Should citizens disobey the law when it proves to be unjust?
The rise in civil disobedience across a number of countries, both developed and underdeveloped, is perhaps a growing concern and should not be downplayed. In the recent past, many countries have experienced a growing recognition in regard to civil disobedience, evidenced by the many cases of refusals and non-violent protests. Civil disobedience is basically the active resistance or rather refusal of a citizen to obey certain commands and laws of a government on the grounds of unfair treatment, unjust laws, and various forms of inequalities, to say the least.[1] However, the question of whether citizens should obey the law when it is certain that the law is just has elicited mixed reactions among various groups and people, each fronting their own views and perspectives. Many governments, say, the US government, for example, have overtime been at the center of protests due to its unjust laws, and this clearly demonstrates how unjust laws can be detrimental not only to the government but to the people as well. Notably, the government that governs least governs best, and a better government is one that provides grounds for just laws to be employed.[2] In a nutshell, just laws play a fundamental role in as much as civil disobedience is concerned, and it is therefore prudent for any country to look closely and extensively on this issue in a bid to curb unnecessary cases of civil disobedience that can impact negatively on a nation.
While many people are of the opinion that citizens should obey the law regardless of its level of justness, and more particularly in support of the status quo claim that citizens should not disobey the law when it proves to be unjust many research studies, activists and various groups illustrates that unjust laws are detrimental to the citizens and they should disobey it when it proves to be unjust.
The paper gives an in-depth analysis of the need to disobey the law when it seems to be unjust or rather when it doesn’t address the key concerns of its citizens. The paper, however, will have seven paragraphs, five in support of the claim, and two counterclaims. The conclusion part, on the other hand, basically binds the claim with the supporting arguments as well as highlighting in “conclusive” terms the need to disobey unjust laws and how to contain it.
Discussion
There are, however, a host of grounds or reasons under which a citizen should disobey laws when they prove to be unjust, and they include; first is that since the beginning of times, the truth needs public outcry for it to be incorporated or to be heard. It is needless to lay it bare that in an organizational setting, in a firm and by extension in a government setting, the truth or justness can only be acted upon when employees or citizens engage in a public outcry through protests and demonstrations. Everyone should make known what kind of government they need through whichever way they want, and that will be one step towards obtaining the respect and particularly all he wants from the government.[3] One should make it clear on what he wants to achieve, and it is only through making it known or rather crying out loud that one achieves what he wants or rather the kind of government that best fits his wants.[4] It is evident from the beginning of times that most governments are unjust. “The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; it would have done more if the government hadn’t sometimes gone in its way.”[5] This, however, demonstrates that most governments go their way in that they only come up with laws and policies that don’t serve the interest of everyone at large but rather unjust policies that serve their own interests. Therefore the only way to tame such acts is by engaging in public protests and outcries that can move a government into realigning their self-motive acts towards developing just laws. More broadly, historically, explaining the moral injustices of a number of social acts such as slavery, sexism, and ecological devastation simply was not enough, and there was a need to engage in fierce ways of explaining injustices.[6] Further, explains that moral truth doesn’t matter to any government or oppressive regime as they are all influenced by paid deniers and funded by controversial people or companies, and the only way to overcome these injustices is by engaging in public outcries. In simple terms, if and only if people can come together and force concessions from the “government,” they can achieve what they want.[7] Therefore this presumably translates that people should engage in civil disobedience since the truth is more often heard through acts of refusal and non-violent resistance.
Besides, citizens should disobey the law when it proves to be unjust since this is the only feasible way that can make the government be more accountable. It is no exaggeration that any government that is accountable is basically just, and this, however, goes to mean that an accountable government is a just government. This apparently highlights that as civil disobedience looks to streamline a form of government, it indirectly results in justness. Every citizen or every man has a right to refuse and resist any government when its tyranny or inefficiency perhaps are great and unbearable[8] Everyone has a right to question a law or a policy, particularly the unendurable law fronted by a government, and through such questioning, the government can be made accountable. He further explicitly argue that for a non-accountable government particularly one that; “sixth of its population are slaves when the whole country is unjustly overrun and more specifically subjected to a foreign law if honest men and women rebel against these laws or if they engage in a revolution against such injustices, then it can never be considered too soon to rebel.” Notably, it goes unnoticed that Thoreau gives a clear picture on grounds in which one should rebel against law or government, and he gives an irreducible minimum in which when all are met, then revolution cannot be regarded as too soon.[9] In a nutshell, a government can be made accountable by disobeying unjust laws only through specific means such as civil disobedience. Moreover, the need to engage in civil disobedience in order to make governments more accountable when he refused to pay a poll tax; “some years ago the state met me on behalf of the church and commanded me to pay a certain sum on behalf of a clergyman less I will be locked up, but I declined to pay[10] His actions also demonstrate the need to engage in civil disobedience to right the wrongs of any law or government actions. On the same note, Loesch expanding upon his historical and social frameworks explains that civil disobedience makes governments more accountable for all their undertakings, and this has been an important aspect for overcoming multiple unpopular policies orchestrated by the government.[11] Drawing on (Henry’s) sentiments that citizens should not allow a government to override their principles, he further explains that the only way in which citizens can fight for their rightful principles and, more importantly, bring to an end the unjust means of the government is by civil disobedience. It is for this reason, therefore, that civil disobedience should be employed to make government actions more accountable, which indirectly results in justness in a country.
