Importance Of Civil Disobedience In Democracy

Civil disobedience comes in every package under the sun. Whether it be Henry David Thoreau refusing to pay his taxes to protest the Mexican-American War or Mohammed Ali refusing the draft because he believed that they were sending him to fight for rights in another country that he didn’t have in his own. The importance of civil disobedience, particularly in those with influence over the people, is often overshadowed by opposition leaders and naysayers on the other side of the argument. But civil disobedience has kept America moving forward for over 240 years and it won’t be stopping any time soon.

“If you make laws to keep us suppressed in a wrongful manner and without taking us into confidence, these laws will merely adorn the statue books. We will never obey them”(1). Mohandas Gandhi expressed this in his writing “On Nonviolent Resistance”. “Civil disobedience” is when people use their voice by protesting, non-violently, to stick up against unjust laws and unjust movements. The truths and values are proven and brought to attention in the writings of Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr, and Henry David Thoreau. Civil disobedience can be the solution to unjust laws and violence around the world.

Civil disobedience allows citizens in the free society of the United States to express their opinions in a way that is sure to evoke governmental attention, while enlightening the public

There are many civil disobedient that have shown impatience with the process of democracy. The Bill of Rights provides many opportunities for demonstrations to stimulate sentiment, to dramatize issues, and to cause change. These rights are subject to limitations of time and place so as to secure the rights of others. Also, the demonstrations must not be disguised as a right because it defeats its purpose. As the civil disobedient violates a law, and voluntarily submits to its sanctions, he breaches the law but not the peace. To indulge civil disobedience is to bring on anarchy, and the permissive arbitrariness of anarchy is less tolerable than the repressive arbitrariness of tyranny. Too often the license of liberty is followed by the loss of liberty. The disobedient act of conscience doesn’t enhance democracy; it gradually destroys democracy. The non-violent acts of disobedience will give rise to more civil riot. Van Dusen said, even the noblest act of civil disobedience assaults the rule of law. Although limited to method, motive and objective, it has the effect of inducing others to engage in different forms of law breaking characterized by methods unsanctioned and condemned by classic theories of law violation. Once the civil disobedient disobeys one law, he repeatedly subverts all

Even though civil disobedience may not offer the most effective techniques for political change, it may be the only one available when all other forms of political participation have failed. The educated and responsible individual will need judge if normal political processes are thoroughly exhausted and proved ineffective, warranting peaceful civil disobedience and justifying the adverse impacts to society. The decision-making process that our democracy is based requires the legal give and take of participating groups. When any number of politically available methods have not had an effect, the positive impacts of civil disobedience outweigh the negative ones for consideration as an alternative. Civil disobedience has successfully been used to advocate for racial equality, individual rights, and the environment in America, and continues to be a pathway for the disenfranchised minority to invoke change, far outweighing the negative consequences and costs to

It is important that the people can show their opinion on a situation while realizing their actions are against the law. With that in mind, civil disobedience is important to have in a free society as long as its controlled well to the point that no one is at harm.

Civil disobedience is not a new development of politics; though it’s gained traction in the past couple centuries, it appears as far back as biblical times. In the book of Acts, Peter proclaims that apostles must follow God’s law before man’s law (Acts 5:29). The idea that some holy morality must come before human law appears also in Sophocles’ Antigone, in which the character of Antigone defies the King out of familial duty. While civil disobedience has morphed in practice over time, its base principles have remained the same. Civil disobedience requires that a law must be seen as unjust, and that those who act in opposition to it must be aware of and assent to any punishment that occurs in retaliation.

Civil Disobedience, a term used by many people with many different meanings. In this case, civil disobedience is defined as the refusal to obey certain governmental laws and/or demands in order to influence governmental authorities or legislation. Actions of civil disobedience are seen in every part of the world and vary in severity. In some cases, people are unaware of the fact that they are being civilly disobedient because they think that what they are doing is correct. In this paper, I will argue that civil disobedience is justified.

Civil disobedience plays a positive, important and vital role in maintaining an active, passionate and free society. In the past it's course has shown to encourage and escort a variety of social reforms into developed stages that would be inferably unachievable without the roles that the right to civil disobedience has played. The framework of our country acts to prevent factions for fear of an inherent violent nature of displeased citizens. However civil disobedience proves the capabilities of a dissatisfied public to organize without relying on brutal force. Peaceful demonstrations display what I believe to be the core of our country. Land of the free, advocate of freedom of speech, and the right of the people to assemble peacefully; America

Peaceful resistance to laws can have a positive effect on society. While any specific activity needs to be analyzed on an individual basis, civil disobedience is a useful healthy aspect of democracy. It allows for people, particularly a minority, to force important issues into the public spotlight while minimizing harm. Peaceful resistance to laws increases minority power, helps correct improper laws, and contributes to a strong democracy.

In a “free” society, civil disobedience has been a part of human history more than once. The question is: does it impact society positively or negatively? The answer is: positively. In defense of many human lives under unfair laws and acts, it takes strong, willful people to stand up to higher authority, and for themselves. Think about it, without the work of the civilized courageous protesting, how would citizens in a society make the world they live in better, for future generations of life? The peaceful resistance brings the non-violence fight for change that the people deserve, and shows the present generation the struggles of past societies.

The following essay will attempt to evaluate the approach taken by Dworkin and Habermas on their views of civil disobedience. The two main pieces of literature referred to will be Dworkin?s paper on 'Civil Disobedience and Nuclear Protest?' and Habermas's paper on 'Civil Disobedience: Litmus Test for the Democratic Constitutional State.' An outline of both Dworkin's and Habermas's approach will be given , further discussion will then focus on a reflective evaluation of these approaches. Firstly though, it is worth commenting on civil disobedience in a more general context. Most would agree that civil disobedience is a 'vital and protected form of political

Whether civil disobedience is justified or not, practicing it is the right of any United States citizen, and a trademark of a free country. The policy of popular sovereignty, or the principal that a government’s authority is based on the allowance of its citizens, was an integral part of nearly every state’s constitution even before the Federal Constitution was put into place. Colonists were fearful that their new government, given too much power, could turn into a tyranny similar to that which they had only just gained their independence from. These fears are still relevant today. But some wonder why civil disobedience would be practiced in a country like ours which upholds democratic ideals and provides legal ways to influence what laws are put into place and what laws are considered outdated or

Before discussing whether or not Civil Disobedience is an appropriate weapon in a democracy, one must understand what Civil Disobedience is and how it was developed. The definition of civil disobedience is simple: the refusal to obey laws as a way of forcing the government to do or change something. The man who developed the undertones of Civil Disobedience was Henry David Thoreau. Several key figures looked to his famous paper, The Duty of Civil Disobedience, for inspiration. In a Democracy, Civil Disobedience is not an appropriate weapon in the fight for justice.

Civil disobedience encompasses the refusal to obey governmental laws or orders. This concept that is well known in the context of South African history. There are many examples present throughout history, especially in the new constitutional era, such as fees must fall. In this essay I will consider this concept of civil disobedience, especially in a South African context as well as considering a quote by Jurgen Habermas in an article by William Smith titled Civil Disobedience and Deliberative Democracy. Io will also look at philosophical theories such as liberalism and feminism in relation to the above move mentioned extract.