The Case against Civil Disobedience - Essay Example

The Case against Civil Disobedience Civil disobedience is the active, cajoled defiance of certain laws and demands of a particular governing body or a supreme reign (Neuenfeldt 11). Civil disobedience involves nonviolent resistance to the ‘unjust’ governing laws by certain members of the community to which these laws apply. The late Martin Luther King is one of the prominent leaders who actively held to the philosophy of non-violent resistance, in the 1950s, in his fight for a ‘just system’ for the Negro community. Civil disobedience as a method of seeking political justice is virtually ‘irrelevant’ to the real world today given the fact that it involves defying the governing laws and being ready to face the penalty that are set by these same laws. This proves to be a contradictory, shallow, and an ineffective means of achieving both political and social objectives as compared to radical attack. This paper will argue on the facts against using civil disobedience in achieving either effective revolution or a conventional political action. A revolution and conventional political action are generally movements that are in open disobedience to the laws of the governing system. However, when the defenders of these movements resort to civil disobedience, it proves fear and not being ready to achieve their objectives, as it is a feeble and weak option. This is because the defenders will try to achieve their objectives and contrarily, still strive to maintain their friendship with the governing body, which is an unsure way of winning a revolution. According to Storing (89), Malcolm X was equally against nonviolence resistance arguing that ‘there’s no such thing as nonviolent revolution…’ and explaining that ‘revolution is bloody, revolution is hostile, revolution knows no compromise, revolution overturns and destroys everything that gets in its way’. Malcolm X categorically continued stating that revolution is not a compromising game for negotiations, but rather it can go to the extreme point requiring bloodshed (Storing 90). Thus in the dependence on civil disobedience, the revolutionists are merely ‘begging’ the corrupt system or society to accept them into them, which are not the basic principles in winning a revolution or any other political movement. The paper considers civil movement as portrayed in the Negro movement to point out the facts that renders it an ineffective revolutionary method. Martin Luther King clearly understood that civil disobedience is the open, nonviolent disobedience of the law and showing the willingness to adhere to the consequent punishments. However, not all resistances to the law that are nonviolent are civil disobedience. Considering that civil disobediences are generally illegal, the argument here is that some legal resistances are, as well, nonviolent and this does not make them civil disobediences. For instance, the Montgomery bus boycott in the 1956, was initially legal but it was a form of nonviolent resistance (Storing 86). This is contrary to the heart of nonviolent resistance, which is simply breaking a law in protest of an injustice. During the time of King Luther, certain local laws were not much welcoming to the Negros. For instance, certain local authorities set some basic facilities exclusively for use by the whites. At times, this form of segregation could be an invalid law to the federal Constitution but valid to the local/state laws. Breaking of this kind of law thus is a normal behavior in the light of the Higher laws of the Constitution. On the other hand, civil disobedience to this kind of law, would lead to a Negro going to jail with the hope of influencing the local authorities to change these laws that would remain unclear. However, a rapid attack/revolution would lead to the cajolement of the authorities to review these laws, considering the massive loss that normally couple violent resistance to the law. Considering the century long patient submission of the negro slaves to their masters that ‘… had produced no acceptable results….’, Luther King got convinced beyond doubt that violence was not a sure way of obtaining the justice (Storing 87). Justice thus becomes the foundation of his civil disobedience as he continues to state that ‘any law that uplifts human personality is unjust’ (Storing 92). His refurbished realization of the injustices to the Negros also led to his belief that all the segregation statutes were unjust because segregation was a vile that not only distorted the mind but also led to the damage of the Negro personality. Considering all this, King Luther still resorted to the civil disobedience arguing that ‘nonviolent resistance is the sword that heals’ and that ‘large-scale non-cooperation calls attention to the unjust system and strains its facilities’. However, the clamorous voices of the Negro movement radically rejected the ‘corrupt’ American system unanimously, implying that civil disobedience was just but a mere method that could not effectively render them there desired justice (Storing 91). Civil disobedience technically implies an open and loving breaking of the law and a willingness to accept the penalty pegged to the law. In all circumstances, this is an act of defiance of the law could lead to anarchy if done on a substantial scale. This is not any different with an open defiance of the law like in rapid attacks of a revolution/resistance. The advocates of civil disobedience contend that they are protected from the dangers of the law by their ‘ethical’ belief that