In addition, citizens should disobey the law or rather should engage in non-violent protests since it’s only through refusal and disobedience that people can learn to live in the current socio-political dispensation. Citizens should disobey the law that seems to be unjust because we live in a society that isn’t governed by logic and moral truth. According to Thoreau, drawing on Paley’s sentiments points out that governments should be true to their people and always strive to be logical.[12] He gives an example that “if he unjustly wrestles a plank from a drowning man, he should restore it even if it means drowning himself.” Moreover, Thoreau further argues that nations agree to do what is right and particularly being logical, but no government does what is right at any given time. Massachusetts, say, for example, promises to be true, but they never at one point do what is right.[13] Therefore in such a case and by extension in the current dispensation in which nations are engulfed in, no nation does what is morally right and logical, and the only way to overcome this phenomenon is by engaging in refusals and disobedience. Much like Thoreau, Lefkowitz, on the other hand, demonstrates that if by any chance we would be living in a society governed by logic and moral truth, the acts of civil disobedience might not be really relevant and necessary but then we do not live in such a society.[14] The current society as of Lefkowitz is one that is governed by power and money hoarded by a few individuals to the detriment of all citizens, and this, therefore, calls for a number of interventions, more specifically civil disobedience.[15] On the same note, Thoreau points out that the current world that we are in, say, in the US, for example, politicians and a few individuals are more interested in commerce and agriculture than they are in humanity and their actions, therefore, calls for countermeasures such as civil disobedience.[16] Therefore, in a bid to combat a number of deceitful policies fronted by politicians and a few self-full individuals, people should disobey laws that are unjust.
Another reason why people should disobey laws that prove to be unjust is that practice always comes before the law. According to Thoreau, he explicitly explains in stark terms that laws exist, but as always, practice comes before the law; “Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them and obey them until we have succeeded?[17] In this case, Thoreau argues that over time things change, and the law always reflects on what the society deems as morally correct, and when what is deemed to be correct changes, the law should also be amended.[18] Going by this, therefore, it is clearly substantiated that practice comes before the law, and when the practice is deemed not to be right in any way best understood by citizens, citizens engage in non-violent protests or other refusal confrontations. Notably, Rosenwald, just like Thoreau, also highlights that historically, laws have changed and perhaps what is morally correct changes with time, and this also means that the law has to follow suit.[19] He further argues that in this case, there is a gab which often results in it warranting the act of breaking the law or refusing to abide by a law. In simple terms, this, however, means that the way of doing things in every country changes in the course of time and therefore governments should take a closer look at what has changed so that they can amend the law and if the government fails to act as required citizens are allowed to break the law or disobey the law.
Lastly, since civil disobedience or rather disobeying a law is often carried out selectively as it seeks to reform a specific situation, then citizens can disobey a law when it seems to be unjust. In essence, disobeying a law doesn’t mean disobeying the government, but rather it means selectively disobeying an unjust policy that doesn’t go well with the public. According to Thoreau, while utilizing various social and political frameworks justifies that it isn’t one business to petition the governor or the authority, but if they don’t hear people’s grievances, they are left with nothing else to do except for them to disobey.[20] Further, he illustrates that he hadn’t paid a poll tax for six years, but he has never declined to pay the highway tax because from his perspective the highway tax was more logic and of great help to his countrymen as opposed to the poll tax that benefited a few controversial people.[21] This, therefore, showcases that disobeying unjust laws on the pretext that they are skewed towards a certain group as opposed to equally serving everyone is warranted or acceptable. In addition, Thomassen gives a clear picture that our period from history to date is frequently termed as materialistic whereby many governments roll out policies and measures that only address their own concerns, and therefore disobeying these selective policies is the best motive that can be undertaken.[22] In as much as governments can use all its forces to crush and arrest all persons who go against their laws, engaging in civil disobedience to address selected and specific bias looks to be the most feasible way. In a nutshell, if a government doesn’t raise questions of basic moral principles, then disobeying a law or a proposed law is quite acceptable.
On the other hand, the opponents of civil disobedience claim that people should not disobey a law regardless of its nature because there is no legal system that dispenses the right to disobey a law. Literally, this presumably translates that a law is a law and should not be disobeyed whatsoever. Bayles amplifies that everyone has a right to civil disobedience in that everyone has a legal right to what the law doesn’t forbid.[23] Further, it is an obligation of every citizen to obey the law, and therefore, in case one isn’t happy with a law, they should follow the due process of airing their grievances. Secondly, most opponents explain that people should not disobey a law if it proves to be unjust because of those who are at the forefront of disobeying laws on the grounds that they are unjust and lacks moral truth have themselves used such laws to benefit themselves as well. This, therefore, presumably translates that laws may be beneficial to one group and, at the same time, detrimental to another and, therefore, disobeying laws on the grounds of unjustness is not called for. Brownlee explains that many right-thinking citizens may today condemn a law on the pretext that it is unjust and accuse the government of using such laws to basically advance their cause but forgets that if in that position they themselves can happily employ them.[24] In general, it is needless to point out that everyone should treat any law that exists as a just law.
