SPECTRUM 2007-2008

According to the ancient Greek philosopher Plato, Socrates was put on trial for the charge of contaminating young minds and thwarting their allegiance to the leaders with his ideas. Socrates denied the charges and vowed to continue his work regardless of the ruling of the court. Before being sentenced to death (a fate that he calmly accepted), he exclaimed, “I owe a greater obedience to God than to you; and so long as I draw breath and have my faculties, I shall never stop practising [sic] philosophy and exhorting you and elucidating the truth for everyone that I meet”? (qtd. in Bleiker 37). This courageous act set in motion the tradition of using nonviolent civil disobedience as a way of creating change.

Many people have defined civil disobedience, and although each of them has a slight variation, they agree on a few central characteristics. Civil disobedience is generally understood to be a public and nonviolent act, which purposefully defies an existing law thought to be unjust (Bleiker 37), committed with the intent of being legally reprimanded in order to create interest and support for the desired change in the law (”Let’s”?). These tactics have played a leading role in the civil rights movement, the women’s rights movement, the fight to free India, and a laundry list of other epic changes in human rights laws worldwide. It would be grand, indeed, if measures against the law did not have to be taken in order to create such changes. However, nothing can change if nothing is acknowledged. In order to rectify gross injustices that are upheld by the law, acts of civil disobedience must be made.

One of the primary arguments against using civil disobedience as a tactic for change is that it creates volatile situations in which violence and destruction can easily erupt. However, such critics fail to realize that civil disobedience is founded upon nonviolence, and the violence surrounding such events is often initiated by those charged with upholding the law. For example, in January of 1964, a group of peacewalkers entered into Albany, Georgia. Their only objective was to march peacefully and distribute leaflets promoting fasting and hunger strikes as powerful weapons against mistreatment. Upon entering into a portion of Albany that was predominantly black, they were ordered to stop. Their object being to spread the information to those it would most benefit, the walkers refused. According to Bradford Lyttle, a peace walk participant, shortly after their refusal they were subjected to beatings, dragged into buses and jailed. Those who were resistant were attacked with electric cow prodders along their faces, stomachs, legs, and genitals (Hare 189-202).

A few short years later, a similar scene arose in Washington. William Chapman reports that in October of 1967, around 55,000 people opposed to the Vietnam War went to the Pentagon to protest. Around thirty protestors entered the Pentagon intending to sit and block traffic. They were promptly thrown out by troops carrying rifles armed with bayonets. At least three tear gas grenades were thrown and nightsticks, boots, and rifle butts were used to breakup a group of protestors quietly sitting with their arms and legs entwined (Hare 241-45).

America is not alone in harboring such violence. Legislative elections held on June 6, 1993 in Brazzaville, the capital of the Congo, were believed by opposition leader Bernard Kolelas to be conducted unjustly. Kolelas requested his that supporters enact a campaign of civil disobedience in hopes of gaining a new election. Aggressive actions described by the government as “special measures”? were taken by the Congolese Armed Forces, resulting in the shooting death of three individuals and leaving several more wounded (”Disputed”?).

Unfortunately, such violence is not contained to eras gone by, but is still occurring around the world today. In Myanmar (formerly known as Burma), just this past September, peaceful demonstrators suffered violent attacks, torture, and death at the hands of the government. Amnesty International, a global human rights organization, describes the beatings of men, women, children, monks and anyone within range of the protest. Victims reported having been beaten with bamboo sticks and canes made of rubber or wood. Due to massive injuries from a beating, a 22-year old protestor died. There was a killing even captured on film, of a Japanese journalist who shot at close range by military troops. Bullets of both rubber and lead were fired into crowds of protestors chanting peacefully. The government holds it stance that only 10 deaths of protestors have occurred. However, testimonies and circumstantial evidence (such as the operation of generally dormant crematoriums) set the number a bit higher. It is more closely estimated that 18 people have perished so far, and those imprisoned continue to die from complications of injuries and torture (”Myanmar Briefing”?).

Granted, sometimes violence does occur on the part of the civil disobedient. Yet, usually it is not without necessity or provocation. Carl Cohen asserts that resorting to violence is reasonable only when to obey the objectionable law would incur even greater damage to innocents. He relates this to a Jew in a Nazi concentration camp destroying property or maiming an official to protect a life (Cohen). Fear can make people do outrageous things. However, to add insult to injury, not only are protestors beaten and tortured excessively, but all too often the governments place the blame for such violence on those exercising peaceful demonstrations. Civil disobedience is not a basis for violence or destruction. Rather, it is the overreactions to such protests by trigger-happy officials that the violence can always be traced back to.

