also say that ‘failure to represent the electorate’ is also a justification. When representatives do not act on behalf of the people they govern then it is the right of the people to participate in acts of civil disobedience, even before modern democratic systems were introduced this was present, for example Montezuma was killed by his own people for representing the interests of the Spanish conquistadores, and in a democracy this right is even stronger. John Rawls goes as far as to say “It is a duty to dissent from unjust rule”[7]. As the state holds onto the apparatus of power[8] (the police, the parliament, etc) the only option left for the dissenters is civil disobedience, this could be seen in effect in Germany from 1919-1923. The SPD, a party based on a socialist and a Marxist programme, did not carry out radical reform as was expected and therefore the people had no other option other than to strike, to protest and to attempt to “exercise their revolutionary right to over throw [the government]”[9].
The use of violence in acts of civil disobedience is an issue that is still contested by scholars, Abe Fortas (former US Supreme Court associate justice) states that “Violence must not be tolerated: damage to persons or property is intolerable”[10]. This view however is clearly not from some kind of moral stand point as Fortas (and Thoreau and others who preach non-violence) was a supporter of American interventionist wars. It is also telling of the motives behind Fortas’ non-violent message, that he mentions “property” and “persons” as if they are of equal value, in a state like America where the gap between the rich and poor, those with property and those without, is large and getting larger this stance seems to give more rights to those with more property and more protection to those can afford it. It is a view, and a law, that protects the ruling, the wealthy and the landed elites in society more than the average worker. Although non-violent means are more desirable than violent means, it has been said that “absolute non-violence is the negative basis of slavery”[11]. Non-violence has traditionally been preached by those in power or positions of authority and for their own means, the Church, our governments, the upper echelons of society (such as Burke et al). Although peaceful means are obviously better for all involved, if protests are physically broken up, protestors would be subject to further persecution if they do not ‘win’, or concessions are not made, it would be an affront to the resolve and dignity of the dissenters if they did not too use physical resistance or confrontation to further their cause. As Malcolm X stated "If someone puts their hands on you make sure they never put their hands on anybody else again” this is not a call for violence, but it is also not an idealistic call for victims to turn the other cheek. To speak of turning the other cheek and non-violent protest (as Martin Luther King did) when turning the other cheek was no longer a metaphorical concern, is unrealistic and goes against human will for self perseveration.
A representative democracy does not necessarily mean that the people are represented, for example in Ireland under the Act Of Union the Irish MPs realistically had little power to represent their electorates, and so a bloody struggle for autonomy and equality broke out, although it is not ideal to have to use violent disobedience to push for reforms, it is often, sadly, necessary if those who are in power will not make the reforms themselves, "The end may justify the means as long as there is something that justifies the end.”[12]
Although the opening question seems to lay a trap for us, in the way we might choose to define democracy, with the scholarly sources and careful deliberation I will conclude by saying that, civil disobedience is a right, and a duty in a supposed democratic society one must “Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it[13]” The view of Mr. Fortas I reject out of hand, I find his self contradiction in his support of violence little more than lip service to a seemingly noble cause, in order to protect his own class interests. I think that civil disobedience cannot be non-violent as a principal, if met with physical or violent oppression it is the duty for those who believe strongly in the cause to, for the benefit of all, reply in kind.
“Human history begins with man's act of disobedience which is at the very same time the beginning of his freedom and development of his reason”[14]
Bibliography
Camus, Albert, (1951) ‘L'Homme révolté’ Oxford: Oxford University Press
Cohen, Carl (1971) ‘Civil Disobedience’ New York; Columbia University Press
Fortas, Abe, (1968) ‘Concerning Dissent and Civil Disobedience’ Los Angeles: New American Library
Fromm, Erich, ‘Psychoanalysis and Religion’ New Haven: Yale University Press
Marx, Karl, ‘Selected Works, Volume Three’ Moscow: Progress Publishers)
Murphy, Jeffrie, (ed.) (1971) ‘Civil Disobedience and Violence’, California; Wadsworth Publishing Company
Rawls, John, (1964) ‘Legal Obligation and the Duty of Fair Play’, New York: New York University Press
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, (1968) ‘The Social Contract’ London; Penguin Books
Singer, Peter (1973) ‘Democracy and Disobedience’ Oxford; Clarendon Press
Trotsky, Leon, (1920) ‘Terrorism and Communism’, New York; Workers Party of America
X, Malcolm, (2001) ‘Autobiography’, London; Penguin Books
Zinn, Howard, ‘Disobedience & Democracy’ New York: Random House Inc.
Zinn, Howard, (1997) ‘The Zinn Reader, Writings on Disobedience and Democracy’, New York; Seven Stories Press
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, 1861, (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lincoln1.asp)
[1] Howard Zinn, Disobedience & Democracy, (New York: Random House Inc.) 1
[2] Carl Cohen, Civil Disobedience, (New York: Columbia University Press) 67
[3] Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract, Bk III, (London: Penguin Books)
[4] Charles de Gaulle
[5] Burke ‘Speech to the Electors of Bristol’ (1774),
[6] Karl Marx, Selected Works, Volume Three, (Moscow: Progress Publishers) 23
[7] John Rawls, Legal Obligation and the Duty of Fair Play, (New York: New York University Press)
[8] Bertrand Russell, (from) Democracy and Disobedience, (Oxford: Clarendon Press) 75
[9] Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, 1861, (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lincoln1.asp)
[10]Abe Fortas, Concerning Dissent and Civil Disobedience, (Los Angeles: New American Library)
[11]Albert Camus, L'Homme révolté, (Oxford: Oxford University Press)
[12] Leon Trotsky, Terrorism and Communism, (New York: Workers Party Of America)
[13] Albert Einstein
[14] Erich Fromm, Psychoanalysis and Religion, (New Haven: Yale University Press)
