Category: Civil Disobedience

Civil Disobedience is a method of protest that is widely gaining universal support and recognition because of its peaceful and pure method. It is a movement that was originated by Mohandas Moramchand Gandhi, popularly known as Mahatma Gandhi, an India icon of human rights activism.

He first moved to South African to protest the illegitimate apartheid rules and his methods of non violence have been greatly adopted in any meaningful protests all over the world. This mode of protest has been used successfully since then and it differs from ordinary protest in practice, belief and intention (Gandhi 137).

Ordinary protests are usually riddled with self-interest, violence towards people and property and sometimes in extreme cases there is blood shed and loss of lives. The intention of ordinary protests is sometimes evident through hooliganism, and can lead to destruction through arson and looting of public and private property (143). Thus, ordinary protest is for the intetrst of the organizer and has no respect to the implications of the actions on the wider society.

Gandhi explains the conditions necessary for a protest to be classified as civil disobedience and develops this idea, what he called ‘Satyagraha’ around non-violence and love for the oppressor and belief in universal truth (Gods law) and morality as the basis for the foundation of human rights (137). He also proposed that ‘Satyagraha ‘respects legitimate and moral law. As such, civil disobedience is protest within the wider law.

It does not object to the entire system of laws but particular statute that are deemed immoral, unjust and illegitimate, and whose resolution would lead to benefit not only of the resister but to the entire society. Civil disobedience is thus the resisting immoral and unjust law in a civil manner (140). This paper thus, endeavors to highlight the conditions necessary for an action of protest to be termed as civil disobedience and its effectiveness.

According to the originator of this idea, civil disobedience exists within certain parameters and as such, any form of protest does not qualify to be termed as ‘Satyagraha.’ The principle idea behind civil disobedience is the notion of non-violence protests. Gandhi claims that “‘Satyagraha’ is like a banyan tree and that ‘ahimsa’, (non violence) is one of its many branches” (138).

Thus, it is not a movement that will cause any form of chaos, riot or upheaval and that any Satyagrahi (follower) is bound by duty to ensure that no lawless behavior or action takes place during civil resistance (137). As such, the follower must respect not only the authorities but also other laws that are deemed moral enough.

A follower must be disciplined enough and not perform any immoral act of indiscipline against any individual as well as the government. Resistance is only for those laws that are immoral. Still concerning the conduct of a Satyagrahi, Gandhi explains that a Satyagrahi should not have any ill feelings such as anger or ill temper towards the oppressor. When subjected to violence, a Satyagrahi is bound by duty to put up with any form of assault but never retaliate (141).

In case the authorities that be need to arrest and subject the follower to any form of punishment the followers must to submit themselves willingly and happily take the punishment (Gandhi 142; King paras 1, 20, 44, 45). In case of danger from the oppressor Gandhi explains that followers must never run away from the oppressor even in the face of death and when death occurs in such circumstances the follower would “have performed his duty” (143).

King adds that the purpose of non-violent action is to lead to a non-violent tension that will force for negotiation (King para 11). However, non-violence, direct action as king calls it, is always the last option in any civil disobedience. It is preceded by gathering of facts to determine whether the issue in contest is illegitimate or not.

Once sufficient proof ahs been gathered, negotiation with the oppressor is sought. This is combined with self-purification (defending the case) and if the oppressor does not repeal the unjust law, non violence is the final act (para 6). King adds that civil disobedience seeks positive peace and purification of societies and therefore ‘”any means to that end must be as pure as the end it justifies to seek” (para 47).

However, a new group of contemporary civil disobedience activists has neglected the spirit of non-violence in mass protest. Most of the contemporary civil disobedience movement participants have violated Gandhi’s provisions for the conduct of a Satyagrahi and are sometimes violent and harbor a lot of anger toward the oppressor and seek self righteousness.

These groups mainly include “gay rights, Critical Mass (environmental activists) and the archconservative Catholic League” (Lopach and Luckowski Para 2). The problem arises from the education system and as Lopach and Luckowski explains the curriculum does not instruct students properly on the real meaning of civil disobedience (para 2). Thus civil disobedience becomes uncivil.

Direct action is the defense of just/moral laws while rejecting unjust/illegitimate law and the “insistent on truth” (Lopach and Luckowski para 3; King para 16; Gandhi 140, 141). Lopach and Luckowski adds that traditional Satyagraha had a deeply ingrained religious inspiration that was the basis of their definition of moral laws (para 3) and explains, “A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God.

An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law” (para 4). Thus king concludes that no violence action is a very effective way of creating positive peace and coexistence by forcing negotiation with the oppressor (para 24) while Gandhi explains that the respect for such universal and religiously inspired moral norms does not accommodate violence but love for one another including the oppressor (141).

Civil disobedience is a pure means for the search for universal and positive peace created by understanding and respecting each other’s rights. Its intention is the elimination of oppressive laws the isolate and discriminate certain sections of the society. It is usually the last action and the purpose of direct action is drawing the attention of authorities towards certain laws that are deemed to contravene universal rules and truths on morality.

Followers of this movement adherer to discipline and respect to other laws and do not seek revenge from the oppressor. Unlike other forms of violence where the participants exhibit negative feelings such as anger for the oppressor, civil resistance propagates love for all including the oppressor. As such it is an effective way of spreading love, peace and understanding amidst major differences and misunderstanding amongst certain parts of the society.

Works Cited

Gandhi, Mohandas. On Satyagraha, Nonviolence, and Civil Disobedience. In Walsh, Sharon, and Asch, Evelyn. “Civil Disobedience: A Wadsworth Casebook in Argument, 1st Ed. Boston, MA: Thomson Wadsworth, 2005. Print

King, Martin Luther. “Letter from Birmingham Jail.” MLK online, 1963. 10, Mar. 2011 http://www.mlkonline.net/jail.html

Lopach, James, and Luckowski, Jean . “Uncivil Disobedience: Violating the Rules For Breaking the Law.” Vol. 4, No. 2, 2005, Education Next. 10, Mar. 2011 https://www.educationnext.org/uncivil-disobedience/

Introduction

Environmentalism can be defined as a branch of philosophy that is relatively broad encompassing aspects of social movement which focus much on the state of the environment for instance aspects of environmental conservation like prevention of pollution and destruction which is facilitated by human beings’ indulgence in environmental unfriendly operations. It is the view of the environment as being a very critical element that affects a majority of other life issues especially those linked to growth and development.

Civil disobedience on the other hand is the act of disobeying a particular law, a command or even a demand of a government or any other body in power. It is in most cases based on moral or political grounds and usually takes an active form although no form of violence is involved. This piece of work gives a critical evaluation of environmentalism and the movements involved as well as an assessment of the relationship between environmentalism and civil disobedience.

Environmentalism movements and their activists

Environmentalism and the need to safeguard and protect the environment have led to the rise of various environmental movements all which are associated with a group of activists. Environmental movement can be traced in the mid twentieth century where most people were able to recognize the importance of the environment.

The earth day in 1969 and its success is a point of reference when it comes to environmental movements and it led to the formation of the U.S Environmental Protection Agency the same year which acted as a unit of protecting the environment through establishment of various laws and policies.

Various environmental movements have since been formed with modern movements undergoing a lot of changes due to the changes in the environment for instance global warming. Some of the known environmental movement activists include Dai Qing an anti-dam pioneer, Jose Bove, Amory Lovins, Wangarii Maathai, David Bellamy, Sinafasi Makeloadrien, Marina Silvia, Paul Watson, Oral Ataniyazova, and Medhapatkar among others all advocating for protection of various aspects of the environment (Scoop world par 1).