Another opposition to the use of civil disobedience is the fear that such actions will completely undermine and demolish all general law and order. This concept, however, is irrational and flies in the face of what has been proven by history. No complete and permanent collapse of reasonable general law and order has occurred to date as a direct result of civil disobedience.

Quite the opposite, civil disobedience has been credited with strengthening social order. After all, the entire motivation to resist authority is to change a particular law or policy. The object of civil disobedience has never been to completely abolish the system in which the law exists. Nonviolence is an application based on reform (not revolution), which Roland Bleiker describes as a “practice that often strengthens the existing societal order”? (Bleiker). It stands to logic that when people are empowered to create and uphold their own regulations, they will be much more inclined to follow them peacefully.

When civil disobedience does become necessary, the “civil”? aspect is respected with set limitations and boundaries to acts of dissent. Carl Cohen states, “The vast majority of civil disobedient protests are carefully and thoughtfully nonviolent. Partly this is because the disobedients abhor violence, as good citizens everywhere do”? (Cohen). Martin Luther King Jr. also promoted the use of caution when deciding to go against the law. He made it clear that he supported the obedience of laws that were just and only disobeyed those laws which were deemed harmful and unjust (Suber).

Indeed, it could be argued that any criterion for justice or injustice is entirely subjective. However, one will find out rather quickly how just one’s cause is by how many of one’s allies are still at one’s side when the batons start to fly. Considering that there are limits and guidelines to nonviolent protest and that it provides a solidifying effect to social order, it seems very unlikely that civil disobedience would ever be a conduit for the complete downfall of general law.

Many critics of civil disobedience believe that there are perfectly legal avenues to incite change that ought to be used instead. There are several reasons why severely unjust laws and policies will not be changed simply through legal means. Though we are lucky enough to live in what is called a democratic society, not all advocates human rights causes are. Even the United Kingdom lacks the right of the court to appeal legislature. The campaign for Indian independence, for instance, could never have been sought through the courts as they were living under British rule (”Stare”?).

Even in the American legal system, in order for a case to have even the slightest chance of being sent through all the necessary political channels, it would first have to reach court. In order for it to reach court, someone must inevitably break the law. Once a case is in the system, the chances for reform are still grim. The same people who either support or uphold the unjust law in question generally also rule the courts. Nietzsche once alleged that “liberal institutions cease to be liberal as soon as they are established, and as a result there is nothing more wicked and harmful to freedom than liberal institutions”?(qtd in Bleiker). These legal channels sound great on paper, but when executed they are found to be woefully inadequate.

These legal alternatives also take time. We are only able circuitously to express our opinions every four years when we vote for who we’d like to see run our country. Even then, it isn’t truly the voices of people that get a candidate nominated; it’s the voice of the dollar. This option is simply not enough to meet the demands of justice. For example, when listening to the Duluth City Council meetings, observers hear small and seemingly insignificant proposals being bounced around hour after hour and week after week. By the time an ordinance is actually enacted, it seems to hardly represent its original purpose. Obviously, for such vital and significant changes as the right to vote, desegregation, and the independence of a nation, much quicker and effective means must be used.

Also, just like Socrates, many disobedients hold the laws of their god, of nature, or of international origin in higher regard than those of their own government. The opposition presents the idea that being a resident of a certain state or country, and utilizing the benefits such a residence may offer, is an agreement (or social contract) to obey the laws of that region (Suber). The Nuremberg principles are in stark contrast to such ideology. At the end of the second World War, in light of the irreprehensible conduct of many of those involved in the war who were following direct orders, it was decided that there are certain things which no man must ever do. These are universally defined as crimes against humanity and peace (Cohen 197-209). Therefore, if a soldier or citizen is given a legal order that perpetuates such crimes, the soldier is not obliged under international law to carry out the order. In essence, there are certain non-governmental authorities that represent a higher standard of morals and ethics to which every person ought to have the right to adhere.