Conclusion
In view of the above illustrations, it goes unnoticed that civil disobedience and, more particularly, disobeying a law when it proves to be unjust is a fundamental social aspect. It is possible, however, to take a plausible version of this position by reasonably pointing out that sometimes disobedience to the law is legitimate basing on a number of issues, for instance, unaccountable and despotic government or regime. Moreover, it is interesting to learn that in as much as controversy exists on whether to disobey a law when it proves to be unjust, it is however clear from the illustrations that there is a need for citizens to engage in refusals and other non-violent acts in a bid to resist unjust laws. Most governments are run by individuals who are only after furthering their cause and taking a closer look at their own self-interest by fronting laws that promote their agenda to the detriment of the entire country or society. Due to this, engaging in acts of disobedience, therefore, is quite legitimate and perhaps the only way to right the wrongs of a despotic or morally wrong government. Most notably, a democratic government, for example, provides legal instruments for the redress of people’s wants or views, and therefore in such a government, civil disobedience isn’t justified. This, therefore, presumably translates that disobeying laws that prove to be unjust, more specifically in a despotic regime, is legitimate, and citizens should not shy off from employing such methods in fighting for their rights as it is the only feasible way.
Bibliography
Bayles, Michael. “The justifiability of civil disobedience.” The Review of Metaphysics 24, no. 1 (2006): 3-20.
Bedau, Hugo Adam, ed. Civil disobedience in focus. Routledge, 2002.
Brownlee, Kimberley. “Two tales of civil disobedience: A reply to David Lefkowitz.” Res Publica 24, no. 3 (2018): 291-296.
David. “On a moral right to civil disobedience.” Ethics 117, no. 2 (2007): 202-233.
Loesch, Martin C. “Motive testimony and a civil disobedience justification.” Notre Dame JL Ethics & Pub. Pol’y 5 (1990): 1069.
Lefkowitz, David. “On a moral right to civil disobedience.” Ethics 117, no. 2 (2007): 202-233.
Rawls, John. “The justification of civil disobedience.” Arguing about the law (2013): 244-253.
Rosenwald, Lawrence. “The theory, practice, and influence of Thoreau’s Civil disobedience.” A historical guide to Henry David Thoreau (2000): 153-79.
Thomassen, Lasse. “Within the limits of deliberative reason alone: Habermas, civil disobedience, and constitutional democracy.” European Journal of Political Theory 6, no. 2 (2007): 200-218.
Thoreau, Henry David. “Civil Disobedience.” Classics of American Political & Constitutional Thought (2000).
[1] Rawls, John. “The justification of civil disobedience.” Arguing about the law (2013): 244-253.
[2] Thoreau, Henry David. “Civil Disobedience.” Classics of American Political & Constitutional Thought (2000).
[3] Thoreau, Henry David. “Civil Disobedience.” Classics of American Political & Constitutional Thought (2000).
[4] Ibid
[5] Ibid
[6] Bedau, Hugo Adam, ed. Civil disobedience in focus. Routledge, 2002.
[7] Ibid
[8]: Ibid, Civil disobedience, 2000.
[9] Thoreau, Henry David. “Civil Disobedience.” Classics of American Political & Constitutional Thought (2000).
[10].” Ibid, 374
[11] Loesch, Martin C. “Motive testimony and a civil disobedience justification.” Notre Dame JL Ethics & Pub. Pol’y 5 (1990): 1069.
[12] Ibid, Civil Disobedience, 2000.
[13] Ibid
[14] Lefkowitz, David. “On a moral right to civil disobedience.” Ethics 117, no. 2 (2007): 202-233. David. “On a moral right to civil disobedience.” Ethics 117, no. 2 (2007): 202-233.
[15] Ibid
[16] Thoreau, Henry David. “Civil Disobedience.” Classics of American Political & Constitutional Thought (2000).
[17] Ibid
[18] Ibid
[19] Rosenwald, Lawrence. “The theory, practice, and influence of Thoreau’s Civil disobedience.” A historical guide to Henry David Thoreau (2000): 153-79.
[20] Ibid, Civil Disobedience, 2000.
[21] Rosenwald, Lawrence. “The theory, practice, and influence of Thoreau’s Civil disobedience.” A historical guide to Henry David Thoreau (2000): 153-79.
[22] Thomassen, Lasse. “Within the limits of deliberative reason alone: Habermas, civil disobedience, and constitutional democracy.” European Journal of Political Theory 6, no. 2 (2007): 200-218.
[23] Bayles, Michael. “The justifiability of civil disobedience.” The Review of Metaphysics 24, no. 1 (2006): 3-20.
[24] Brownlee, Kimberley. “Two tales of civil disobedience: A reply to David Lefkowitz.” Res Publica 24, no. 3 (2018): 291-296.