In a society where we elect our own government, where democracy rules the nation and where people are not oppressed by a dictatorship or despotism, can we not assume that massive and widespread dissent, culminating in acts of protest and disobedience, would be made irrelevant by the very nature of our government? Surely the power of democracy would mean such outbreaks would never happen? Of course it would be extremely na�ve to make such assumptions. There will always be numbers of people. small and large, who will be unsatisfied with those who govern them, be it their leaders, bosses, Prime Ministers or Presidents, and they will want their voice of dissent to be heard. There are of course paths one can take through systems designed especially for such problems. The success of these routes is another matter entirely. But for many, the best way to be heard and for others to hear them speak their dissent aloud is protest. Public protest.
So when can methods of protest; specifically, civil disobedience, be justified? Why is our democratic government simply not enough to meet the needs and desires of the people it governs?
First, we need to form a definition of civil disobedience. What exactly does it entail? The root of the word civil comes about because the act of disobedience is civic; it is an act by a citizen of disobedience against his government. Yet civil disobedience is also by definition, the act of non-violent and non-criminal disobedience, peacefully exercising direct action and one�s freedom of speech in an effort to change something, to bring something to the government�s attention. It may be towards a change in the law, or in pursuit of justice, or simply as a protest against the government or their actions. This disobedience can take form as a protest, a march, staged walk-outs at work, even strikes. The entire country sprang to life in the sixties to protest against the beginning of the Vietnam War. The masses of protests became unignorable and popular opinion sat on the side of those who were against the war. Britain eventually pulled out from the Vietnam war and did not participate. In London in 1967, a huge protest of thousands filled the city streets. While the protesters were instructed to break police cordons that were set up to halt the march�s progress with �sheer physical pressure� (Benewick, R et al, 1972, pg 174) the protesters actually used very little violence. They accomplished their goals through strength of numbers and merely by pushing their way through, thus keeping the protest a peaceful event. This is important, because civil disobedience ceases to be civil when violence is introduced. Many infamous protests have spiralled into violence, anti-capitalism marches, the �reclaim the streets� protests, and marches at the G13 summit. All have received notorious media coverage for the violent outcome and deaths of protesters and police. Violence is undesirable, many protesters just wish to make a peaceful stand, to get their voice heard, and have no interest in rioting or political violence. Also such terrible publicity would be a huge dent in their campaign, labelling the protesters and their cause as violent and dangerous, losing them massive public support. Any fuel given to government funded spin doctors would ensure the headlines of violence overshadow the pure intentions of nearly everyone involved. Other criminal acts that would defame an entire protest include destruction of property, criminal damage, graffiti and trespass. It is important to note, however, that sometimes the very act of being disobedient, even civilly; would itself be against the law, yet we must act in the interests of a higher purpose:
�men should seek to govern their own actions by justice rather than legality� (Bedau,1969. pg 15)
It is also important that the cause must be justifiable. If the cause for this disobedience cannot be justified then there really is no way of making a respectable stand or rallying public support.
Civil disobedience also does not only exist on the scale of huge protests and marches. It begins and remains on the level of the person, of the individual. It is when people with the same ideas and opinions get together, and rally as many like-minded people together that the marches begin. It begins with the individual's dissent towards the actions of a governing body.
One argument against civil disobedience is that we live in a democracy, laws and constitutions are open to change, and there are methods and ways to change them if you apply for such changes through the system, through parliament. There is no need for massive shows of civil disobedience (which all too easily lead to violent disobedience).
Another argument is that civil disobedience is obtrusive, selfish, costly and disruptive. Marches through the city streets, sit-downs and intersections, bringing traffic to a halt. Public transport, hundreds of people that have nothing whatsoever to do with whatever it is the protesters are against, emergency services, all delayed by these large scale shows of disobedience. Thousands of pounds lost in economy by the disruption of the working day.
But that is the power of it, entire cities and economies brought to a standstill, even if only for a moment; by the people, the public, using their voice. What better way to get heard? The majority of marches are utterly peaceful; people happy to show their support for their cause and to march without incident, bringing their cause to the spotlight. An issue that many people were previously unaware of or uneducated about suddenly becomes hugely publicised; they can�t ignore the thousands of people teeming through the streets. People at work in offices all peer curiously out their windows at the singing protesters, giving out leaflets and chanting to alert everyone to their justification for this disobedience. What better publicity? Money lost from the economy will no doubt be a slap in the face for the MP�s, Prime Ministers, Presidents, and members of the State, who will be eager to keep these public displays of disobedience down to a minimum. The issue will then be forced upon their discussion table. The best way to stop these protests and outcries would obviously be to concede. Of course it rarely is as simple as that, but with the new found support and backing that the peaceful and civil demonstrations bring about, the government will start having to listen to it�s people better. We must at all times remind our elected leaders that we live under a democracy, and we as the public have the say in who gets to run the country. When governments won�t listen, when they act without or against our approval, when the media marginalizes the reality, then we the public, in the interests of democracy, have a responsibility to seek justice and to keep our leaders in check.