In regards to undermining basic law and order, our own particular government does a smashing job of accomplishing this with its blatant and continuous hypocrisy. In May of 2002, the U.S. Senate shouted their full support of Cubans’ civil disobedience in order to win “democracy”? for the nation. It was reported that the Senate approved by an 87-0 vote a measure supporting a project whose aim was to gain freedom of speech, amnesty for political prisoners and electoral reform through dissident channels (Nelson). Florida Senator Bill Nelson was quoted as saying, “The vote sends a strong signal that America backs the brave Cuban people who are seeking change through their constitution, and the independent organizations that are working to improve human rights in Cuba.”?

On a visit to Egypt, Condoleeza Rice declared the United States’ support of the campaign for democracy, even at the possible cost of Egypt’s national stability. She continued to call for a string of direct actions and made demands upon the Egyptian government such that “It must give its citizens the freedom to choose, Egyptian elections must be free, opposition groups must be free to assemble and participate”?(qtd in Shalid). She ended her long list of requirements by stating that the Egyptian government must “put its faith in its own people”?(qtd. in Shalid).

Meanwhile, here in God’s Country, the Secret Service sets up “Free-Speech Zones”? where protestors are confined if they have any intent to hold signs in opposition or talk disparagingly of President Bush. Generally, these spaces are heavily guarded and outside the scope of any media attention. When a man carrying a sign reading “The Bush family must surely love poor people, they made so many of us”? refused to be restricted to the baseball field (one third of a mile away from Bush’s event) which was designated as the “Free-Speech Zone,”? he was arrested for disorderly conduct (Bovard). At this man’s trial, a local detective confirmed that the Secret Service had ordered local police to restrain “people that were there making a statement pretty much against the president and his views”? (qtd. in Bovard). Attorney General John Ashcroft ardently defended such actions with the never failing ace-in-the-hole by stating that “Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and…give ammunition to America’s enemies”? (qtd. in Bovard).

These examples show an extreme lack of continuity. Apparently, it is all fine and for the best that foreign dissidents stand up for their rights. However, those very same rights are curtailed when people merely trying to peacefully exercise them are rounded up like cattle and quarantined from the public like a highly infectious virus. It seems that so long as our government and its officials are not responsible for cleaning up after civil disobedience in other nations, they will support such actions when it is convenient for their political agendas. They will disguise it as a support of democracy, yet when that same democracy is attempted on our own soil, it is instead called assistance of terrorism. It is precisely this kind of manifest hypocrisy that is the true threat to the erosion of our national unity. We have nothing to fear of civil disobedience, if our government and judicial process is truly as fair and democratic in action as it is in theory.

Those who don’t agree with the necessity of civil disobedience contend that breaking the law to achieve change negates the worth of the cause. Those who hold this view seem to want an omelet without breaking any eggs. History is riddled with civil disobedience tactics used to create positive change. Yes, there will be discord and unpleasantness. There may even be anger and bloodshed. However, nonviolent direct actions are the most effective pathways to changes that cannot afford to wait. History has proven that not only do these tactics work, but that the value of the cause is nearly always preserved as well.

Mahatma Gandhi embodies the ideal of utilizing civil disobedience, while preserving the dignity and merit of his causes. In the Salt March, considered to be the greatest nonviolent battle ever fought, Gandhi launched a campaign to free his country from the chokehold of Great Britain. He did this by leading a march out to sea and collecting natural salt, breaking the British laws demanding severely excessive taxes for the mineral. Gandhi has been said to consider his actions and his life a “walking prayer,”? and as such, would not act in any way that would disgrace his beliefs (Weber). Paradoxically, by acts of complete and utter submission, he became empowered enough to win independence for India without in the least sacrificing his ethical or moral beliefs.

Mass nonviolent actions such as sit-ins, freedom rides and bus boycotts organized by The Congress of Racial Equality initiated the civil rights movement in the 1940’s. Later in the 1960’s many other organizations joined CORE in nonviolent battles against segregation in the Deep South. The March on Washington in 1963 drew 250,000 participants (”History”?). Through nonviolent means, segregation was considerably weakened. Also sparked by King, the anti-Vietnam war movement used nonviolent means such as draft-card burning, sit-ins and mass protests. They eventually were successful in educating the public and pressuring the government into ending the war.