when they break any law, they do so in an openly with a willingness to accept the punishment. However, this raises questions as to why one needs to defy a law to show respect for the same law, or why one needs to accept the punishment to show respect for the law. Hence, accepting the punishment for ‘breaking’ an ‘unjust’ law is not all that is crucial in showing respect for that law. But, participating in an effective revolution, no matter how rapid it is, that arouses the conscience of the law-makers to make those laws ‘just’ is a is respectful (Storing 94). Finally, King brings out a contention that ‘everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was ‘legal’ and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was ‘illegal’’. At the time of Hitler, it was unlawful to aid and comfort a Jew in Germany, and doing so was an outright defiance of the laws of the land. Questions arise if it would be possible to use civil disobedience in seeking justice from the dictatorial government of Hitler. It is would be, obviously, suicide to show respect for the ‘law’ in general by willingly accepting the punishment imposed by the laws of such a regime (Storing 95). Thus, it is quite difficult to seek for justice, both political and social, in this kind of a regime with civil disobedience. Using a radical and rapid revolution thus, becomes a clear cut for such situations. With such a violent revolution and open defiance of the law comes inevitable consequences of jail, but the conscience to change the unjust law is clearly aroused on the law enforcers. Objections to the arguments According to Malcolm X, a revolution neither knows compromise nor relies on negotiations. However, in his observation, King found that ‘direct non-violent resistance permits the Negro to move positively to foster a crisis and thus to expose a cleavage which his former had passivity had helped to conceal’ (Storing 87). This implies that violent disobedience of the law creates more divide between the oppressor and the oppressed than nonviolent resistance. This creates room for the oppressor to realize the effects of certain ‘unjust’ laws on their subjects compared to a case in which the ‘master’ is saddened by violent resistance. In loving the oppressor while standing nonviolently to the unjust system or law, the demonstrator turns his enemy into a friend and doubly contributes to the ultimate end, integration, which is ‘genuine intergroup and interpersonal living’ or ‘total interrelatedness’ (Storing 88). Civil disobedience, according to this argument, then leads to the realization of the resistance objective as well as creating a lasting relationship with the authorities and/or the law. Contrary to the violent resistance, which involves a group of people, civil disobedience is part of the subject’s view of law and order (Storing 99). The subject determines whether to obey or disobey certain laws, whether the laws are just or unjust. Even though civil disobedience is always a feeble tactic, it may sometimes help to secure a secluded people a place among the governors of a particular self-governing community. The effects of civil disobedience are gradual but, in all cases, it is an effective method to show respect for the law, while pursuing a course for justice. The advocates for civil disobedience argue that the demonstrator should openly and willingly defy the unjust law in pursuit of the just law, and be ready to face any penalty that could follow that defiance. This makes civil disobedience a more conscience-driven tactic of pursuing justice compared to the use of violent resistance. Civil disobedience is also a tactic that is ‘inherently subordinate, responsive, dependent – for the citizen of a democracy – degrading’ (Storing 100) In all cases, it would be inappropriate to state generally that either violent resistance or nonviolent resistance is the most appropriate method of pursuing ‘just’ laws in a given society. Consideration should be on the aftermaths of each method used, the effectiveness of the method, the time it takes to achieve the desired objective of the resistance and the political system in question. The sole reason for any resistance should be to produce a fundamentally just and rare civil society where just laws protect all people and they have the courage to pursue happiness, no matter the dimensions that it takes. The dehumanizing situations endured by the Negro in America under slavery and after the Civil War, necessitated the move to improve the capacity of the American political system to render justice to all citizens, and make this the first principle of political reason and action (Storing 102) In conclusion, the urge to obey any law just because they are recognized by a particular political system as law does not imply showing respect to that particular political system. Certain laws may prove ‘unjust’ depending on an individual(s) view, but in all cases, the society can be made precious to its people if they protest against injustices. Civil disobedience, however, is a slow method of pursuing justice considering that its positive demands appear after a long period of protest. For a violent revolution, the demonstrators face harsh punishments but the response to the resistance is spontaneous. Works Cited H. J. Storing, ‘The Case Against Civil Disobedience,’ in Robert A. Goldwin (ed), On Civil Disobedience: Essays Old and News (Chicago, IL: Rand McNally, 1969), pp. 95-105, 114-20. Print Neuenfeldt, Meric-Vance (Ric). "Civil Disobedience." Music Educators Journal 91.2 (2004): 11. Print. Read More