1

Civil Disobedience Movement As Destroyer of Democracy

Gauri Kaushik
 2

INDEX

Contents
I. Abstract...........................................................................................................................................3

II. Introduction................................................................................................................................4

III. Literature review: -....................................................................................................................5

IV. Research problem......................................................................................................................5

V. Research question..........................................................................................................................6

VI. Research object..........................................................................................................................6

VII. Methodology: -...........................................................................................................................6

VIII. Civil disobedience: -...............................................................................................................6

IX. Civility.........................................................................................................................................7

X. In defense of uncivil disobedience: -.............................................................................................8

XI. Civil disobedience justification: -.............................................................................................8

XII. Civil disobedience as threat to democracy..............................................................................8

XIII. The duty to obey law............................................................................................................10

XIV. Conclusion: -.........................................................................................................................11

XV. Reference..................................................................................................................................11
 3

I. Abstract
In this paper I am going to discuss about action of civil disobedience and how these actions
converted into uncivil disobedience this paper basically going to emphasis that how these
actions becoming the main reason of destroyer of democracy and on the other hand this paper
also dealing with some traditional argument against disobedience in general and how
responses offered by many champions of civil disobedience which can be also justify some
type of civil disobedience. Further in this paper author is also going to discuss that how many
individualists give their view on civil disobedience. In this paper justifiability of un-civil/
civil disobedient act would be examine as many philosophers as possible arguing that it is not
justified in our democracy. This paper is going to deal with a situation where civil
disobedience has been converted into uncivil disobedience action and now how both terms
can be understood and define as destroyer of democracy. in what extend these actions are not
justified.

Keywords: - uncivil, democracy, traditional, justifiability, extends.

 4

II. Introduction
In every democratic country people of country are supposed to follow the law which is made
by legislature. When we vote any government, we give our power to representer us. When we
are electing someone to represent us so government also except that people of democratic
country would also follow laws and obey the command there is something called a moral
duty to obey the law in legitimate state 1. And civil disobedience is movement where people
are taking this movement as an exception, if they are not satisfying with laws then they are
refusing if we look at the standard definition of civil disobedience which also define some
essential feature supposed to follow is non-violence it means it puts violence outside (Rawls
John, 1999) in his one of discussion he stated that ‘to engage in violent acts likely to injure
and to hurt is also incompatible with civil disobedience’. According to him violent action as
well as non-violent act may also considered as civil disobedience many scholars stated in
their paper that now the nature of civil disobedience has been change over the time as society
is changing and means and goals of people and civil disobedience is also changing earlier it
has started with one intention but now it has been found by many researcher that intention of
civil disobedience has been changed and because of that nature is also has been converted
into uncivil disobedience. Now many scholars claiming that how violent acts can also be
considered as civil disobedience on the other hand many researchers also proved that violent
acts may be considered as civil disobedience now debated is going on then should we
pronounced it civil disobedience or uncivil disobedience. On the other hand, civil has two
sense civil that relates to the public sphere 2 and secondly civil in the polite. So, violence is
uncivil in the latter sense, and it was also argued that it is uncivil in the former sense as well.

There has been the debate from the time of Athenian democracy 3 that whether protest and
dissent, especially uncivil disobedience to the law was supportive or destructive of a people’s
democracy.

1
This term indicates a process where citizen give their rights to government to governed them and accept all
laws and obey the laws
2
Public sphere is area where every individual is allowed to discuss their problem.
3
Athenian democracy refers to the government system where all male citizens could attend and participate in
the assembly.
 5

III. Literature review: -

Dusen, L. H. V. (1969). Civil Disobedience: Destroyer of Democracy. American Bar

Association Journal, 55(2), 123–126.

This article is written by Dusen cited article if Charles who is chief judge of united states
district court who define disobedience as a long step from dissent basically in his article, he
said that civil disobedience involves a deliberate and punishable breach of legal duty. (E, Feb
1968) So, Dusen is saying in his paper that society should ensure those demonstrators who is
trespassing public peace according to him the disobedient act of conscience dose not ennoble
democracy it basically erodes democracy. On the other hand, author also mentioned that the
idea of civil disobedience dose not invite principle of general applicability it means it
separate general laws from aimed specifically at those very activities.