The list of gains made through civil disobedience could go on indefinitely. It has been proven in studies, such as one conducted by the human-rights organization Freedom Watch, that nonviolent dissent has a better chance of sustaining its gains than revolts or legally initiated changes (Douthat). It is the gains that are taught in history classes and memorialized in our cities. It is the protest speeches that hang upon our walls. No one dares to openly speak ill of Gandhi, or Martin Luther King Jr., or Harriet Tubman. In the heated moments when the demonstrations were occurring, they may surely have seemed anarchic and threatening to the security of the present way of life. However, the passage of time has shown us that not only were these tactics effective, but that those who implemented them have become venerated heroes in the campaign for human rights.

In a nation as developed as ours appears to be, it would be easy to settle for the rights we have and assume that all the major injustices have already been fought and eradicated. Though it is a comforting thought, it is not indicative of the truth. Wars still rage, and human beings still succumb to inherent urges of destruction and hate.

Fearful and controlling members of law enforcement have instigated nearly all violence incurred at protests, demonstrations and other acts of dissent. The law and order of any country are only as strong as its weakest leader. Governments have nothing to fear from civil disobedience, as it tends to strengthen societies, not destroy them. If anything is to pose a threat to our democracy, it is the corruption and hypocrisy of those charged with protecting it. Some democratic countries have maze-like routes of legislation to get through in order to create change legally. It sounds like a fine device, but in actuality it is clogged with distractions and red tape. It has been proven throughout the course of history that peacefully disobedient acts executed in attempt to create change have been the most effective.

Though it may seem that we have all the freedom of expression and choice that is practical, those very rights that we thought inalienable are being strategically tightened and trimmed. If we are to protect our rights that are still intact and effectively challenge laws condoning oppression and injustice, we must break those laws, hold up signs, conduct sit-ins and do whatever it may take to stand up in opposition. As the poignant songtress Ani DiFranco asks, “Why don’t you give me call when you decide you’re willing to fight for what you think is real, what you think is right?”?

Works Cited

Bleiker, Roland. “Rawls and the Limits of Nonviolent Civil Disobedience.”? Social Alternatives 21.2 (2002): 37-40. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. 19 Nov. 2007 <http://search.ebscohost.com/>.

Bovard, James. “Free-Speech Zone.”? The American Conservative 15 Dec. 2003. 3 Dec. 2007 <http://www.amconmag.com/>.

Cohen, Carl. Civil Disobedience: Conscience, Tactics, and The Law. New York: Columbia UP, 1971.

DiFranco, Ani. “Willing to Fight.”? Living in Clip. Righteous Babe Records, 1997.

“Disputed Election Results Lead to Violence in Congo.”? Africa Report 38.4 (1993): 11. Expanded Academic ASAP. Gale. 26 Nov. 2007 <http://find.galegroup.com/>.

Douthat, Ross, and Marshall Poe. “Gandhi Was Right.”? Atlantic Monthly 296.2 (2005): 54. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. 3 Dec. 2007 <http://search.ebscohost .com/>.

Hare, Paul A., and Herbert H. Blumberg. Nonviolent Direct Action. American Cases: Social-Psychological Analyses. Washington: Corpus, 1968.

“History of Mass Nonviolent Action.”? 18 Nov. 2007 <http://www.activism.net/>.

“Let’s Be Civil About Responsibility.”? eWeek 27 Apr. 2006. Expanded Academic ASAP. Gale. 18 Nov. 2007 <http://find.galegroup.com/>.

“Myanmar Briefing Paper: No Return to “Normal”?.”? Amnesty International. 13 Nov. 2007 <http://www.amnesty.org/>.

Nelson, Bill. “Senate Overwhelmingly Backs Cuban Dissent.”? 31 May 2002. 3 Dec. 2007 <http://billnelson.senate.gov/>.

Shadid, Anthony. “Egypt Shuts Door on Dissent As U.S. Officials Back Away.”? Washington Post 19 March 2007. 3 Dec. 2007 <http://www.washington post.com/>.

“Stare Decisis.”? Encyclopedia Britannica. 2007. Encyclopedia Britannica Online. 12 Dec. 2007 <http://www.britannica.com/>.

Suber, Peter. “Civil Disobedience.”? Philosophy of Law: An Encyclopedia. Christopher B. Gray ed. 1999.

Weber, Thomas. “Ghandian Nonviolence and the Salt March.”? Social Alternatives 21.2 (2002): 46-51. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. 19 Nov. 2007 <http://search.ebscohost.com/>.