Pros and Cons - Debbie Newman, Ben Woolgar 2014
Civil disobedience
Section A. Philosophy/political theory
Civil disobedience comes in many forms; the central point is that it is the refusal to obey certain laws to make a political point. Such disobedience can either be largely passive (for instance, a refusal to pay taxes) or can actively aim to disrupt a system of government (by sit-ins or property damage), and can be violent (arguably, for instance, the London riots in 2011) or non-violent (the ’Occupy’ movement). The common aim, however, is to change the law. An interesting angle on the debate is to question some of the classic examples of ’success’ for civil disobedience; for instance, were Gandhi’s protests really as important as the canons of history have it in obtaining Indian independence, or did violent, more formalised efforts have a large impact?
Pros
[1] Democratic governments which are elected only every four to five years do not provide true or adequate representation of public interests. Once a government is elected, it may entirely ignore the will of the electorate until its term is finished. Therefore, civil disobedience is necessary as an effective method for the people’s voice to be heard even in democratic countries — as a last resort. For example, the protests over student fees in the UK after the 2010 election were designed to reinforce the perception that Liberal Democrat MPs had ’betrayed’ those who voted for them by changing their position.
[2] Historically, civil disobedience has triumphed over insidious regimes and forms of prejudice where other methods have failed; e.g. the movements orchestrated in India by Gandhi and in America by Martin Luther King. Riots and looting in Indonesia in 1998 protested against a corrupt and undemocratic regime, leading to the fall of President Suharto. Peaceful protests by minorities in undemocratic countries are often banned or quashed, or they can fail to bring about change. Nonetheless, civil disobedience movements can be entirely peaceful (e.g. Gandhi).
[3] Civil disobedience involving public confrontation with authority is often the only way to bring an issue to wider public and international attention. This tactic was successfully employed by the ’suffragettes’ of the early women’s movement, and also by supporters of nuclear disarmament, from the philosopher Bertrand Russell, who was arrested for civil disobedience several times in the cause of pacifism, to attacks in the USA and UK on military bases involved in the Iraq War (2003 to 2011). The student protests in Tiananmen Square (Beijing) in 1989 (and their brutal crushing by the authorities) brought the human rights abuses of the Chinese regime to the forefront of international attention and concern more effectively than anything else before or since; by contrast, during the 2008 Olympics, the Chinese government sought to close off opportunities for civil disobedience, to prevent a ’second Tiananmen’.
Cons
[1] In fact, democratic means are much broader than a general election every few years. The election of local representatives takes place regularly. In Britain, MPs are available in ’surgery’ with their constituents every week and will always respond to letters and bring matters of concern to the attention of ministers. Other countries have comparable systems. Given this direct democratic access to government, through letter writing and lobbying, there is no need for civil disobedience.
[2] Peaceful protest is quite possible, even in an undemocratic society, without resorting to civil disobedience. A point can be made quite well without coming into confrontation with police, trespassing or causing disturbance and damage to people or property. Legal systems are the most effective way of protecting the vulnerable and minorities; once they break down, there is no way of protecting the most vulnerable. A good example of the unintended consequences of civil disobedience is Egypt’s Arab Spring in 2011; while there is no doubt that President Mubarak’s regime perpetrated significant crimes against women, the law and order vacuum after the revolution led to a significant spike in sexual abuse.
[3] There is no excuse for provoking violent confrontations with police, rioting, looting or trespassing. Such actions result in assaults, injuries and sometimes in deaths. For instance, while those who started the London riots in 2011 may have had a political or social message, they created a tidal wave of violence which the police were unable to restrain, that led to many people being seriously injured or killed.
Possible motions
This House supports civil disobedience.
This House would rage against the machine.
This House would break the law to protect the cause of justice.
Related topics
Anarchism
Democracy
Terrorism, justifiability of
Social movements: courts v. legislatures