Environmentalism movements and civil disobedience

What the current society is enjoying today is considered to be because of the good care of the environment by the previous generations and the future generations are hence expected to either enjoy or suffer from what the current generation do to the environment today.

For this reasons numerous environmental groups have been formed in an effort to protect the environment. They have however not been successful due to the presence of issues like global warming which has proved quite difficult to combat despite cost that has been incurred in various strategies aimed at combating it.

This has been attributed to failure of these environmental foundations in terms of their strategies and priorities and hence some changes should be considered. In the ancient times, environmental foundations were very powerful and various laws had been enacted to safeguard the environment and the various resources that are found therein.

This has however changed over years and the environmental foundations have become weak as the environmental problems diversify. Global warming has acted as a way of exposing the weaknesses of the current environmentalist movements as they have been unable to combat it, a concept that could have been better prevented through avoiding some behaviors rather that curing it when it is already too late and has already caused a lot of damages.

The environmentalists are now left with an option of learning from the past mistakes and laying down effective strategies to carry on the fight against extinction which has greatly affected living organism the most notable one being global warming. The indulgence in civil disobedience has been a common aspect among the environmental activists as they try all they can to protect and safeguard the environment (Shellenberger and Nordhaus par 22).

Welchman (par 10) asserts that there has been a lot of controversy in the definition of civil disobedience and the practices that should be classified under this category. The contention comes in on the aspect of violence and the action that should be termed to be violent and those that are nonviolent. It is argued that violence should be considered as violence irrespective of the degree and that there is no difference between violence on property and that on living organisms.

The society has for a long time been unfriendly to the environment or nature but this aspect has to a large extent been exacerbated by industrial and technological advancement which has led to competition of the scarce natural resources making the society to be to undertake environmentally unfriendly operations without thinking of the effects they not only cause to the environment but also to themselves and the generations to come.

The environment and its various components or natural resources is a very critical tool that dictates various aspects for instance the rainfall to be received, the exposure to harmful rays which is affected by the state of the ozone layer among other aspects. It should therefore be protected from any form of destruction like through air, water and soil pollution.

Those involved in perpetrating aspects of environmentalism (environmental activists) usually use non violent means hence the issue of civil disobedience as the practices undertaken usually do not employ any form of violence. Civil disobedience entails the protesting of individuals for a certain issue to be fulfilled and it is usually taken as the last resort when other forms of strategies for example the legal system seem not to be effective.

The individuals involved in destruction of the environment are deemed to be violent to property or rather the environment while the environmental activists are deemed to be violent on the people hence creating a ground that plays a great role in promoting much destruction to the environment as people feel oppressed as though their rights are being interfered with.

A more approachable strategy should therefore be adopted by the environmental activists in their effort to deal with those that carry out the environmentally unfriendly activities so as to ensure that those involved are able to avoid the activities and practices voluntarily as opposed to taking it as a form of forced action where violence is involved hence provoking rebellious actions.

This will in a way attract cooperation and participation of all the parties involved making it easier to solve the problem of environmental destruction.

Kumar and Bowers (par 2) asserts that non violence practices are always the best when dealing with any life issue. “There is no real distinction between violence to people and violence to property.

Violence is ultimately violence.” (Par 5). Non violent approaches should be employed by the environmental activists to sensitize the government, organizations and the general society to take effective measures towards conserving the environment. This could be achieved through educative campaigns that focus on the importance of conserving the environment both to the present as well as the future generations. It is however argued that non violence only works well in some situations but not in others.

It is true that most people engage in some destructive practices out of ignorance where they do not understand the significance attached to the environment as well as the effects faced as a result of its destruction and hence informing them through mass campaigns would make a great difference as they would learn to be accountable for their actions with the knowledge that harming the environment also endangers their lives.

According to Little (Par 3) environmental activists usually turn to civil disobedience as a result of various reasons for example frustration as they see the environment being destroyed while they have no control over it despite having the knowledge of how it would affect the society.

It become even more painful to see that even the systems or bodies that are expected to see that the environment and the natural resources therein is protected and safeguarded for instance the government and its various legal systems do not make any effort to ensure this.

It therefore follows to these environmental activist that direct action which may at times involve some form violence is the only left option that should be taken to ensure that extinction of the endangered ecosystems and natural resources does not occur which will also act as a way of safeguarding all the other species that depend upon the ecosystems of which most of them are very essential for sustaining human beings either directly or indirectly and their destruction or extinction ought to cost them a great deal.

Environmental activists have been involved in very dangerous experiences with some succumbing deaths in their efforts to safeguard the environment mainly because they attach a lot of significance in it with some perceiving it to be sacred and hence any interruption is highly objected.

Some are also driven by political forces where they behave as special interest groups contrary to what they ought to be, while others are fuelled by their science related knowledge and their passion for nature. “Most radical environmentalists are inspired by a deeply held belief that the earth is sacred. To their dismay, scientists report that human intervention is causing an extinction crisis” (Little par 4).

Environmental activists have in most cases faced a lot of frustration due to failure in their missions mainly because they advocate for immediate solutions which are not possible as some aspects require prior strategic planning for the actions to take effect and meet desired results. The believe that the losses suffered cannot be recovered is also a contributing factor to indulgence in civil disobedience in an effort to hide their disappointment and look for some solutions which are not achieved in most cases.

Civil disobedience is however considered as an option only when the other legal actions seem to be ineffective. Studies have shown that the environmentalists and their foundations should either change their ways and strategies or new foundations be formed since nothing significant is to be achieved with the existing condition which has turned the foundations to be mere interest groups.

Another recommendation is that the environmentalists should frame their proposals and strategies around the core nation’s values so that all the policies and strategies can be integrated along with the overall nation’s values for easy implementation. This will help in dealing with environmental issues like global warming among others. Looking back into what the earlier environmentalists did to progress is also a good idea since various aspects could be learnt so as to avoid more deterioration of the environment.

Conclusion

It is evident that there is a very close relationship between environmentalism and civil disobedience where some people gang up to go against the policies of various powerful bodies like the government since whenever there is a law or any form of authority, there are usually some form of resistance. Civil disobedience has played a very significant role in many social reforms and environmentalism is not an exception.

Some of the forms of civil disobedience that are linked with environmentalism involve forest occupations where people tend to make homes in the forests, blockades, graffiti, tree sits and sit-ins, tree spiking, vandalism and even arson among others all aimed at protecting the environment as a way of making it possible to achieve the set goals. Civil disobedience is however considered as the last resort and not as the main strategy.

Works Cited

Kumar, Satish and Bowers, Jake. “Can The Use Of Violence Environmental – Debate on The Place of Violence and Non-violence in Environmental Activism”. Ecologist, The. FindArticles.com. 2000. Web.

Little, Braxton Jane. “Crimes for Nature – Environmental Radicals – Editorial. American Forests. FindArticles.com. 1999. Web.

Pearce, Fred. “List of Top Ten Environmental Activists”. Scoop world. 2006. Web.

Shellenberger, Michael and Nordhaus, Ted. The death of environmentalism: Global warming politics in a post-Environmental world. Social policy, Spring, 2005.

Welchman, J. Is Ecosabotage Civil Disobedience? Philosophy & Geography, Vol. 4, NO. 1, 2001.

It was at his bleak hour in jail when Martin Luther king junior chanced to come across an open letter addressed to him by some clergy leaders from Birmingham. He was in jail after launching a public action without a permit as the law required. The clergy was criticizing his advocacy for racial injustice as “unwise and untimely” (Luther 1). It was the weight of this letter that stirred his mind to respond to the clergy with sharp yet mild bristles of his genius.

