Nate Parsons

8/1/99

Sitting in the middle of the road blocking traffic and boldly trespassing onto military bases aren’t the sort of activities one normally associates with a fully functioning democracy. The strange thing is that these sorts of activities should be the joyful trumpet call of democracy in action. The reason being that these actions all fall within the realm of civil disobedience. That is to say, while not legal, these actions constitute a public and nonviolent protest against a public policy. These are not the acts of terrorists, and in most cases the protesters expect to be arrested, and willingly accept this. This is, of course, the Civil side of civil disobedience. So what does any of this have to do with justice, and why would you want this sort of thing in your democracy?

The answers to these questions can be found by tracing back through the history of a democracy, to its founding. When a democracy is formed people come together to create a government that all will have a say in, a government that favors no side in particular. The idea that no side gains an advantage in the original position is a key point of democracy, for if everyone is going to have a say in government then all must be equally treated under the law. Furthermore, democracies are governments of consent, where the citizens consent to the government as long as they have a chance to have their political preferences heard.

Now this situation of equality is easier in theory than in practice. For one thing it is not often the case that all parties to a government have equal powers or rights before the government is formed, and these positions will play a part in the formation of the new government. Furthermore, since most parties in a democracy will have specific areas of interest, often in terms of business, it will be hard for these groups not to seek an advantage in the formation of the government. Finally the situation is complicated by the fact that no group will want another to gain advantage, and this will convolute the political process.

David Rawls points out that the process of forming a government, or in general a social contract, is the fact that people know what there positions in life are, and because of this manipulate accordingly. A truly fair and just contract would have to be formed by parties in ignorance of their future positions. This works he says mainly because of paranoia. Every party will want to make sure that no matter what cards they are dealt, that they will have the best opportunity to succeed. Rawls follows this line of reasoning to a set of two principles. The first says that "each person will have an equal right to the most extensive liberty compatible with a like liberty for all; second, social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both to everyone’s advantage and attached to positions and offices open to all."(Rawls, p293)

These two principles come from the fact that no one’s liberty should be such that it prevents yourself or others from sharing such a liberty, and the idea that if position in society is based in a political context rather than left up to market forces the poorest person could rise to a considerable position in society. These are important, because without them there are positions in society that have no future, basic dead ends from the beginning. The idea of equal opportunity is of course very important in democracy, as the basis of government rests on each person having an equal opportunity to formulate policy.

Now Rawls points out something very important about real world democracies, and that is the fact that none of them are formed in an informational vacuum. Governments, even democracies, are usually formed with some sort of seed of injustice already planted. The United States is a good example of this, as its original founders were primarily rich white male landholders, but the contract came to include African Americans, Indians, Women, and poor people. Thus it is easy to see how injustice can be part of the bedrock of democracy.

This injustice is almost always to the benefit of the majority. After all, if the government is based on democratic rule, the group with the most people or political power will be able to skew the playing field to their benefit. This means that overtime, if not checked, most democracies will eventually drift away from the initial equality that the government was founded on. This sort of drift leads to unjust laws being passed, even in a just government. Now this drift is usually quite slow, for it would undoubtedly be checked if it happened quickly. But one can not just pick and choose what laws to obey. Rawls points out that, "the injustice of a law is not a sufficient ground for not complying with it any more than the legal validity of legislation is always sufficient to require obedience to it." (Rawls p 294) This does not even begin to account for the problems that arise because the majority may pass laws it perceives as fair or just that are not.

So our democracy seems to be moving inevitably away from just and fair rule. The government may not have even been set up in a fair way, but may only have a fair constitution. What then is a minority group to do that feels wronged by the majority? They may try political action in terms of voting, but being a minority this is not a very effective tactic. A minority may have no legal recourse in trying to see justice met.

This is the point in which civil disobedience comes into play. Civil disobedience, as you may recall, is a nonviolent action designed to draw attention to an issue. It is basically a call for justice. As democracies are founded on the idea of justice for all in terms of equality, civil disobedience can rekindle this spirit within the majority. The act of disobedience is not to terrorize people, or to cause damage, but rather mainly to focus attention. A good example of this sort of activity being the Woolworth’s lunch counter sit ins. These students were not trying to do particularly anything at all to the Woolworth’s. Instead these youths were trying to focus attention on the store. They wanted people to see the injustice of the situation. This is also a good example in that it shows that the minority need not be in numbers of people, but rather in terms of political power.

Probably the most important part of civil disobedience being a positive factor in a democracy is the acceptance of punishment by the protestors. This action shows that the protest is designed to work within the existing legal framework and not subvert it. Civil disobedience shows confidence in the system, and it announces the protesters intention of drawing attention to a situation rather than trying to unlawfully force change. This acceptance of punishment legitimizes the protest by calling out for justice not for the protestors but for the situation. The protestors are handily out of the way and not pulling attention away from the issue at hand. Rawls says, "civil disobedience in a democratic society is best understood as an appeal to the principles of justice, the fundamental conditions of willing social cooperation among free men, which in the view of the community as a whole are expressed in the constitution and guide its interpretation." (Rawls, p297)

Civil disobedience often is portrayed as a problem in democracies. However this sort of protest only occurs in situations in which the protesters have quite a bit of faith in the government. As a plea for justice, the protest relies on the fact that the majority would rather change a situation than have a minority subjected to injustice. When groups turn to civil disobedience, they are saying we trust in the system, but the majority has created an unjust situation. The majority may not be perfect, and it takes a special sort of communication in a democracy to point out that the will of the majority may not be fair to the other parties involved. Civil disobedience fills that roll, and seeing it practiced should affirm confidence in the government, as it is still regarded as reasonably just. So the next time you see a state legislature filled with sitting protestors, or watch people get arrested at the School of the Americas, clap your hands and smile, knowing that people still regard the government as a source of justice in the United States.