Dissent is regarded as a strong dissatisfaction and disagreement with an opinion or a decision, particularly one that is being supported by individuals in authority or by most people (Fry, 2014). There are various reasons why a healthy democracy requires for dissent. Today democracy is favored as the most suitable form of governance as citizens have the right to disagree with the government without fear of victimization so long as the undertaken dissent does not result in unconstitutional or inhuman actions. Moreover, dissent in a democratic regime could lead to an improved or increased economic growth.
A healthy democracy also requires for dissent to help it in undermining the unjust power structures that exist so that it can be replaced with something more just. It is not often successful, never perfect, often traumatic, and intrinsically difficult, but regardless of this, dissent should be valued on two aspects. On the moral aspect, dissent helps in satisfying an inborn human desire to be capable of struggling for justice. On the practical perspective, dissent can support a healthy democracy in producing a society that is less unjust. Most importantly, dissent will help a healthy democracy to establish the widely available accepted means to the people, through which some changes can be made concerning how a society should operate (Shiffrin, 2015). For example, the people through the parliament may implement a change to have universal suffrage instead of limited right to vote after a discussion by the public concerning the justice of universal suffrage.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
As noted by Fry (2014), dissent for a healthy democracy is essential to the assurance of legitimacy and equality to the women, minorities, as well as the people divided by ethnicity, class, social group, or race. By recognizing the expression of citizens’ voices and dissent, a healthy democracy protects the values and principles that are inherent to freedom, justice, and democracy.
On the other hand, dissent can also affect the civil liberties of citizens, which are their rights to only be subject to the laws established for the good of the society. Sometimes, a healthy democracy’s government may fail to honor dissent. Laws are always set for entrenching power structures that exist instead of a people’s good. In this case, a government may utilize its authority to fulfill its own privileges instead of serving the people. Moreover, influential legislators in parliament may use law upheld through dissent in legalizing the repression of minorities (Shiffrin, 2015). It, therefore, implies that the dissent system itself can become an impediment to justice, instead of being an avenue that can be used in accessing justice by citizens.
In such circumstances, the citizens have no option to obey the rule of law but to turn into civil disobedience as well as acts of dissent. However, such movements alongside their leaders have always been admired in controversy. The historical real-life example is such as the case of Martin Luther King Jr, Nelson Mandela, and Gandhi, their actions were ethically justified and worth of admiration and respect (Fry, 2014).
Finally, both the illegality and legality line between dissent and civil disobedience can be blurred. This is particularly the case with bigger demonstrations in which a few groups of cruel protesters are capable of hijacking the protest and influence the whole group with an illegality cover (Shiffrin, 2015). Because of this, even if citizens do not intend to be part of an illegal protest, they should be prepared in dealing with the legal system, and the police as their civil liberties have been affected.
References
Fry, R. (2014). Dissent in the coalfields: miners, federal politics, and union reform in the United States, 1968–1973. Labor History, 55(2), 173-188. doi:10.1080/0023656X.2014.884863
Shiffrin, S. (2015). DISSENT, DEMOCRATIC PARTICIPATION, AND FIRST AMENDMENT METHODOLOGY. Virginia Law Review, 97(3), 559-565.