He composed a lengthy letter in a full week on toilet papers and scrap newspapers; yet, the wording of the letter is full of hope, faith and love. The king’s cry for justice through nonviolent means is expressed eloquently with reasonable and passionate voice that leaves three issues firmly engraved in our minds: nonviolence, civil disobedience and the church. This paper evaluates Luther’s justification for civil disobedience and nonviolence.

We start by asking ourselves, is civil disobedience ever necessary or valuable? Most people are always for the idea that we must always obey laws for peace to prevail. Laws are made by men who ought to be knowledgeable and who possess objective purposes in a society. Since laws are supposed to guide all members of a society, then they are deemed to cater at least for the interest of both minority and majority members.

In the making of the same laws therefore, all members are supposed to be involved in representing their interest. As Martin Luther king justifies “‘any law that degrades human personality is unjust’ and segregation law is so because ‘it distorts the soul and damages the personality’ by imposing a false superiority mentality on the segregator, and imprinting false inferiority complex on the segregated” (Luther 3).

Luther argues that, in the making of segregation law, there was no representation for the Negros and it cannot be said that there was democracy (Luther 1). Since this law was born of ill motives; by one race to peripherize another on social, political and economic grounds, it is “out of harmony with the moral law” and thus unjust (Luther 3).

Therefore, any just law has a right to be obeyed because it is able to justify that it deserves such an adherence and on the other hand, an immoral action cannot be justified no matter how many followers it garners. For instance; the law to acquire a permit; which Martin Luther disobeyed, looked just on the face but in its application it was used to preserve the very act of segregation by denying a “privilege of peaceful assembly and peaceful protest” (Luther 3).

Therefore, the legal nature of an action cannot make it just and moral and this is where Martin Luther gives the strongest example to prove his point that in Germany, all what Hitler did was backed by law (Luther 3). He is trying to put across the point that, law is not always moral as some people would think and it takes faith, wisdom and open-mindedness to discern this fact. It is therefore sometimes necessary to disobey civil laws that are unjust and this comes with great value if such laws are lifted in favor of humanistic considerations.

Therefore, if civil disobedience is necessary, can it ever improve a climate of injustice? Long history of human relation teaches us that injustice is almost present everywhere but it takes sacrifice to eradicate it. First, the letter states that “oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever” (Luther 4).

Luther stated the fact that in an oppressed society, there are complacent people who benefit from their own people being oppressed. There are also people who experience the pain of the oppression and want to act radically, but in the presence of excesses “are you able to accept blows without retaliating?” (Luther 2).

Therefore, it reaches a point where the oppressed have to refute the excesses of the oppressor and in some way put some pressure on the adamant leadership structures, to opt for peaceful negotiations. This is because over the history, freedom has never been acquired peacefully and the ones denied of it must force the oppressors, in some way, to give it (Luther 2).

There has to be a “constructive nonviolent tension” which Luther says is “necessary for growth” (Luther 2). It is from this perspective that civil disobedience, which pressures the oppressors and their stakeholders in the society to rethink their decisions and give in for negotiations, gives birth to freedom for the oppressed.

So does it have to be violent or can solutions be reached through nonviolent actions? In fact, civil disobedience does not have to be violent. Martin Luther listed the basic channels in the nonviolent campaign and they involve, “…collection of the facts to determine whether injustices are alive, negotiation, self-purification, and direct action” (Luther 1).

Therefore, in case all peaceful solutions have not born any fruits, violent ways are used to put pressure on the oppressors. This is what had happened in the Birmingham as they had gone through all the required steps but the city remained in the verge of segregation (Luther 1).

As much as the oppressors cannot grant freedom unless the oppressed sacrificed, it follows that in most cases, freedom has never been found without the edge of the sword. Luther lists lengthily, in what can be called the most seriously toned part of the letter; the excesses of segregation, “…when you have seen hate-filled policemen curse, kick, brutalize, and even kill your black brothers and sisters with impunity…then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait” (Luther 2).

It is the gist of this very long quote that answers the question and leaves the necessary action to be taken by the oppressed. The oppressor always pushes the oppressed to the corner so that the only way to act is to resort to violence. In fact, no one likes violent ways of doing things because they come with their own cost. Peace is the will of any human being, but there comes a time when peace has to be sacrificed, like a grain of seed, in a quest for justice.

In conclusion, Martin Luther king has in his speech tried to catapult the importance of nonviolent means in seeking negotiation. However, when this approach turns out futile, nature demands that its alternative be used.

It is well concurred that civil disobedience is inevitable as far as there are unjust laws in the society and the letter by the king illustrates this by uncovering the clergy’s ignorance, the racial rut in the society and probably the apathy of the oppressed. The truth remains that there is no peace that comes in a platter; some people have to die for others to live peacefully.

Work Cited

Luther, Martin. Letter from Birmingham Jail. Martin Luther King, Jr. 1963. Web.

Civil disobedience is a powerful tool in the hands of the oppressed and disenfranchised, and its effectiveness has been proved numerous times in the course of history. It is usually used as the last measure in situations when there are no other formal or informal ways to influence the existing status quo. There are several reasons why civil disobedience in a democracy is morally justified since people who engage in it disobey laws and rules which are inherently immoral themselves.

First, it is important to establish the notion that civil disobedience cannot be viewed as a crime, especially in a democratic society which values basic human rights. People who participate in civil disobedience embrace a conviction that it benefits society, and to stress it, they do it publicly to attract everyone’s attention to particular issues (“Civil disobedience,” 2013). Additionally, they do it in a non-violent fashion, which once again shows that civil disobedience does not imply an intent to harm any party but rather to urge the government to resolve the injustice. Moreover, according to John Mackie, there cannot be a right to perform actions which are morally wrong (“Civil disobedience,” 2013). Similarly, if a certain law forces citizens to act in a morally inappropriate manner, it is their moral obligation not to follow it. Essentially, civil disobedience arises in response to a situation which involves performing immoral and wrong actions on an obligatory basis. Thus, civil disobedience becomes a morally justified act since it seeks to openly and non-violently address wrong and problematic phenomena in society.

Civil disobedience is an effective tool which can help resolve unjust situations and display public rejection to participate in immoral activities. People who engage in it do not wish to inflict any damage but to raise awareness and make their views known to the authorities. Civil disobedience, therefore, constitutes a morally justified act of not obeying the rules, which force citizens to act immorally.

Reference

Civil disobedience. (2013). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Thesis Statement

Legal positivism must be committed to the view that there is a right to civil disobedience. In some instances, the failure to have a clear legal meaning of civil disobedience rationalizes the need for guaranteeing the citizens the right without prejudice.

Introduction

From a liberal point of view, the government should endure some level of civil disobedience as long as the subsequent actions do not threaten the state security nor infringes on the civil rights of other people. This means there might be a point at which the state could allow the people to express their views without being victimized. Notably, Legal positivism means that someone’s view should not be mistaken for dishonesty.

In this regard, the person could suffer severe consequences for exposing his ideas to the authority. In this case, the authority may take action against the person’s opinion without evaluating its rationale. Therefore, instead of upholding the person’s dignity, the state might subject him/her to harsh punishment for expressing a view that could be important to the security of the country. Therefore, the paper is a critical observation of the law, and tries to justify the need for, and importance of civil disobedience.

Discussion

Liberalists argue that the state should exercise restraint when deciding and executing punishment to what they term civil disobedience (Dworkin, 2005). In their argument, it is insensitivity to convict someone for the opinion that according to the government is regarded as disobedience, while for the person; the action is regarded as civil right (MacCormick & Ota, 2010). Therefore, punishing those who are deemed to be civil disobedient must be done within the limitations of its reliability, impartiality and under the policy guidelines of the state.

