Civil disobedience and its moral foundations in American thought

Civil disobedience is the active refusal to follow or obey certain laws or demands of a government or ruling power without using physical force or violence (Wikipedia 2005).

Those who protest and use civil disobedience deliberately violate those laws they oppose and sometimes violate other laws, such as trespassing or traffic laws. Most of those who opt for civil disobedience are carefully non-violent and willing to accept legal punishment or penalties. They resort to it in publicizing an unjust law or a just cause, to appeal to public conscience, to exert pressure on some negotiation with stubborn government officials, to help political prisoners, to challenge the constitutionality of a particular law, to exculpate oneself, to end one's obedience to an unjust law or a combination of these (Suber 1999). In a broad sense, civil disobedience is ancient, as old as the Hebrew midwives' defiance of Pharaoh, but most of its moral and legal theory and form were inspired and shaped by American author Henry David Thoreau, Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. Thoreau first wrote about it in his 1849 essay, originally entitled, "Resistance to Civil Government," as a concept of self-reliance and good moral standing, which did not involve physical encounter against the government or violence, but a protester must not support it or allow it to support him. In his day, Thoreau refused to pay his taxes in protest against slavery and the Mexican War

Thoreau argued that the rule of the majority was not always based on rightness or fairest but because the majority was physically the strongest. He did not see the majority or the government as ruling on the basis of right and wrong but only on expediency. Thoreau believed and advocated that every man should live by his conscience and that people must first be individuals before they became subjects of the state or government. He did not see sense in blindly or communally following or respecting the law but as individuals and according to conscience. If people did not do so, they would develop an undue respect for the law and behave mechanically towards it or against their common sense and conscience (Thoreau).

Some are skeptical about civil disobedience and doubt its effectiveness or reasonableness (Maravillosa 2002). But the rest see it as a highly effective strategy in educating individuals and in bringing about a particular and desired change. Freedom lovers find it a flexible tool in their cause or fight. Civil disobedience can take the form of a mass demonstration or of a private, solitary and anonymous act, as in the case of Thoreau in Walden Pond. Group or mass actions or demonstrations can draw public support for a cause, writing and disseminating ideas or opinions can affect others, and living a solitary or separated life in refusing to give the government or state the right to rule over oneself is more basic and concrete. Many who practice civil disobedience uphold religious convictions, that is why the religious or clerics often participate in mass actions of civil disobedience. Civil disobedience can also be active by deliberately breaking certain laws, such as by peacefully blocking or occupying an area or facility although illegally. These non-violent acts are deliberately performed so that arrest or attack by the authorities would follow. Protesters who perform civil disobedience do so passively or limply so as not to threaten the authority (Wikipedia).

Examples of Civil Disobedience

Taking after the original example of Henry David Thoreau in secluding himself from the cloak of the law and into the woods in Walden Pond, protesters expressed the same outcry all over the world and in different times. Civil disobedience was used widely in India's nonviolent resistance movements against British colonialism, in South Africa in its fight against apartheid, in civil rights movements in the U.S.A. And in Europe and in the resistance movement in Scandinavia against the Nazi occupation (Wikipedia 2005). It was also a major strategy adopted by national movements in the former colonies in Africa and Asia before they obtained independence. Famous leader Mahatma Gandi developed civil disobedience as an anti-colonial tactic and based on rules, i.e., the protester shall not harbor anger or suffer the anger of the opponent; he shall not retaliate towards the opponents' assaults; not submit to an order given in anger; he shall voluntarily submit to arrest; he shall not resist the confiscation of his property; he will refuse to surrender anything in his possession, even at the risk of losing his life; he will not retaliate, even by swearing or cursing; he will not insult his opponent; he will not salute or insult officials but will even protect such officials from insult or attack even at the expense of his losing his own life. Gandhi distinguished his concept of satyagraha and passive resistance of the West. He singlehandedly and unrelentingly performed civil disobedience in seeking the freedom of India (Maravillosa 2002). According to his private enlightenment on Indian servitude to the British, he wrote, agitated and took principled action to secure that independence. For these acts, he was repeatedly thrown to jail but he remained defiant towards the authorities. His unrelenting advocacy of nonviolent protest drew many to his cause and his method enabled Indians to participate and gain power from it. One of his defiant actions was a walk to the sea to make salt, an illegal act at the time. The British authorities could not arrest him out of fear of protests and strikes that could result from an arrest. This example inspired many to make and sell salt themselves, eliminating British intervention and control and, hence, British tax revenues (Maravillosa).

Another prominent figure in civil disobedience is Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. who led the civil rights movement in the U.S. In the 60s (Maravillosa 2002). There were anti-war activists during and after the Vietnam War, pro-life or anti-abortion advocates who went up against the U.S. government on the issue of legalized abortion and protesters against the war on Iraq in the present decade. Philip Berrigan was a Roman Catholic priest who was arrested many times for committing acts of civil disobedience out of anti-war protests. In the U.S., large-scale civil disobedience acts led to the repeal of Volsted Act, which put an end to Prohibition on alcohol. One more example was a home-schooling movement by dissatisfied parents against public and private school systems' risky and very threatening "protective services." The common sentiment among these parents evolved into a spontaneous movement to protect their children (Maravillosa).

There were instances of civil disobedience right at the early settlement period of the colonies, which were fed up with Britain's tyrannical rule and which began writing to urge for liberty and taking action against unjust laws and restrictions to their actions (Maravillosa 2002). One of the best known incidents of civil disobedience among the new colonies was the Boston Tea Party

Conclusion

While Thoreau and other leading figures in the sphere of civil disobedience argue that individuals are morally justified in disobeying certain laws, the observation is that few will actually disobey (Suber 1999). These leaders view this docility in the majority as the greater threat to democracy than anarchy. Civil disobedience consists of deliberate actions by individuals meant to oppose or disobey unjust laws without violence or retaliation against the authorities or State (Suber 1999, Wikipedia 2005). American author Henry David Thoreau was the first civil protester, an individualist, who openly violated taxation laws of his time to oppose slavery and the Mexican War. By withdrawing to his own world in the woods near Walden Pond, he expressed that dissent. Other leaders, like Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., expressed the same protest and dissent by performing non-violent acts. Individual and popular but non-violent acts of protest have been noted in many other parts of the world and at different periods in history.

Advocates of civil disobedience maintain that a democracy draws its powers from free individuals, who can likewise withdraw that power by relinquishing the benefits they derive from the State without resorting to violence (Wikipedia 2005, Suber 1999, Maravillosa 2002). There have been arguments for and against this form of dissent and protest towards laws. On the other hand, electronic civil disobedience has been viewed as the newer, bigger and an unpredictable form of showing or expressing opposition to laws or government. Many predict that it is the looming complement of the traditional and familiar street demonstrations and protests in the 21st century (Wray 1996).