Civil disobedience refers to the active and professed refusal to obey certain laws that govern the state, including the orders, commands and the demands of the government or of an international power. However, being civilly disobedient does not necessarily imply that one has to be violent for him or her to defy the state or government’s expectations. Therefore, civil disobedience is sometimes equated to non-violent resistance. Martin Luther king Jr. is considered one of the most important proponents of civil disobedience. He regarded it a practice or display of reverence since staying in the jail as a penalty for civil disobedience led to arousal of the community’s conscience on the injustice of the law, thus through civil resistance, an individual expresses the very highest respect for law. This paper presents an argument regarding the views dissenting and those supporting the use of civil disobedience and finally a final verdict to justify it as an expression of displeasure towards the system of government or the laws that govern the state.
Those who are against civil disobedience argue that politicians want to hold on to power and thus they should be accountable throughout their tenure in office. Because of the fear of losing votes, leaders in office would not do anything to dramatically alienate people. There are many ways to show that votes will be lost than breaking or defying the law. Therefore, it is not appropriate to resort to civil disobedience as this would mean outright defiance to a system of government that is responsible for the wellbeing of the people.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Additionally, there are other ways to express dissatisfaction against the government that do not necessarily involve violating the law. For instance, besides general elections, there are local elections that provide an opportunity for the public to punish the leaders by denying them the votes. Similarly, public opinion polls are a better barometer to show that the public is no longer interested in a particular system of government or leadership as opposed to civil disobedience.
Civil disobedience is less democratic as compared to voting where every citizen is involved in choosing the right leadership. Instead of advocating for the minority interests, civil disobedience puts pressure on the government or the state to accomplish the needs and interests of the civilly disobedient who are often the minority. It therefore makes sense to say that civil disobedience has less positive impacts, which is why the public should use alternative means such as voting rather than expressing their views through civil disobedience which is civilly disobedient.
Every democratic society provides a wide range of alternatives to solve public issues. There are always tools of power that should be used in a democratic society to drive change and such tools are the legal channels that allow people to express their desires and displeasure rather than actions such as civil disobedience which, in most cases, are not always a priority. According to Zain & Yusoff (2015), civil liberalists like Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Ghandi would have more effectively wedged liberation using other means than civil disobedience.
There are also arguments that laws are usually created for the public in general and expectations are that such laws should be respected at all times. Besides, disobedience to the law means conflict and crisis which often places citizens’ lives at stake. Therefore, resorting to civil disobedience is an irony since it implies turning against the law that governs an individual. While law has limitations, civil disobedience is limitless and can plunge the country into chaos, and is often difficult to regulate. Between the two options, choosing to abide by the law and avoiding civil disobedience is better.
Lastly, civil disobedience has other negative impacts that have far-reaching effects to the country, government and public at large. It affects the leadership itself and even if the leadership being opposed is changed, the succeeding leaders would not be as initiative and productive as expected because it is generally difficult to meet all the public’s demands. It also destroys the reputation of the country as it remains historical for decades and even centuries. Economy is never left behind. Other countries may end up terminating their economic links with the affected country. Even if liberation is attained at the end, negative consequences of civil disobedience override its positive outcoomes. Therefore, it is in the best interest of the society to avoid civil disobedience at all costs.
Opinions that support the need for civil disobedience hold the view that it has helped strengthen justice in the entire America. The sole purpose of civil disobedience is to “break the law for a justifiable cause.” It is inevitable that people will have an opinion that differ from the opinions or the principles of the systems of the government and the leaders who reign over them. Therefore, the reason for civil disobedience is to refrain from evil and attain a system of leadership that is morally upright. Sometimes it is not possible to get the government to act in the interests of the general public unless civil disobedience is used. This is because leaders are often conservative and they would like to hold on to their ideologies even if such ideologies are not in the public’s interests.
Civil disobedience has been practiced across history by renowned personalities such as Mahatma Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. and it certainly brought lasting change and revolution that remains historical. The change that such legends effected would not have happened in any other way apart from civil disobedience. Additionally, the change they brought would not have come as quickly and easily as it happened. Their approaches to the correction and mitigation of social injustices that had become so prevalent in their times would have had so many negative impacts. In fact, according to martin Luther King Jr., not only did civil disobedience lead to the violation of the law but citizens also had a moral authority to do so (Ling, 2015). This was in line with St. Augustine’s opinion that unjust law is no law at all.
The law is usually created by the controlling elites who are often driven by their own interests and purposes as individuals, and not in the interests of the general public. When a leader has a different purpose bringing them into conflict with the law, it becomes absolutely necessary to break the law. Obedience for the sake of it is neither purposeful nor helpful (Rawls, 2013).
The law is usually made in reference to what it deems morally upright. However, the concept of morality is situational and changes overtime. The law has to serve the principles of morality and ethics and if it is not changed with the situations that determine morality, then it may end up becoming inconsistent. This is a proof enough that sometimes it becomes necessary to break the law and the best way to do so is through civil disobedience.
Failing to engage in civil disobedience regardless of the situation of the governance makes it possible for criminals to maintain power even if their leadership is inconsistent with the needs of the public. The idea that there should be strict adherence to the principles of the law is an indirect way of violating the needs and interests of the majority.
Lastly, even if the leaders are chosen by the majority through elections, it is not always true that the chosen leaders are the best leaders. It is often through popularity that a candidate wins elections. A candidate may decide to use unjustifiable means to become popular and win elections to become a leader, after which they use whichever means to lead. Such leadership does not guarantee good governance. In such instances, civil disobedience becomes the best way to disregard and bring whichever social injustices associated with such kind of leadership to an end.
From the above discussion, it is true that leaders are not always right and law does not always embrace moral requirements of the society. Therefore, citizens do not have to follow the rule of law if they do not believe in it. They do not have to respect leadership practices if they feel undermined. The best way to achieve equality and justice is through civil disobedience. According to me, civil disobedience is sometimes good if citizens are not contented with the existing law and leadership practices.
References
Ling, P. J. (2015). Martin Luther King, Jr . Routledge.
Rawls, J. (2013). The justification of civil disobedience. Arguing about law , 244-253.
Zain, Z. M., & Yusoff, M. A. (2015). CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE DURING REFORMATION ERA. e-Bangi , 2 (1).