The other issues considered as very important is the fact that the metal soundness of the person feared to be disobedient must also be considered to avid punishing an insane person (MacCormick & Ota, 2010). Even to the person regarded as insane, he/she cannot be considered disobedient if the action he/she has committed has not been verified to have contravened the country’s legal system. Perhaps, this is the initial step to make the government allow civil disobedience in the state.

Tolerance to disobedience must be with limitation and scope, but liberalized to make sure that the state does not overstep on the rights of the citizens (Dworkin, 2005). Notably, this balance should take care of the implications that rise due to the liberalization of the laws touching on the punishment of people assumed to have engaged in civil disobedience.

Civil disobedience should be accepted as long as the people engaged are such activities are prevented from undue legal prosecution from the authorities (Dworkin, 2005). Other than not being subjected to punishment at all, the charges for their activities should be reduced significantly.

Many of the legal scholars assert that the success of civil disobedience depends on the extent to which the authority courts penalty, other than evading its execution. Therefore, it is within the right of individuals to demand civil disobedience and be guaranteed to get it.

In addition, demanding for this right falls within the moral obligations of the individual and could have numerous implications in the country’s legal arrangement and position (Dworkin, 2005). The citizens have a right to protection and the constitutional provisions because in every day legal practice, the lawyer is always exposed to numerous ethical and/or legal dilemmas.

Ethical legal practice demands that the lawyer uphold ethical responsibilities outlined in the code of ethics of their respective countries to determine the nature of disobedience brought before them. Therefore, they have to assess the ethical principles relating to a case where the lawyer hurriedly decided to lie to the convict concerning his/her case and demand for the right to disobedience (MacCormick & Ota, 2010).

A legal dilemma on the right to disobedience would occur when a lawyer’s decision opposes the laid down rules of the profession and the state laws. Actions relating to civil disobedience would be punishable by law if the person is found guilty of infringing it to those of others (Dworkin, 2005). This stresses the fact that an ethical dilemma would occur when the action violates the values and the morals of the society.

In such cases, the cal for right to disobedience might be curtailed. Contrary to the legal actions that are measured by ethics, dishonesty cannot be measured or defined by law, thus advocating for the right to civil disobedience should only be accepted if the subsequent actions are legal (Thoreau, 2010). Besides, ethics would align more to the individual’s perception of the situation, thus they could not be judged either wrong or right.

Ethical problems, which are involved in agitating for civil disobedience include the conflicts between one or more values forcing the lawyer to be uncertain about the correct course of action. Therefore, ethical dilemma occurs when a lawyer would feel indecision or lack of clarity (Tatek, 2010). It could also occur when the lawyer would be unable to identify the moral problem in the case h/she is handling but would feel uneasy.

The problem that is evident in the demand for civil disobedience would be associated with the issue of ethical distress and should be addressed before the demands are considered (Tatek, 2010). Therefore, the lawyer is presented to have known the right thing that the people ought to have done, but they opted to give false information to achieve selfish end. In such cases where the values and commitments of the lawyer are compromised due to the external influence, the lawyers’ identity and integrity would be affected.

Legal values would encompass core responsibilities that the lawyers would have to undertake in order to obtain and maintain ethical legal practice (Kramer, 2003). If the rights to civil disobedience are to be guaranteed, the values that accompany it would be prescribed in the legal code of ethics. They would be varied and applicable to different ethical issues depending on the context in which the issues identified would occur (Thoreau, 2010).

One of the values that would apply in this case is the lawyer’s responsibility to promote and respect informed decision making. The lawyers handling such request need to recognize, respect and promote the person’s right to be informed and to make decisions (Kramer, 2003).

Furthermore, the lawyer has a responsibility to provide the person demanding civil disobedience with the information they need to make informed decisions. The information would ensure that the person takes appropriate action relating to the demand and future behavior (Shapiro, 2007). The lawyer in this case, must provide accurate information to either the family or the person.

Another law that could apply in this case would be the provision that the lawyers should preserve dignity at all times while handling the people’s demands (Jabez & Cleef, 2008). The value provision requires that the lawyers should recognize and respect the individual values of each person. In all practical settings, the lawyers should ensure that they satisfy the people’s demands by providing appropriate and effective judgment for cases before them.

They should also support a dignified and peaceful passage of the right to civil disobedience. It could be argued that this would be the reason to clarify the lawyer’s decision to tell lies and pass wrong judgment for the people agitating for civil disobedience, since such decisions do not promote the aggrieved person, neither does it guarantee comfort (Jabez & Cleef, 2008).

The other value that could be related to, and support the quest for civil disobedience would be the need for the lawyers and people to be accountable. Indeed, it provides that the lawyers and the people should always be accountable for their actions as well as answerable to their practices (Shapiro, 2007).

In referring to this value, lawyers are ethically expected to be honest as well as practice with integrity in their professional work, while the people should be cautious when putting across their demands. Lawyers are also expected to practice within the limits of their competence to understand and rationalizes the people’s civil demand, thus preventing biasness when performing their duties (Kadish & Kadish, 2010).

When the demands are beyond their level of competence as shown in this scenario, of the right to civil disobedience, the lawyer should have referred the question to other relevant bodies to avoid the ethical liability involved in giving false information to the aggrieved.

Self-deception has been dominant in pushing some people to placing such demands, as anticipated in the field of psychology (Sebok, 2008). Though the psychologists have questioned the logic behind the issue of rights to civil disobedience, the belief formation and the subsequent generalities are clarified in the theory of self-deception. According to psychologists, the issue raises the following two logical difficulties (Kadish & Kadish, 2010).

First is the fact that the ease of framing an evolutionary motive to view self-deception as a mechanism to foster other-deception is not determined and secondly, is that given the fact that after one has succeeded in deceiving oneself, the other people would not be able to detect the deception thus, it would be illogical to conclude that self-deception evolved to facilitate the deception of others. Generally, this would make one feel that demanding for the right to civil disobedience is normal and one should be guaranteed that right (Kadish & Kadish, 2010).

While taking an evolutionary approach to self-deception, the proponents argued that self-deception is a process that begins from inside the person lying to the recipient and then back to oneself, thus believing that his/her demands are right (Shapiro, 2007). The psychologists further argue that self-deception evolved to facilitate other-deception. Moreover, they say that it is possible since self-deception enabled people to avoid lie detection mechanisms and thus propagating interpersonal deception (Shapiro, 2007).

In this case, the person literally believes that being disobedient is not a crime, and he/she should be granted this by the law (Kadish & Kadish, 2010). They also argued that in the same manner that people deceive others by either avoiding the truth, or exaggerating the truth, people can also deceive themselves by thinking that being disobedient is virtual.

The proponents of the rights to civil dishonesty also argued that self-deception comes as a result of biases in information gathering and not by possessing contradictory beliefs (Campbell, 2004). They said that if a person sincerely believes in something and expresses that thing to someone else, the expression does not amount to lies despite the fact that the belief is false. In order to be a liar, the person must be aware that whatever he/she is expressing is false. This premise has been faulted.

Despite the above contradictions, the proponents who argue for the rights to civil disobedience have been successful in illustrating that a person’s belief develops in ways relative to his motives (Sebok, 2008). The fact that biased the beliefs result in social gain has also been fully developed and support in the article.

They mentioned and supported the fact that self-deception results in elimination of the costly cognitive load that would be typically associated with deceit, thus the people advocating for the right to dishonesty are justified to do so (Campbell, 2004). The other advantage from their argument is that self-deception would minimize vengeance in case the lie is detected.

Summary

In conclusion, the rights to civil disobedience is genuine and could be conclusively examined by assessing the psychological status of the person placing such demands. The beliefs that civil disobedience is illegal should be eliminated and be subjected evaluation, interpretation and conclusion rather than taking side that it is unlawful.