The fact that we live in a liberal democracy doesn�t negate our need for protests, it necessitates it. The fact that we have a voice means we should use it, and not sit on the sidelines. Our leaders acting against our will or going to extremes without or consent is a form of oppression. That is not democracy, that is us being led like cattle and having our decisions made for us, by faceless higher powers who we have never met and all know "what is best" for us. In countries where the State is not so liberal, similar peaceful marches would be met by armed soldiers and tanks and intimidated into disbanding. Should the march go on, the State controlled military will often use extreme force to crush the protest to protect the State and to warn others who planned to demonstrate against their leaders. Of all the crushed protests, one of the most famous is Tianemen Square, China, 1989. Many students were killed and maimed by tanks and gunfire.
Students have often been at the forefront of political and civil disobedience, universities have been hotbed for intellectual political debate and action. This was recognised by Dr William Boyd, the Vice Chancellor of student affairs at the University of California:
�Listen to students, I mean really listen. If we do not listen they are going to find some other way to attract our attention. There are very legitimate needs in the new student population, and if legitimate means are not found for meeting these legitimate ends, then illegitimate means will be resorted to.� (Benewick R, 1972, pg 212)
He was aware of how politically minded students had become since the explosion of awareness in the 1960�s kicked off by the Vietnam War (Bedau, 1969) and he also knew that students were young and sometimes hot headed in their approach to get themselves heard. This often led to criminal acts such as paint throwing and destruction of property, not at all in the spirit of civil disobedience. But their extremity was caused by a belief that if they didn�t make themselves heard, then the government would act against their will, and they considered that to be oppression, and it was agreed that opression must be nipped in the bud wherever possible.
Martin Luther King lived in a time of terrible racism, and he made a stand against it. He stated that there were three ways that the people could deal with oppression. The first was with violence, but it would mean living in a �perpetual state of fear and destruction� (Walton, 1971, pg 60) the second was acquiesce, non-action; basically accepting what the government said, refusing to take one side or the other. King believed that:
�The refusal to take action means a passive acceptance of segregation and injustice, which is tantamount to saying the oppressor is morally right.� (Walton, 1971, pg 60)
The only option left was passive resistance, not resorting to violence but using action. Violence must never be used, even in retaliation. King�s rallies in America were predominantly peaceful. There were occasions were violence sparked but the majority of the protesters clung to their beliefs of non-violence, and did not retaliate. Martin Luther King did many things to promote an awareness of the oppression that the black community suffered at the hands of the largely racist state. His philosophy is similar to Ghandi�s, in that the protesters should offer no resistance, should remain peaceful and should not use any forms of violence. Unfortunately, in both cases, this meant that the state had little trouble overpowering the protests using force, but even as Ghandi�s followers were being clubbed to death by the British, it showed amazing resolve and dedication to peace and justice which opened many eyes and spread the philosophy of peace. (Benewick, R et al, 1972)
We do not live in times of such oppression as Ghandi and King, yet we are still utilising peaceful protest and civil disobedience. I personally believe that the reason we live in such a time and with such a democracy is because of civil disobedience. Through the years massive marches and protests have served to level huge inequalities and injustices. If we had never stood up and used our voice, then we could still be living in terrible times. Apartheid is over, racial segregation no longer exists (some could argue that it still does, owing to the relocation of refugees to ghetto areas and housing estates) sexual equality is now closer thanks to the suffragette movement, there is a minimum wage, health standards, free education, workers unions� we are living in vastly improved times.
So every time those that govern us move against our will, we have the power to be heard.. Civil disobedience is a tool of democracy, and I for one will have no qualms about indulging in it in the future. When the streets are teeming with thousands of ordinary people, when traffic is halted and big businesses are forced to close their doors, it brings awareness to the cause. It can no longer be swept under the carpet. Massive protests like the recent anti war movement of 2003 and the fire service picket lines generate awareness and public interest. Civil disobedience is a massively powerful tool, do not believe anyone who has been fooled into believing otherwise, or who tries to fool you. When hundreds of thousands rise in protest the government has to listen. If we are ignored, then we have to question exactly how democratic this society is.
------------------------------------------------
Bibliography
Bedau, A. H (1969) Civil Disobedience: Theory and practice. New York: Pegasus
Benewick, R et al (1972) Direct Action and Democratic Politics. London: George Allen and Unwin
Macionis, K and Plummer, J. (2002) Sociology, A Global Introduction. London: Prentice Hall.
Walton, Hanes (1971) The Political Philosophy of Martin Luther King Jr. Connecticut: Greenwood
------------------------------------------------
Back