Civil Disobedience

The definition, not to mention the accepted practice, of civil disobedience has been blurry and disputed over the years. It is most generally acknowledged to mean a nonviolent, public, submissive violation of unjust laws with the intent to educate and effect change. It is nonviolent in that it does no harm to the mental or physical well-being of individuals or damage to property or the polity. The modifier civil in this case describes the forum in which the disobedience takes place. It is an act that citizens undertake openly in the public sphere. It is also appropriate to interpret civil as meaning orderly, decent, or humane. The word polite, however, would be incorrect, implying courteous behavior; civil disobedience is intentionally disruptive and usually challenges social norms as well as instituted laws. In addition to being conducted in the civil or public sphere, the act must be for the public good rather than private or sectarian interests. Disobedients must also submit willingly to the penalties of the laws they are breaking. Accepting punishment fulfills two important purposes: First, it demonstrates respect for the rule of law that holds the polity together; and second, it brings publicity to the cause of the disobedient. Finally, the breaking of the law must be an intentional, not inadvertent, attempt to persuade public opinion toward reform.

For civil disobedience to take place, a number of political requisites must exist. First, there must be a democratic element of the system that gives the people a say in the laws. Second, and most importantly, there must be a sense of moral obligation on the part of the disobedient to the constitution and government for the protest to be legitimate. There is, in other words, no basis for dissent in anarchy. Third, there must be a substantial degree of stability in the polity in order that the [Page 337]disruption caused by the disobedience will not lead to the disintegration of the entire government.

Advocates of civil disobedience argue that it is an important part of the democratic process for several reasons. First, it is one of the most direct forms of popular participation in the governing process. It is a way citizens comment directly on the laws, virtually repeal unjust laws, and model just practice in their place. Also, far from being disrespectful of government or law, civil disobedience shows the highest respect for the Constitution by holding subsequently enacted laws to the fundamental principles on which it was founded. In undertaking civil disobedience, individuals highlight the distinction between what is legal and what is constitutional. They use their consciences as a guide and attempt to appeal to and persuade the conscience of the nation.

On the other side, opponents of civil disobedience claim that it is not part of the democratic process at all. Rather, they argue that it is an extralegal act that is fundamentally disrespectful of the system. If a system is democratic, they say, then citizens should all agree to abide by the decisions of the majority, whether or not they agree with the established policy. Advocates of civil disobedience would counter that this position does not take into account the possibility of the tyranny of the majority and the necessity of dissent to improve society. An extreme example of the dangers of majoritarian hegemony is, of course, Germany under the Third Reich. Further, America has never been envisioned as a government by the majority; rather, the framers of the Constitution saw the stability and liberties of the polity being preserved by dissent rather than uniformity of opinion.

...