This way, the argument would be focused on questioning the assumptions that the beliefs on civil disobedience are very useful and true. Therefore, the current arguments that the people are agitating for the rights to civil disobedience is correct are justified provided that the activities do not infringe on the rights of the others.

References

Campbell, T. (2004). Prescriptive Legal Positivism: Law, Rights and Democracy. London: Routledge.

Dworkin, R. (2005). Taking Rights Seriously. New York, NY: Wiley.

Jabez, L. & Cleef, V. (2008). Human Rights and Civil Disobedience. Kindle: Kindle Books.

Kadish, S & Kadish, M. (2010). Discretion to Disobey. New York, NY: Quid Pro.

Kramer, M. (2003). In Defense of Legal Positivism: Law Without Trimmings. Oxford: OUP Oxford.

MacCormick, N. & Ota, W. (2010). New Approaches to Legal Positivism. New York, NY: Springer.

Sebok, J. (2008). Legal Positivism in American Jurisprudence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Shapiro, S. (2007). The “Hart-Dworkin” Debate: A Short Guide for the Perplexed. Michigan: University of Michigan Law School.

Tatek, M. (2010). A Critical Analysis on Legal Positivism: and the separation of law and Morals. New York, VDM Verlag.

Thoreau, H. (2010). On the Duty of Civil Disobedience. Kindle: Kindle Books.

Introduction

Throughout the history of the United States, various segments of the citizenry have resorted to armed and violent efforts in a bid to achieve their various divergent socio-political aims. Indeed, even the American Revolution itself was characterized by violent armed efforts by disgruntled citizens then under the English rule.

Specifically, as the US history testifies, various militant groups, fighting for and advocating various causes, have modeled their violent efforts on the idealism espoused by the fighters of independence.

Therefore, the armed abolitionists of the pre-Civil War era, the lynch mobs in the American South, and the vigilance committees in frontier areas during the famed “go west” excursions by American families are identified as “uncivil disobedience” by author Kirkpatrick Jennet.

According to the author, these militant, and usually violent groups of citizens view themselves as vanguards for republicanism (Kirkpatrick 11).

These groups are usually roused and motivated by a sense of discord that they discern in law or in the constitution, where they may perceive a sense of wrong, and they thus justify their violent efforts to correct these injustices, wrought by law, by engaging in violent “uncivil” acts of disobedience to authority.

For instance, in the case of violent abolitionists, having witnessed the ills of slavery and perceiving the sense of moral and legislative wrong in slavery and its applicable laws, they took it upon themselves to liberate slaves violently in order to correct what was, in their view, an injustice.

Therefore, uncivil disobedience regards their efforts as sanctioned by morality, coupled with a sense of duty for correcting a wrong legalized by law or within a constitution. This sense of idealism drives the uncivil disobedience, despite the usually catastrophic outcomes of their violent campaigns, where innocent lives are lost.

Abolitionists on a violent path of liberating slaves

The abolitionists of the pre-civil war days began their campaigns on purely ideological opposition to the institution of slavery. However, the slow pace of abolition of slavery in many states and on the federal government level slowly led a number of committed abolitionists towards the path of violence.

The famous case of John Brown and his militant drive to create an anti-slavery revolution in the American South is a case in point. This act led to the death of many innocent men women and children, and the destruction of property, ultimately earning Brown death sentence.

Vigilante Committees Out to Restore “Order”

Similarly, the actions of the vigilance committees in frontier towns where such committees acted as both prosecutor and judge in many cases qualify as uncivil disobedience.

According to the author, such committees were primarily moved by racist and xenophobic motives (Kirkpatrick 10). Many times the victims of wrath and unqualified judgment of members of these committees were immigrants out to claim their share of the illusionary American Dream. The violence meted out on these unfortunate immigrants, and their families by members of these committees were mostly based on unsubstantiated accusations. As stated earlier, the driving force was the racist agenda of the members of these committees.

The Lynch Mobs

The lynch mobs of the American South killed nearly three thousand African Americans, from the period immediately following the Civil War, until well into the first half of the Twentieth Century. After the Emancipation Proclamation by President Abraham Lincoln during the war granted African American freedom from slavery, many Southerners were bent on ensuring that the African Americans did not enjoy equal civil rights as intended by the Proclamation.

Therefore, through terrorizing and lynching African Americans for any reason the mobs would come up with, African Americans were never able to exercise and enjoy equal civil liberties until the Civil Rights Act legislation was passed nearly a century later.

Taking the Law into Their Own Hands

The common thread in the violent acts of these three groups; the abolitionists, the vigilante committees and the lynch mobs was their contention that available law enforcement institutions had failed to deliver justice, and thus they had little choice, but to actualize their version of justice violently through citizen power and democratic ideals enshrined in the constitution of America.

The contention by these uncivil disobedient groups that law enforcement agents had failed in their duties is hardly plausible. In the case of John Brown and other militant abolitionists, the real picture is that they had failed to allow the responsible institutions to handle the matter of abolition within the limits of law and the constitution.

In the light of the Civil war, and the emancipation proclamation that later freed the slaves, John Brown’s attempts of creating a violent anti-slavery rebellion seem unnecessary. Similarly, the vigilante committees believed that they had to take the action of preserving law and order because the law enforcement institutions in the frontier towns were inept.

Thus, the uncivil disobedience in the form of vigilant committee members visited terror on many immigrants under the guise of law enforcement. Concerning the Southern lynch mobs, they were mainly driven by a racist agenda that believed that the government had failed them by granting freedom to slaves and subsequently robbing them of a free source of labor.

Ultimately, uncivil disobediences cause unnecessary deaths, destruction and suffering on their victims. Insofar as these groups cause damage, on both their unfairly targeted alleged enemies and other innocent citizens in the name of democratic ideals, constitutionalism, and/or republicanism, their acts indicate a willingness to use the wrong means to secure just ends.

The Purposes for Studying Uncivilized Disobedients

Author Kirkpatrick gives several reasons for her interest in studying the uncivil disobedience’ violent means of understanding and enacting citizenship. Her first reason involves what, in her view, is the over-glorification of democracy and democratic ideals by uncivil disobedience.

According to the author, uncivil disobedience ‘moralize’ democracy and view it in absolute terms, a view which drives them towards their violent causes incase of a discord between the ideal and the real/actual. When the uncivil disobedience view democracy in such absolute terms, the actual reality of the implementation of such ideals of democracy produces a discord in their conscience that drives them towards militancy in an effort to correct the perceived discord.

Indeed, according to Kirkpatrick uncivil disobedience are usually extremely confident of their moral and political convictions (15). However, since democracy is much more complicated and even un-ideal, uncivil disobedience is slightly misguided in their, sometimes valiant, efforts at correcting perceived injustices.

Secondly, uncivil disobedience work with the wrong assumption that the will of the people, at any time, should triumph over existing laws and the constitution. Author Kirkpatrick believes that, such an assumption presupposes a lot and captures little of the real intention of laws and constitution.

Despite the intentions and ideals of democracy, the position that popular sovereignty should always reign is a recipe for chaos. Many laws are enacted and legislated in order to preempt future acts by people which may lead to chaos and disorder, whether such actions are advanced under the banner of popular sovereignty or not.

Therefore, disobeying such laws and institutions, even in justified causes such as the abolition of slavery, and thereby engaging in violent and murderous acts is tantamount to terrorism. Indeed the author is of the view that uncivil disobedience is akin to terrorism.

Conclusion

Militia groups and other entities of uncivil disobedient groups take a short cut towards democracy and in the process cause unnecessary harm and suffering on innocent citizens. These groups often cite the fact the necessary political institutions had failed them, thus their resorting to violent means.