Irfan ahmed shaikh, Shafique Ahmed Khan (2018). Congress Gandhi, and civil
disobidence movement. Journal of the Punjab university historical society, volume no. 31
issue no.2.

In this paper basically three authors written about civil disobedience. They mentioned the
basic purpose of this movement is refuse to obey certain laws which is passed by government
on the other hand in this paper authors also talking about the nature of civil disobedience how
it is non- cooperation movement however this is quite different from non- cooperation
movement in this paper authors giving positive view on civil disobedience they are trying to
define the term civil dissidence as non-violent act which does not include any violent act it is
purely civil act.
 6

IV. Research problem

as civil disobedience considered as peaceful and non- violent act it does not include any kind
of violation towards government but as society adopting civil disobedience concept now it
also including violent against government and in this way it is destroying democracy concept
as majority of people voting for well and good government on the other hand some of people
are not agreeing with government and they are not obeying the law or not satisfying with
government rules and they are taking actions because of them majority of people who vote
for government and agreed with decision with government are losing good government. Civil
disobedience is converting into uncivil disobedience which is not justified in our democracy.

V. Research question
Whether uncivil disobedience is justified in democracy

How civil disobedience is destroying democracy

Can violent disobedient consider as civil disobedience

VI. Research object

To examine the nature of civil disobedience

To analysis the motive and intention of civil disobedience

VII. Methodology: -
In this paper I have done doctrinal research after going through all articles and journal, books
I have done my research.
 7

VIII. Civil disobedience: -

The definition of civil disobedience can be formulated in two forms first, Civil disobedience
can be active, and it can be passive, it may be direct or indirect. It means than a person can
either actively commit a prohibited act or passively refuse to conform to a prescribed action.

Civil disobedience is also defined in narrower way that it would exclude actions which is not
legal taken by individuals who don’t accept the constitutionality of the law and they are
violating. If we look at the classical definition and understanding of civil disobedience which
is giving by Rawls and defining it as morally wrong to disobey the law according to his
theory disobedience may give more scope to general breakdown in law and order. Many
philosophers were tried to clarify that what separates disobedient as a legitimate domain of
political activity. In his definition Rawls also distinguished categories of law breakers by
their own commitment to rule of law and on the other hand concept of democratic
constitutional regime.

However, civil disobedience plays vital role from the Boston tea party to mahatma Gandhi
salt march in bending the perfect area of the moral universe toward justice but on the other
hand people refer to this movement as civil disobedience have in common. Basically, civil
disobedience is a non- violent and conscientious breach of our legal system undertaking with
the aim of bringing about a change in government or laws. Now the main idea and concept of
civil disobedience has been changing earlier it was all about changes of law which is not for
social welfare but now the means of civil disobedience has been change drastically these
changes making distinguish between civil disobedience and uncivil disobedience now days
philosophers are concerning that civil disobedience is not civil in nature.

IX. Civility
To decide act as civility it must prove that in our democratic society there should be some
breach of law however civil disobedience is not a crime its no where define that it is crime
but when individuals engage in civil disobedience is punished by the law not for civil
disobedience but for recognized offence such as peace, damaging, trespass property and so
on. But when people break the law in indirect way that they oppose for example we have
Rosa parks violating and so on then it would consider as direct civil disobedience. There is
something called indirect civil disobedience when disobedient break a law which things being
 8

equal, and they do not oppose but to demonstrate they protest and fight against another policy
then it would be considered as indirect civil disobedience.

How act of disobedience become civil to define this question or to answer this question many
scholars tried to define some elements and feature there are five major features which may
define an act as civil disobedience act.

First, communication this is one element of civil disobedience a person should communicate
with their government or society and people who are doing civil disobedience should
communicate with each other because civil disobedience is essentially communicative.

Secondly, publicity only communication is not enough for civility there should be publicity
in particular way which can be divided in many features such as non-anonymity so person,
the openness of the act and so on.

