Civil disobedience is justified when citizens experience injustice from the government - Essay Example

Civil disobedience is justified when citizens experience injustice from the government Introduction Civil disobedience is justified when citizens experience substantial injustice from the government. Civil disobedience is deliberate disregard for the rule of law by citizens in advancing moral principles are protesting against government policies. It includes disobeying particular laws that are considered as unjust and other laws in drawing attention to the perceived injustice in the society. Examples of civil disobedience include the Civil rights Movements of 1960s and the recent Arab uprisings in North African countries and Asian countries. Some unlawful acts that citizens may engage in include non-payment of taxes, trespassing to government buildings, and damage of property and obstruction of traffic in the major highways. Citizens accept the adverse consequences of their actions as a means of furthering the objectives and causes. Civil disobedience was a major tactic of advancing the rights of Women in the USA, and the abolition of Apartheid in South Africa in early 1990s. This paper will discuss the reasons why civil disobedience is justified when citizens experience injustice from the government. Civil disobedience has been successful in ending injustice in the society. Many government policies are flawed and civil disobedience is only effective method of ending injustice in the society. Civil disobedience is mainly geared at advancing social issues that affect the majority of the citizens in the society. According to Martin Luther King, Jr letter from Birmingham jail, injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. If injustice affects a single group of individuals directly, it will also affect other members of the society indirectly. According to his letter, the government should address the causes of the demonstrations in Birmingham and not the effects of the demonstrations (Ingram 90). Martin Luther’s letter clearly indicates that the minority has used all the available channels like negotiation but civil disobedience is the last resort to end the injustice. Negro leaders had sough negotiations but political leaders consistently refused to negotiate in good faith in ending the social injustice. According to Martin Luther, it is essential to create tension if the society has refused to negotiate so that leaders can confront the real injustice issues. According to Luther, justice delayed is the same as justice denied but violence should not be used to achieve justice. According to Luther, racial segregation in the society has denied Negros fundamental constitutional rights thus are justified to demonstrate so that authorities can resolve the injustice (Ingram 90). According to John Locke (1632-1704), the government derives its authority from the people and its major duty should be to protect the basic rights of the citizens. Locke asserts that people have the rights to alter the government if it has failed to protect their fundamental rights. Locke rejects absolute monarchy since it will harm the rights of the citizens to choose their government. According to Locke, the citizens are justified to engage in civil disobedience if their rights and liberties have been violated by government policies. According to Locke, the legislative government should not alter laws in order to limit the rights and liberties of the citizens. According to the Social Contract theory by John Rawls, free people need to agree on the rules governing their relationships in order to live in harmony. According to Theory of Justice by Rawls, every individual should have equal rights and freedoms in the society and economic inequalities should not disadvantage the minorities in the society. John Rawls assert that all citizens should be treated as ends and no means to an end thus justice can only be attained through fair distribution of resources and according to free choices of the citizens. All individuals are entitled to equal natural rights and the rights protected by justice and fairness principles (Ingram 91). According to the social contract theory, citizen’s liberties should be maximized while social inequalities should promote the welfare of the worst off. According to Rawls, all advantages are unacceptable if they hinder the welfare of the minority in the society. According to Rawls, civil disobedience is justified if it based on the principles of the constitution and does not promote individual interests. Civil disobedience is justified if normal appeals to authority through dialogue have been tried and failed or when major minority groups experience similar injustice. Civil disobedience is also justified when it hinders the end of other injustices and infringes the rights and liberties of the citizens. In democratic societies, all the opinions of all the citizens cannot be addressed adequately thus civil disobedience is a powerful method of expressing the demands of minority groups that have no access to financial resources and control of the media. Additionally, not every country that has clearly written constitution and bill of civil rights that a court can utilize to resolve injustice in the society. For instance, courts may experience tight control by the same oppressive government thus civil disobedience is the only means to end the injustice. The government should not violate “universal laws” since the natural laws are important in every society. National laws that contravene the natural rights under the universal laws such as freedom of worship should be rejected by the citizens (Ingram 92). Use of violence in civil disobedience is also justified if the disobedience is just. For instance, American Revolution was violent and was justified in reaction to King George III injustices on American people. According to Martin Luther’s criteria to civil disobedience, information collection on injustices and negotiations precede civil disobedience thus it is justified as the last resort to end injustice. Civil disobedience has been effective in ending injustice in many parts of the world. For instance, India achieved liberty through Gandhi’s civil movements. American Civil rights movement led to the enactment of Civil Rights Act of 1964 that granted all American citizens equal rights and prohibited discrimination of Black people and racial segregation. The movement also led to voting rights for minorities and change of the immigration laws that were unjust for minority citizens. The civil disobedience culminated to Fair Housing Act of 1968 that banned racial discrimination in the sale and rental of houses. African-Americans were able to participate in politics and other major economic activities thus contributing to a higher social and economic growth of the American society. The recent Arab uprisings and demonstrations have seen changes in governments. The uprisings were occasioned by dictatorial leadership and abuse of human rights in countries such as Libya, Syria, Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen (Gelvin 26). The governments involved had failed in protecting the basic rights of the citizens since human rights violations and corruption of public resources was evident (Gelvin 26). High unemployment rate and autocratic leadership led to massive protests in those countries thus leading to ouster of the political authorities and governments. Both Civil rights Movement and Arab uprising is justified since the governments had violated human rights. Martin Luther accepted to be arrested by the government in order to demonstrate that segregation was unjustified in American society. Civil disobedience is justified when it entails preserving good laws and ending injustices in the society (Gelvin 27). On the other side, opponents of civil disobedience assert that it results to violence and looting in the society. According to Thomas Hobbes, the government has absolute authority and citizens should not question the sovereign authority. If the citizens enjoy some benefits and rights in the country, they must in return obey all the government laws and desist from civil disobedience. Civil disobedience will undermine government authority and lead to lawlessness (Bedau 86). According to Rouseseau theory on democratic government, the existence of unlawful channels to change government laws is unnecessary since elected government derives the authority from the electorate. Elected representatives make the laws on behalf of the citizens thus aggrieved citizens should wait until the end government term in office in order to exercise their voting right and vote in a new government (Bedau 86). The above argument is incorrect since democratic governments receive legitimate authority from the citizens and it entails protecting citizen’s rights. The court system provides good channel for fighting injustice in the society. if laws conflict with the constitution or human rights, the courts can overturn the law. The citizens should never engage undermining the law in the streets but should fight for overturning of the law in the courts of justice (Bedau 85). Civil disobedience involves violence that is directed to innocent citizens in the society or the law enforcement authorities. It may result to more damage like deaths and bodily injuries thus costs of civil disobedience will outweigh the social good of the cause. This argument is incorrect since the court system is controlled by the same oppressive government and in some cases they constitution may not expressly specify the rights of the citizens. Conclusion Civil disobedience is justified when citizens experience substantial injustices like human rights violations by the government. Civil disobedience is a measure of last resort thus citizens have the right to oust the government. Any democratic government derives its authority from the citizens thus it should protect citizen rights. Works cited: Bedau, Hugo. Civil disobedience in focus. New Jersey. Routledge. 2002. Gelvin, James. The Arab uprisings: what everyone needs to know? New York. Oxford University Press. 2012. Grant, Ruth. John Locke’s liberalism. Chicago. University of Chicago Press. 1991. 55 Ingram, D. Law. London. Continuum. 2006. Read More