However, as the author suggests if political and social institutions fail their citizenry in republics and democracies, the ideal action that the citizens should take is reformation of these institutions. Indeed, that is the purpose and intent of all democratic societies, that of changing the institutions that do not seem to fulfill the purpose for which they were created.

Therefore, ultimately militias and other uncivil disobedience groups are on a lost cause. As discussed in this essay, their tendency to view democratic ideals and applicable laws in absolute terms create discordance with the reality that leads them into unnecessary violent endeavors, where most of the time innocent citizens pay the price of such actions with their lives.

The ideals of democracy and republicanism that many of these uncivil disobedient groups espouse dictate that the proper path would be to seek a means of changing the unjust laws and institutions in a civil and proper constitutional manner.

Works Cited

Kirkpatrick, Jennet. Uncivil Disobedience: Studies in Violence and Democratic Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008. Print.

Abstract

Civil disobedience is an act where people of a particular country fail to follow the laid down rules and regulations in order to force the government to give into their demands. In most cases, this kind of disobedience comes through organizing people to act in a nonviolent manner to force the government to heed to their demands. This is usually done in cases where the government takes a stand that contravenes the stand and will of the majority.

Although civil disobedience is mostly peaceful, it does not always mean that the people do not engage in activities meant to stop the government’s action. By closely examining civil disobedience, one realizes that the criteria used can make it work or fail. This research paper looks at the criteria under which civil disobedience can work and when it will fail to achieve its objective. The materials used in the research are mostly secondary sources from credible internet sites.

Introduction

Civil disobedience is an act where people of a particular country fail to follow the laid down rules and regulations in order to force the government to give into their demands. In most cases, this kind of disobedience comes through organizing people to act in a nonviolent manner to force the government to heed to their demands.

This is usually done in cases where the government takes a stand that contravenes the stand and will of the majority. Although civil disobedience is mostly peaceful, it does not always mean that the people do not engage in activities meant to stop the government’s action. By closely examining civil disobedience, one realizes that the criteria used can make it work or fail. This research paper looks at the criteria under which civil disobedience can work and when it will fail to achieve its objective. (Civilliberties.org)

The concept of civil disobedience dates back to the fourth century. In fact, Socrates ranked civil disobedience higher than civil law. Apart from Socrates, majority of Greek tragedies uphold this notion. According to Socrates and the Greek tragedies, wherever civil law is placed at the same level with civil disobedience, people are allowed to obey the higher law and disobey the lesser one.

This concept has been developed further to state that unjust laws should not be allowed to cloud the conscience of good citizens. Scholars further claimed that since the people gave authority to the government, then the government was supposed to protect the human rights of the citizens. (Faucher)

According to John Locke, the people have a right to overthrow any government that fails to provide this right. In a situation where people decide to overthrow a government that is in power, this act of civil disobedience might not bear much fruit. In history, many governments have been known to do anything to maintain their power.

If citizens result to civil disobedience to force the government out of power, this might result to violence and hence make the civil disobedience lose its essence. It therefore follows that the criteria of using civil disobedience to overthrow a government might not present the expected results. In most cases, it degenerates to violence and makes the concept of civil disobedience lose its essence. (Thoreau)

The criterion that gives civil disobedience success is the one presented by Henry David Thoreau. This scholar gave a lecture titled “On the Relation of the Individual to the State” where he highlighted his ideas concerning the subject. According to Thoreau, the government cannot exist without the people. Since this is the case, Thoreau proposes that the citizens should approve whatever authority the government wields.

Secondly, he states that a government’s role to execute justice should be given preeminence over any other law that the government sets up. This gives every citizen the right to examine if the set laws respect and uphold their rights. If the citizen in any manner finds the law to deny him/her justice, then he/she has a right to disobey that particular law. In doing this, the citizen should be prepared to face the repercussions of breaking that particular law.

According to Thoreau, the citizen is supposed to do so without any acts of violence. Since the person disobeying this law is ready for any punitive measures, it makes this act of civil disobedience a workable one. This is much easier and workable than a situation where people are called upon to overthrow a government. (Thoreau)

Thoreau put this concept into practice when he refused to obey a law, which legalized slavery. Another law that he refused to obey was the one that legalized the Mexican War that lasted from 1846-1848. Because of his actions, he was forced to spend one night in a prison cell.

Thoreau’s concept of civil disobedience was also proved workable by great figures like Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. In the famous Letter from Birmingham Jail, King encouraged black Americans clergy to rise and deal with the segregation laws but do so in a nonviolent manner.

This encouragement from King led to the changing of many laws that were viewed as unjust toward the African Americans. This also led to the acceptance of civil disobedience among political circles. This just shows that the concept of using civil disobedience to fight unjust laws as outlined by Henry Thoreau is capable of producing results. This is unlike the Greeks formula of civil disobedience that allows people to overthrow a government that they feel is not providing for their rights. (Pine)

Conclusion

The concept of civil disobedience is an olden policy that calls for the use of nonviolence by citizens to make their demands to be heard by the government. Depending on how it is applied, the concept can give results or fail to be effective. The situation where people are called to overthrow a government that fails to protect its rights might degenerate into violence and therefore fail the concept of civil violence.

However, the concept outlined by Thoreau that calls people to disobey laws that they feel are unjust has been found to bring about positive results.

Works Cited

Civil Disobedience. Civil Disobedience Movement, 2010. Web.

Faucher, H. What is the Meaning of Civil Disobedience? 2010. Web.

Pine, C. Does Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience Have Any Lessons to Teach us in Today’s World? 2010. Web.

Thoreau, H. Civil Disobedience. On the Duty of Civil Disobedience, 2002. Web.

The struggle for civil governance has been the most challenging aspect in several governments across the globe with the urge for better governance becoming a hotly contested subject internationally. Indeed, political leaders have always been questioned about their leadership nature as human beings have gradually become more politically informed than in the earlier days.

Democracy in civil governance has been arguably the most anticipated issue in the contemporary world with few leaders managing to employ democratic philosophies in their leadership. Perchance, the most tantalizing thought is Thoreau’s idea of “civil disobedience.” I do not like the idea of civil disobedience.

Civil or national disobedience can simply refer to the contravention of certain regulations, laws/orders, or even government commands that are responsible for governing a given nation. Thoreau’s idea of resistance to civil governance resulted from slavery predicaments that existed in England during the 1800 century.

The principle argument of Thoreau is that civilians should not consent governments to overrule their sense of right and wrong or simply ideologies. According to Thoreau, governments seem more corrupted than people can imagine, and thus inhabitants should not allow the government to take precedence over their principles since they use governance to manipulate civilians. Therefore, individuals have civil liberties to protect their individual dignity central to law and governance.

Having a deeper insight into the arguments brought out by Thoreau, the common sense behind leadership and national governance is to have a single voice that leads a multitude of civilians. Truly, the contemporary world has regularly faced leadership crises with cases of civil wars and human suffering becoming largely eminent.

However, the overriding reason is; should civilians follow Thoreau’s opinion of resistance to civil governance and contravene important laws? Sensibly, I disagree. The question is how can one manage to disregard laws and what is the importance after all? Thoreaubrings a commonsensical idea, but the nature of the reality behind it remains a controversy as most civilians who tried to attempt its application languish in dungeons for claiming their sovereignty.

The government is normally the most superior commander, and the notion behind confrontation of civil governance does not seem appealing to true nationalists and patriots who should base their defense against governance manipulation through more decent approaches. Every government across the world has its own rules and regulations that allow smooth civil governance.

A true nationalist or compatriot must believe in democratic national governance and must remain loyal and respect the rules and regulations governing a nation. Perhaps two important things that one must reason through are that laws govern multitudes of people who might have different opinions on prevailing governance. Secondly, it is much easier to subjugate an individual authoritarian leader through democracy than living in a nation without policies.