Thirdly, non- violence is also the part of civility it must be non- violence however there is
supposed to incompatibility between violence and communication.

Fourthly, non- evasion so, disobedient are supposed to take reasonable responsibility for the
legal consequence of their actions.

X. In defense of uncivil disobedience: -

civil disobedience considered a wrongful act as many scholars also defined because its
destroyer democratic system there are four reasons mainly firstly it violates the morality
means it destroy moral duty to obey or follow the law, which binds people of country in
legitimate state and secondly it undermines law and order. It also flouts democratic system.
However, there are scholars who are trying to define civil disobedience as justified but it is
not possible because their justifications would apply beyond the boundaries of civility to
some type of uncivil disobedience. According to Lang, Morreall civil disobedience can be
violence is not directed at persons.
 9

XI. Civil disobedience justification: -

as we know that civil disobedience is not morally justified in our democratic system there are
many reasons but, in this paper, we will focus on major reason. Civil disobedience basically
undertaken with the assumption that in our liberal system people of this societies have a
general and moral duty to follow law and order which we called political obligation. So, we
can say that civil disobedience required justification so there are many problems in
disobedience and there are conditions under which we can justified civil disobedience.
According to (Lyons, 1980) they mentioned in his article that disobedient is wrong act
because it violates our political obligation.

XII. Civil disobedience as threat to democracy

civil disobedience considered as destroyer of our democratic system. Manny scholars tried to
give their definition. If we look at our democratic system, we used to give vote any person
whereas different group of people giving their valuable vote to party. While we are giving
vote, we are not only giving vote, but we are also giving our power to rule us or represent us
it means we individuals are not powerful and capable enough to represent ourselves based on
individualist so in this situation we must give our power to any particular person or authority.
But on the other hand there are people who are not managing with government and refusing
the laws which is made and amended by representative government when majority of people
elect any government and give their power to any particular government and because of some
people who are not happy with law and refusing law, changing the government system it
means minority of people are destroying the rights of majority of people his process is
effecting the democratic system and that’s how civil disobedience. Basically, civil
disobedience erodes democratic system because it flouts democratic process of law maker.
And refusing to comply with their result and outcomes which make themselves enemies of
our democratic ideas and It also undermine the conditions for democratic concord. As it is
also mentioned by Rawls, who is great philosopher according to him civil disobedience is
anti-democratic system. So basically, civil disobedience is expected to be better than uncivil
disobedience not because it gives results to superior outcomes but just because civility is
morality in liberal democracy, and it has special duty to comport themselves in ways that
preserve civic bonds. Democratic potential of civil disobedience may be applied to uncivil
disobedience and generally civil disobedience breeds disrespect to law system disobedient are
negative concept whereas our system requires affirmative process and there must be
 10

responsibility of people and some respect. And in respect of this statement, I would like to
cite the words of great philosopher named as Sophocles’ chorus:

‘Tomorrow and for all time to come,

As in the past,

This law is immutable4:

For mortals greatly to live greatly to suffer’

So, it is very rare that every person is giving their will to suffer greatly in sophocles chorus
lines they basically trying to say that tomorrow the same thing will happen which is already
happened in past because the law can not suddenly change so, for us if we want to live great
life so first we have to suffer great it dose not means all time you have to suffer but you have
to take risk. Because the dire non-legal result of permissible legal action put pressures that
make difficult, and people may obey the law not because they are conceives but they may
follow or obey the law just because of fear. (Spitz, june 1954)

XIII. The duty to obey law

Many philosophers believed that civil disobedience acts violating political obligations and
duty of morality to obey the law and it is very essentials point that citizen of pure society in
which people are basically disagree about the matters of justice and duty however the duty to
obey the law is also defeasible. so, people may respond to the normative principle that
support the duty to obey the law by engaging in principled disobedience. And on the other
hand, there was one more objection that this act is criminal and principled it is civil or uncivil
which sows and invites violence and society where every induvial is disobeying all laws and
where every citizen is deciding what is right and what is wrong then what government will
do, and state cannot tolerate such exercise. Markovitz in his one of article named civil
disobedience as political disobedience where he defines disobedience as intentionally
breaking law.

