The Debate on Civil Disobedience in Contemporary Times - Essay Example

The Debate on Civil Disobedience in Contemporary Times Contradictions between the and citizens are normal in any society. This is not becauseof a particular state’s character. It is because of the existence of the state itself. (Mao) Even in a seemingly peaceful and orderly society, these contradictions exist because governments are liable to detach themselves from popular interests. The people’s opposition towards government policies and their desire for social transformation may not be seen yet through open actions. However, there will always be grounds for discontent to grow although hidden. For a democracy, the open contradiction between government and the people are considered signs of health. When people express their views freely against government policies, democratic ideals are realized. Protest actions such as street marches and rallies are means to force governments to institute reforms or to scrap unpopular policies. Oftentimes, these are met by violent reaction from the state’s armed forces. In countries ruled by authoritarian regimes, popular opposition and its peaceful actions are often met with even worse violence. The latest examples of these are those that occurred in Iran in June 2009. The violent dispersal of protest actions participated by mostly university students resulted in deaths and injuries. The crackdown would have been made secret from the rest of the world had protesters not used the internet as means of rallying international support. (Amnesty International) Although colonialism is no longer as prevalent as it was in the last century, many countries today still have national liberation movements that continue to struggle against what they perceive as regimes that are subservient to the dictates of foreign powers, particularly those of the West, such as the US. These are either waging armed struggle or open unarmed mass actions to topple their respective governments. What distinguishes them from the earlier liberation movements, however, is the inclusion of propaganda tactics based on the internet. The Philippine revolutionary movement, for example, has a well-maintained website that contains the latest developments in the war NPA guerillas are waging, as well analyses on issues that have often spurred the legal democratic organizations to launch protest actions. (PIB-CPP) While there may be no longer be arguments regarding the necessity of popular struggles against government policies or the establishment itself if it is found entirely undemocratic. There remains a debate on the strategy that should be applied by social movements to introduce changes or resist an oppressive government. There are only two opposing camps; one advocates revolutionary violence and the other espouse active non-violence or civil disobedience. Although there are revolutionary movements that practice a creative combination of both, they also admit that non-violent struggles that fall under the reactionary government’s laws are secondary while armed struggle is principal. (Strategy and Tactics of Armed Struggle) Social movements applying violence to advance their struggles against governments are often no longer just interested in reforms. In many cases, communist parties lead them, if not by radical leftist elements that only uphold certain features of Marxism. They no longer see the possibility of reforms being carried out by what they see as governments that represents the bourgeois and landlord classes. Therefore, they believe that the only strategy to introduce social transformation is to wage a revolutionary war and overthrow the government. According to Mao Zedong, “Power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” (Problems of War and Strategy) The proponents on non-violent resistance insist on using peaceful means to achieve changes in society. They employ lobbying among lawmakers or even the executive branch of the government to express opposition to unpopular policies. However, their most favored strategy is civil disobedience. Civil disobedience refers to all actions, which express opposition to laws, policies, or dictates of the government by not obeying it. David Henry Thoreau first articulated this method through Resistance to Civil Government. In this essay, he did not only discuss his views on government. He exhorted those opposed to slavery and the war against Mexico to stop paying taxes as a form of resistance. (Thoreau) Whether it is duly elected by the people or not, a government is composed of men. Because of this, Thoreau believed that negotiation combined with acts of disobedience is enough to move a government into correcting itself in favor of those it rules. India’s Mohandas Gandhi was one of the earliest promoters of civil disobedience in the struggle to liberate his people from the clutches of British colonialism. In one of his more renowned writings, he enumerated the rules that his fellow Indians should follow in advancing non-violent resistance. Two of most fundamental are that a civil resister should not display anger and that he must prepare himself to suffer the government’s wrath instead. (Non-Violent Resistance) His ideas and those Thoreau’s had inspired many oppressed peoples to launch non-violent struggles for social and national liberation. The most glaring examples in more recent history are those of the Civil Rights Movement in the US, the People Power Revolution in the Philippines, the Singing Revolution in Estonia, and the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. However, despite the successes of civil disobedience campaigns, those that believe that revolutionary