Conclusively, following the resistance to civil governance, the idea by Thoreau amounts to riding in darkness. Despite the fact that having loyal and trustworthy leaders who play no impunity in the entire globe is a mere dream, respect to laws and regulation means true patriotism. As the advocacy to have pure leaders remains a sticky conception amongst us, it is normally important to understand than headship crisis remains a human nature and errors do not mean total failure.

Laws abide nationhood among individuals and empower people to struggle to do the right. Laws are what makes a nation remain united and are definite weapons to criminals. From my opinion, following Thoreau’s idea may spoil civil governance beyond plastic repair.

Mahatma Gandhi was one of the key figures in India’s struggle for independence from the British rulers in the twentieth century. He preached and practiced Non-Violence and believed that it is the only way to achieve independence most harmoniously. Satyagraga is a philosophy and practice of non-violent resistance that was developed by Gandhi. This was the technique that Gandhi deployed while fighting for Indian independence as well as in the fights against indifference in South Africa.

Civil disobedience is defined as the boycott or refusal to obey certain laws formulated by the government or superior authorities. According to Gandhi, civil disobedience or passive resistance is a universal truth of achieving the goals through non-violent resistance. Gandhi led several satyagraga campaigns during the fight for independence. According to him non-violent campaigns is a scientific truth as the force of love is the same as the force of the soul or truth. Civil disobedience supports the idea that unfair or unjust laws must be broken to achieve justice (Walsh and Asch, p. 130-150).

Principles of Civil Disobedience

The first principle says that it is essential to maintain respect for the rule of law even while disobeying the specific law that is perceived as unjust. Non-violent activists do not seek to challenge the rule of law, but promotes people to revoke unjust laws. The second principle of civil disobedience says that it is important to plead guilty to any violation of the law. Gandhi explains this statement in his word “I am here to… submit cheerfully to the highest penalty that can be inflicted upon me for what in law is a deliberate crime and what appears to me to be the highest duty of a citizen.” The third principle of civil disobedience says that it is important to attempt to change one’s opponent by signifying the justice of the cause. Gandhi says that if these three principles of civil disobedience are followed, it creates a win-win situation rather than a win-lose situation. In this way, it will be possible to gain the friendship and understanding of the opponent (Gier).

Gandhi says that if people take the path of violence to achieve their goals in life, then the entire population would disappear within no time. He was a leader who practiced what he preached. When Gandhi was imprisoned in 1922, 1930, 1933, and 1942, he went on hunger strike, and when the British rulers found that Gandhi’s hunger strike was gaining popularity all over the world, and due to great embarrassment they had to release him from the prison. Therefore, Gandhi proved that the non-violence movements create more fear among the rulers and put more pressure on them when compared to the violent movements.

It is a well-known fact that most of the history books only mention the wars and the violent acts of kings and emperors. The non-violence movements do not take the place in history as they are not considered significant by historians. According to Gandhi, civil disobedience or passive resistance is the only method of securing rights by personal suffering which is the opposite of resistance by arms. Passive resistance is using the soul force and is superior to the force of the arm.

Gandhi says that a passive resister will say he will not obey a law that is against his conscience. A person with full confidence in himself and his acts can only be a passive resister. In other words, he says that a man who lacks courage and manhood cannot be a passive resister. Therefore, a person even with less physical strength can fight more powerfully using passive resistance when compared to a person with good physical strength. Therefore, passive resistance can be a weapon for women and even children. Gandhi says that passive resistance is like an all-sided sword that can be used in any way and will not hurt the person against whom he is fighting.

Gandhi also mentions the simple procedure that allows them to become a passive resister. Gandhi says that it takes experience to become a passive resistor. Additionally, those who want to become passive resisters for serving the country have to observe perfect chastity, adopt poverty, follow truth, and cultivate fearlessness. An unchaste person loses stamina and becomes emasculated and cowardly and cannot be a passive resistor.

Similarly, a rich person wants to become a true passive resistor, he should be willing to lose even the last penny rather than give up passive resistance or in other words, accept poverty without compromising on passive resistance. He should not take up violent steps all through his life and need to be a real leader. Gandhi was a person who preached and practiced non-violence. Any person who has a fearful nature cannot become a passive resistor. Therefore, it is said that when a man takes up a false path or abandons truth, he does so because of some kind of fear in his mind and he is not fit to be a passive resistor.

It can be said that passive resistance or civil disobedience is the most harmonious way to fight for one right and achieve the goals. It is a difficult task and is much more difficult when compared to the act of violence. A person who can be ideal chastity, accept poverty, follow truth, and cultivate fearlessness can only become a perfect passive resistor. It takes courage and experience to be a passive resistor. Though it is considered a difficult task, even women and children can be passive resistors. In other words, even people with no or less physical strengths can achieve their goals through passive resistance. People who take up violence cannot become passive resistors.

One of the most spectacular campaigns that Gandhi led was his 200 mile march to extract salt from the sea. This was in protest against the British tax on salt which was very high for the poor Indians (Kent). The Salt Satyagraha or the Salt March to Dandi began on March 12, 1930, and when Gandhi broke the salt laws imposed by the British rulers, on April 6, 1930, it resulted in the spread of this act of civil disobedience against the British Rulers by millions of Indians (Mass civil disobedience….).

Later on 5 May 1930, Gandhi was arrested for this act which resulted in gaining attention worldwide. World opinion brought pressure on the government to release Gandhi from jail. After several rounds of discussion with the rulers for almost a year, Gandhi was released from prison, and negotiation on this tax law was agreed upon (Mass civil disobedience….). A series of meetings between him and the British Viceroy led to a treaty that required compromises on both sides. The British government realized that no amount of force was going to wipe out completely the acts of civil disobedience.

All Indian political prisoners were realized, and Indians were permitted to manufacture salt and in return, Gandhi agreed to suspend civil disobedience. This treaty was an important first step in the direction of the final goal of complete independence for India (ccsf.edu). In addition to the Salt Satyagraha, Gandhi took up several such movements in the fight for independence. Gandhi brought in satyagraha as not only a method to be used in the sensitive political struggle but as a universal solvent for injustice and violence. He felt that satyagraha was in the same way appropriate for large-scale political struggle and to one-on-one interpersonal clashes. He also understood the need to propagate this movement among the common man as they are most of the time struggling to achieve their goals (Gandhi).

Gandhi was a real leader who in the 30s developed the ancient Hindu philosophy of ahimsa, into a strong social and political means mainly to gain independence and also to increase the self-image of the poor Indians. This is a constructive program and the principal of satyagraha holds good for every social, religious, political, and economic justice system. There were also several other instances when Gandhi took up civil disobedience. For instance, Gandhi undertook a fast for 21 days in the year 1924 to prevent conflicts between the Hindus and Muslims in India. This protest was also successful in achieving peace and the result was good. Gandhi took up social issues such as untouchability in Kerala during 1925-28 (mkgandhi.org).

Through these initiatives, Gandhi was successful in helping India gain independence. Additionally, the lessons of non-violent resistance and civil disobedience gave confidence to the entire world that could be used to fight political battles. The lessons of leadership taught by Gandhi are something that will continue to remain in the literature and also in practice as it is one of the most successful techniques. The programs and policies adopted in the movements initiated by Gandhi reflected the most cherished modes of ahimsa and satyagraha. Even though the non-co-operation movement was in line with nonviolent, it was the civil disobedience movement that was challenging the British laws. Through his leadership, Gandhi proved that it is possible for even a common man to crucially participate in these National Movements and influence strong political issues (mapsofindia.com).