4
Here the word immutable means law which cannot change over time, or which is not unable to be change with
changing society.
 11

(terrorism, 1996) J. Angelo who is great philosopher and he written many books one of his
book named as terrorism in his book he wrote about moral duty to obey the law in his book
he write Kant view on moral duty ‘according to him there is an absolute 5 obligation to obey
or follow the law because law is law one which holds that we ought always to be obeyed
however there are some exceptions but these exceptions are very limited now days people are
just protesting because they are thinking that this law would not be helpful without thinking
how it will work and government faced historical consequences so we cannot deny that if
there is any particular law which may not be helpful for some people but it may be useful for
majority of people and it is our legal duty to follow and give respect to our political authority
that we have. One more great philosopher talks about absolute moral duty of every single
citizen (wassestrom, 1984) and on the other hand Kant also argued that if there would be any
public law then it should be permitting the resistance according to him disobedience towards
political authority destroyer our constitution or democracy he also said that disobedience to
the law is nowhere justified neither direct action nor terrorism or any other form of political
violence is justified.6 After that kant also mentioned about social contract 7 he said that there is
something called social contract between government and citizen wherein individual citizens
consent to be governed.

XIV. Conclusion: -
So, in the light of all argument we can conclude that in our society there have been shifts in
the forms and motive, goals of civil disobedience over the time and according to theorists it
was long assumed that disobedience of civil acts only beginning justification in liberal and
democratic societies. Concluding with the second part in respect of justification of civil
disobedience there is something called moral duty of every individual who is bound to follow
the law.

5
Here I used the term ‘absolute’ it means any duty which you must follow at all times and in all circumstances,
no matter what.
6
Kant is not saying that either terrorism or secession are necessarily violent because mere terrorist threats are
not physically violent, not are all secessionst movement violent.
7
Social contract is not written anywhere but many philosophers define it according to them it is natural which
basically dictates that any citizen will not break laws. It is kind of agreement between government and citizen.
 12

XV. Reference
Spitz, D. (1954). Democracy and the Problem of Civil Disobedience. The American Political
Science Review, 48(2), 386–403.

Cohen, M. (1969). Civil Disobedience in a Constitutional Democracy. The Massachusetts

Review, 10(2), 211–226.

Bedau, H. A. (1961). On Civil Disobedience. The Journal of Philosophy, 58(21), 653–665.

Allen, M. (2009). Civil Disobedience and Terrorism: Testing the Limits of Deliberative
Democracy. Theoria: A Journal of Social and Political Theory, 56(118), 15–39.

Lefkowitz, D. (2007). On a Moral Right to Civil Disobedience. Ethics, 117(2), 202–233.

KAMPELMAN, M. M. (1970). DISSENT, DISOBEDIENCE, AND DEFENSE IN A

DEMOCRACY. World Affairs, 133(2), 124–132.

Prosch, H. (1967). Toward an Ethics of Civil Disobedience. Ethics, 77(3), 176–192.

J. Angelo Corlett. (1996). Is there a moral duty to obey the law. Philosophical studies,
volume no. 101, pp-10-18.
 13

Greenawalt, K. (1985). The Natural Duty to Obey the Law. Michigan Law Review, 84(1), 1–
62.

Mackie, J. L. (1981). Obligations to Obey the Law. Virginia Law Review, 67(1), 143–158.

Goldman, A. H. (1980). The Obligation to Obey Law. Social Theory and Practice, 6(1), 13–
31.

Durning, P. (2003). Political Legitimacy and the Duty to Obey the Law. Canadian Journal of
Philosophy, 33(3), 373–389.

Smith, M. B. E. (1973). Is There a Prima Facie Obligation to Obey the Law? The Yale Law
Journal,82(5),950–976.

Christie, G. C. (1990). On the Moral Obligation to Obey the Law. Duke Law Journal,
1990(6), 1311–1336.

Spitz, D. (1954). Democracy and the Problem of Civil Disobedience. The American Political
Science Review, 48(2), 386–403.
14