violence is the answer to state oppression has strongly criticized civil disobedience as a strategy for social change. The Maoist-led Naxalbari movement in India, for example, renounces Gandhi’s Satyagraha. Ganapathy, general secretary of the Communist Party of India-Maoist, said that “Ahimsa (non-violence) and Karma (fate) are the ideological bases and the dubious catch-words of the exploiting classes to perpetuate their violence and hegemony over the vast masses.” (Interview with Ganapathy) He stated accurately what many in the revolutionary left around the world has said about active non-violence or civil disobedience, that oppressive governments tolerate peaceful means of pushing for social change because these do not threaten them at all. They said that pacifist reformers who advocate civil disobedience and reject armed revolution actually create opportunities for oppression and exploitation of people to survive. Interestingly, many revolutionaries and activists, who are partial to the use of violence, were once believers in non-violent struggles. What led them to take the path of violence is their governments’ instant use of armed force on peaceful protests. According to them, violent resistance would not be necessary if the state does not unleash its armed forces on the people. Advocates of civil disobedience maintain that active non-violence remains viable even under a society where inequalities pervade and tyranny reigns. The key is to make sure that a critical mass is achieved to make non-violent pressure tactics more effective. Therefore, for civil disobedience to be successful, the largest number of people must be politically aroused and systematically organized. The sheer quantity of those disobeying government policies is enough to pressure those in power to reconsider their position. In working democracies, the elected government may be swayed in favor of popular sentiment in order to maintain its appeal to the voters. In countries under authoritarian rule, armed repression on the masses can only lead into its own isolation in the community of nations. It may also ignite violent responses from its populace, which becomes even harder to handle. The promoters of peaceful struggles contend that armed means are always driven by desires for quick victories. Worse, these may also be motivated by vengeance in the cloak of justice. It is human instinct to defend one’s self from violence with violence. However, rationalization also teaches one to seek non-violent ways of resolving contradictions. In fact, even in conditions when a violent regime is the target, civil disobedience can still work and succeed. According to Ackerman and Kruegler, “nonviolent conflict cannot require a kinder and gentler world in which to prevail, but it may offer (and has offered) a realistic alternative in the face of political violence as we know it." (Strategic Non-violent Conflict 16) Tactics are very important in civil disobedience campaigns. Its effectiveness ensures that objectives are achieved, that the government is not prompted to employ force against its opponents, and that proponents of armed struggle are not given excuses for their cause. However, to achieve success, tactics should only be limited to the creative application of active resistance. In fact, activities such as sit-ins, boycotts, demonstrations, and workers’ strikes are just pinnacles of civil disobedience campaigns. Prior to these are the more tedious and time-consuming tasks of raising the political awareness of the people, establishing dynamic organizations and alliances, and gathering domestic and international support. When all these have been achieved, civil disobedience can be very potent tools for change. Electronic civil disobedience has become a commonly used tactic in this era of the internet. However, this should not be considered as potent as actual mobilizations. At best, this may be recognized as an effective means of propaganda and information. This enables social movements and other groups involved in mass struggles to reach out to more people on a global level. The rise of social media, for example, is a new venue for linking people with the same views opposing government policies. (Preston) Although this certainly is not as potent as actual mass actions participated by a big number of people, this certainly can gather more forms of support. In countries ruled by authoritarian regimes, this has saved civil resisters from more brutal repression from government as it attempts to avoid international condemnation. In these times, civil resisters have found a valuable tool for exposing and opposing undemocratic policies of governments in the new media. Works Cited Ackerman, Peter and Christopher Kruegler. Strategic Nonviolent Conflict. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger, 1994 Amnesty International. “Thousands take action around the world in solidarity with people of Iran.” Amnesty July 24, 2009. Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist, “Strategy and Tactics of Armed Struggle.” Gandhi, Mohandas K. Nonviolent Resistance. New York: Schocken, 1967. Mao Zedong. “On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People.” Selected Works of Mao Zedong Vol. V. 1957 Mao Zedong. “Problems of War and Strategy.” Selected Works of Mao Zedong Vol. II. 1938 Naxalite Maoist India. “Interview with Ganapathy, General Secretary of the CPI (Maoist).” Party Information Bureau-Communist Party of the Philippines. Philippine Revolution Web Central. Preston, Paschal "Reshaping Communications: Technology, Information and Social Change," London: Sage, 2001 Thoreau, David Henry. “Resistance to Civil Government” (1849) Read More