One of the responsibilities of a leader is to motivate the team to all work together towards the common goal. Gandhi had excellent leadership qualities to lead the entire country and influence the people of India to fight for independence through non-violent resistance and civil disobedience. Though this was a daunting challenge, Gandhi was able to do this because of his leadership quality. Even though the Indian community is a community of diversity, Gandhi was able to lead the entire country. Even today the principals of non-violence hold good. However, there are not many leaders like Gandhi who can lead the people in the right direction.

Work Cited

1. ccsf.edu Mahatma Gandhi and Nonviolent Resistance [2008]
2. Gandhi, M.K. The Theory and Practice of Satyagraha Indian Opinion. (1914)
3. Gier, N. Three Principles Of Civil Disobedience: Thoreau, Gandhi, And King (2006)
4. Kent, E. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi [2008] Web.
5. Mass civil disobedience throughout India followed as millions broke the salt laws, from Dalton’s introduction to Gandhi’s Civil Disobedience. Gandhi & Dalton, (1996), p. 72.
6. mkgandhi.org Thoughts [2008]
7. mapsofindia.com Civil Disobedience Movement [2008]
8. Walsh, S K and Asch, E.D. Civil Disobedience. A Wadsworth Casebook in Argument. 1st ed, Boston, (2005) MA: Thomson Wadsworth,.

Throughout history, there have been instances when civil disobedience resulted in the evolution of societies. In fact, civil protests have brought various issues to the authority’s attention and protested against them. Consequently, civil disobedience and protests result in a victory against the authorities and trigger a sense of heroism. The ideas of the protest are the constituents that make it heroic. In addition, a peaceful protest has also shared the popularity of civil disobedience. A peaceful protest is heroic in that the idea of the hero who is heroic challenges the society. In reference to Martin Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi, this aspect of society is fully illustrated.

Martin Luther King was born in the year 1929 in Atlanta. In the year 1948, he acquired a BA degree in the College of Morehouse College. When Martin Luther King turned 35, he was awarded a Nobel peace prize, thus becoming the youngest person to hold this high award. He was the greatest civil rights activist in the world. Martin met his death in the 1968 April 4 through a gunshot, he was assassinated.

Mahatma Gandhi was born on 2 October 1869 in a town known as Porbandar, during the reign of the rule of British in India. Gandhi was the son of a prominent senior government officer in the Hindu Bania community. He was the prominent leader of Indian nationalism in British controlled India. Gandhi employed non-violent way of inquiring independence form the British. He inspired movements for non-violence and human rights across the world. Gandhi travelled to London to learn the law in the University of London in the year 1888. He specialized in Indian law. In the year 1893, he travelled to South Africa upon finishing his studies in London. In South Africa, he was involved in the civil rights movement to save the Africans from suffering. During his lifetime, he took a great part of his time in struggling for human and civil rights for the less privileged. Gandhi was assassinated in the year 1948, 30 January during a prayer meeting. According to Martin Luther King’s quote “I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate…who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace, which is the absence of tension to a positive peace, which is the presence of justice”, he tries to give out his bitter remarks about the moderates (King, 2010). He says that he is about to reach the lamentable conclusion that the Negros main stumbling is his pace forward to freedom is not the white councilor but the white reasonable. These tend to be more loyal to order rather than justice. They prefer unconstructive peace that lacks positive peace. He adds that they constantly claim that they agree in the sought goal, but cannot agree with the channel of direct action. They paternalistically think that they are capable of setting another individual’s freedom.

Luther continues that this person dwells in a mythical time concept and regularly gives advice to the Negros to stay calm, and wait till a more suitable time. Luther claims that little thoughtfulness of persons of goodwill is more discouraging compared to total misunderstanding from ill willed people. Little acceptability, he considers it more of an absurd than open rejection. He says that he had wished for the white moderates to recognize that the existence of law and order is for justice to prevail, and if they lose in this mission, they turn out to be the hazardous structured barriers that hunk the flow of social development. He had wished for the white moderates recognize that the current anxiety in the South is an important phase of the evolution from a hateful, negative peace, which Negros have always accepted coldly.

In the other quote, “we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with” (Martin Luther King, 2010) Luther seems to be against the way the Negros aired their grievances. He compares them to the boil that is incurable as far as it is covered up. It has to be uncovered with all its unattractive nature, and discrimination must be uncovered. He sees those people that condemn the actions of the Negros who want justice as being unreasonable. He compares the act as accusing a robbed man because his ownership of the money led to the evil act of stealing.

Regarding his other quote, “We must come to see that, as the federal courts have consistently affirmed, it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber” (King, 2010). Luther seems to agree with the government. He also said that “he had wished for the white moderates to abandon the myth with regard to time and the freedom struggle” (King, 2010). He tells about a letter that he received from his white brother in Texas. In the letter, he talks about Christianity. He gives the biblical concept of equality. His brother seems to be religious regarding the way he incorporated the biblical views.

Gandhi was a good quotes composer. His quotes are widely used in the world. One of the quotes is “If by using violence I force the government to repeal the law, I am employing what may be termed body-force. If I do not obey the law and accept the penalty for its breach, I use soul-force. It involves sacrifice of self (Desmond and Ghandi, 2007). In the above quote, he reveals that there is no use of force against the government with someone risking his or her life. He tries to prove the point that there are ways of making your grievances heard without the use of violence. As a human right activist, he treasured life everywhere he went even in South Africa he was saddened when he heard someone died in the arms of the Boers. According to him he valued the law of life making people believe that if someone confronted you with violence you should conquer him with love in the battle.Gandhi believed that the law of love was more useful than the law of destruction because it solved many problems peacefully. Furthermore, this struggle makes someone stronger. Gandhi emphasized that the more he worked with the law of love his life was more delight than ever, it gave him peace and the meaning of the mysterious nature he had no power to describe. The state of being non-violent does not mean that someone should be coward in the heart it means you can be non-violent physically, but not emotionally. Furthermore, the law of non-violence cannot be taught to anyone who fears to die or a powerless person.

“Disobedience to be civil must be sincere, respectful, restrained, never defiant, must be based upon some well-understood principle, must not be capricious and above all, must have no ill-will or hatred behind it” (Desmond and Ghandi, 2007). In this quote, he tries to explain that there is no hope of being disobedient to anyone even the person is taking you for granted. Gandhi believes that life is an aspiration, in addition to this he believes that life is a mission to be perfected in order to strive. To strive for the mission you must respect everyone when in the life journey.Obedience is a state in which someone proves his level of maturity to the society around him or her.

“No man can claim that he is absolutely in the right or that a particular thing is wrong because he thinks so, but it is wrong for him so long as that is his deliberate judgment” (Desmond and Ghandi, 2007). In this quote, he tries to make a statement that nobody is perfect. Gandhi thought that everyone who delivered judgment towards someone’s wrong act delivered it according to his point of view. He further reasoned that people have different ways of thinking and opinions. According to him, he believed that forgiveness was the best way of passing judgments

“What is one man’s food can be another’s poison” (Desmond and Ghandi, 2007) is a conclusive quote by Gandhi ti implies that people are different in whatever they do. This is because everyone has a different way of tackling life. Someone cannot try to copy someone else’s lifestyle because people have different ways of surviving. Most of Gandhi’s quotes mainly emphasize on the basic lifestyle of a man and the way he should live in order to avoid violence (King and Kadir, 2012).

References

Desmond, T and Ghandi, M.(2007). Peace: The Words and Inspiration of Mahatma Gandhi. Mumbai: Blue Mountain Arts, Inc.

King, M. L. (2010). Stride Toward Freedom: The Montgomery Story. Washington DC: Beacon Press.

King, M. L., Jr and Kadir, N. (2012). I Have a Dream. New York: Random House Children’s Books.