The recent protests in Korea have fostered many commentaries for and against what the protestors are advocating. As the protests have gone on more and more issues continue to be added to the list of concerns of those coming out to protest. What started as protests about US beef have turned into protests about everything from calls for gas subsidies to the impeachment of the president. While there is much to be debated in all of that, today I want to focus on whether civil disobedience is morally justified in a democracy. Civil disobedience is a phrase originated by Henry David Thoreau in an 1849 essay[1] of the same name in which he argued against paying taxes because he did not want to have his money going toward enforcing the Fugitive Slave Law or the war against Mexico. Democracy is included in the topic because to break out of authoritarian rule would necessitate disobedience. So, with all of the context out in front, is civil disobedience morally justified in a democracy?
Yes
Non-violence. Most practitioners of civil disobedience advocate peaceful protest. Thoreau was arrested for not paying his taxes and accepted his punishmenthe never directly paid his taxes because he did not believe in the war. Thoreau set the foundation of nonviolent protest.
Social contract. Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued "government gets established, through a contract, which purports to guarantee equality and protection for all, even though its true purpose is to fossilize the very inequalities that private property has produced."[2] The social contract as it exists protects the powerful, so the underrepresented must speak out. The minority view must be heard.
Necessity. The political system and courts are not enough to achieve change in many cases. Gandhi led India to freedom and Nelson Mandela helped end apartheid in South Africa. In both cases, the political structure of democracy was not enough to create such change, but nonviolent protest forced the light of change.
NO
Democracy allows for change. The minority should not be able to impose its will in the elected decisions of others. If the public is not satisfied with the decisions of their leaders, they can elect different leaders. Even when a law is passed that is seen as unjust, it can be challenged in court. Many unjust laws have been overturned in history.
Social Contract. Philosopher John Locke argued that "the natural condition of mankind is a state of perfect and complete liberty to conduct one's life as one best sees fit, free from the interference of others."[3] If the citizens are not pleased with their government they may vote in a new one. By accepting the social contract we agree to follow the law. Protestors show contempt for the law so any change that could happen with protests would undermine the broader democracy.
Violence. Many protests that start off as nonviolent lead to violence. The June 2008 protests against importation of US beef turned violent and saw rioters attempting to overturn police buses and tossing debris at police officers.[4] When Muslims grew angry about a cartoon depiction of Mohammad, protests across the Middle East turned violent.[5]
This topic is based on the 2004 national tournament Lincoln Douglas (LD) debate topic, Resolved: Civil Disobedience in a Democracy is morally justified. For more LD topics see the National Forensics League LD archives at http://www.nflonline.org/uploads/StudentResources/ldtopics.pdf.
If you are interested in debate or have any debate-related questions, email Roger Hatridge at hatridge@gmail.com.
[1]
http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil.html
[2]
target=new>http://www.iep.utm.edu/s/soc-cont.htm#SH2c
[3]
target=new>http://www.iep.utm.edu/s/soc-cont.htm#SH2b
[4]
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/08/
asia/korea.php
[5]
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/
politics/violent-protests-are-a-growing-global-crisis-465923.html