By: DABO B. EUCLID
A BRIEF OUTLINE
INTRODUCTION.
DEFINATION OF TERMS.
JUSTIFICATION OF CIVIL DIS-OBEDIENCE AND CONSIENCIOUS REFUSAL.
CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE ACCORDING TO JOHN RAWLS (DEFINATION).
THE POSIBILTY OF CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE IN THE SOCIETY.
CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE ACCORDING TO HENRY DAVID THOREAU.
CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE ACCORDING TO JOHN RAWLS
FEATURES OF CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE.
EVALUATION AND CONCLUSION.
INTRODUCTION.
The ultimate justification of both civil disobedience and conscientious refusal is the natural law and the natural right that derive from it. Civil disobedience is an exercise of one’s natural right-the right to resist injustice or oppression. It is an appeal to an earring government to come back to the path of justice mark out by the natural law, an attempt to rectify a wrong and unjust situation for the benefit of the entire society. Civil disobedience can therefore see as a call to a ruler or government to come back to the path of sanity and justice.
DEFINATION OF TERMS
NATURAL LAW: This term can also be referred to as the cosmic law, and this can be seen as that natural sentiment which makes us to turn away from the act of cruelty. To Aquinas, calls it that part of eternal law that applies to human choices and can be known by our natural reason. It is that eternal law exclusively made due to his moral nature
RIDICULOUS: Deserving to be ridicule, foolish and absurd, unreasonable, unthinkable, funny and silly.
CONFLICT: This can be seen as a clash or disagreement often violent between two opposing forces, individuals or group of people. It is an incompatibility as of two things that cannot be simultaneously fulfilled.
GOVERNMENT: The government is that body that is been vested with the power to make and enforce laws in a state, or a group of people who hold the monopoly on the legitimate use of force or authority, in a state, and it is that machinery of the stage that is charged with the task of administration in a state or society.
RISGHTS: This are legal or moral entitlements or lawfully claims which and individual posses or make and benefit for been a member or citizen of that particular society.
CITIZEN: A citizen is any person that is legally recognise as a member of a state, with associated rights and obligations. It can also be seen as a legitimate individual that is legally been admitted to be part of a particular community, state or nation either by birth or naturalization.
PARADOXICAL: This can be defined as any statement that is self-contradictory or oxymoronic in nature.
CIVIL: This concept is a term always been employed to buttress any idea relating to people and government office as oppose to religion or military. It is sometimes been used to referred to a much polite and reasonable manner or kind of behaviour.
DISOBEDIENCE: An act of rejection or particular authority refusal to obey a. It can also be referred to an act of disobliging and a refusal to go by orders.
CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE: The term “Civil disobedience was coined by Henry David Thoreau, Civil disobedience means “ civil disobedience to the state, sometimes people assume that civil in this case means “observing accepted social forms, polite’ which would make civil disobedience something like polite, orderly disobedience.
JUSTIFICATION OF CIVIL DIS-OBEDIENCE AND CONSIENCIOUS REFUSAL.
A citizen have the right to reject or stand against any attempt by the state to deny him of his own natural rights through legislation, decree or any other tool that the government uses to make and enforce its policies. Any law, decree, or policy of the government that is paradoxical and against or in conflict with the natural law or natural rights is out not to be obeyed because it is intrinsically null and void. And this is the ultimate justification for civil-disobedience.
This is well known fact in jurisprudence, that when two laws are in conflicts, the higher one overrides the lower one which automatically becomes null and void and this we can relate to the hierarchy of courts in the state, citizens are been advice to obey the high court. This is precisely what happens when a conventional law is in conflict with the natural law which is been belief to be independent of man’s manipulation. Any ruler, Queen, King, Prime minister, or a president in a feral system who make any law that is in conflicts with the natural law has gone beyond the limit of his power and such excesses has to be checked in other to avoid future occurrences, such action can even be termed as ultra vice. Consequently, his purported Law is not law at all because it is to the detriment of man and the nature that keeps man.
Dennis Loyd, in his view, maintains that : not only does the higher law nullifies and overrides the actual rules of the society which violet the normal process, but it follows from this conclusion that the individual citizen may be relieved and poses a lawful bases to revolt against the legitimate authority of the state.
The first action that an individual as a citizen should take in such situation of conflict between the natural and societal laws or policies is to point out to the government that such a law is in conflict with nature, and it should either be reface or done away with. And this should be in a peaceful manner, either through writing to the government or engaging the government dialectically with a positive aim of formulating something better for the good of the general public. It can also be done through peaceful demonstration, for example, in Zimbabwe, when the government of Aim Sith been the prime minister came up with a law of racial discrimination, a law that forbids the education of Africans, and non-African children in the same schools. And a catholic Bishop wrote a joint letter to the government, pointing out that, the new law was in conflict with the natural law because all humans were created equally and should be treated as well and consequently, and that they had no intention of obeying the law. The Bishop made it clear to the government that neither in theory, nor in practical aspect would they accept the law since it was in conflict with the natural law.
If, however, the government having informed of their exploitative and unjust law is in conflict with the law of nature or cosmic laws, continues to insist on it enforcement, then the citizens are obliged to informed the government that they are morally obliged to obey God rather than man. That is, to obey the natural law which are above all finite minds? This view was also been supported by David Fellman who demonstrated that such laws and policies from the government are ‘violative acts’ and the sure of ‘raw power’, and Fellman man then emphasised that the citizens are not bound to obey such laws or policies of the government.
“Violation acts reflects raw power, and the individuals are not bound to obey such exploitative laws which are been tilted to their detriment. Indeed in the conflict between the commands of a higher law (that is the natural law) and the conventions then tend to make one resist the civil laws”.
If the government then move on to implore the use of coercive force and brutality-the police, the military force or any law enforcement agencies to compel men to go by their own law which the people rejects, the it has gone out of the realm of legality, civility, legitimacy and reasonableness and has resorted to brute force.
In doing this, the ruler is precipitin his own overthrow and his own downfall. This is a lesson which history teaches us, a lesson which it has always taught us and which it will continue to teach us. Many tyrant leaders are testimonies to the lessons of history, people like Adolf Hitler, ID Amin of Uganda and many other emperors. This was leaders whom had stepped on the law of nature by their self centred laws, while relying on brutal force to compel citizens to obey them.
No mortal can defy nature and get away with it because nature only give back to you what you had invested with, directly even with profits. And no ruler can formulate and enforce his law to the detriment of the natural law. Men “employ coercive apparatus of the state in other to maintain unjust institutions” says John Rawls, “is itself a form of legitimate force that men in due course have to resist. When a ruler oversteps the limits of his power circumscribed by the natural law, he automatically loses his right to loyalty and obedience from the citizens and prepares himself for his own overthrow. He has himself to be blamed and no one else.
The purpose of civil disobedience is not to overthrow the government, or to cause a breakdown of law and order in the society. The aim is to persuade the government in a peaceful manner to withdraw an unjust and oppressive policy in the interest of justice, peace and happiness of the citizens. This is the ultimate aim of civil disobedience and this is why it has to be carried out in a more peaceful manner and not in a violent and brutal process.
CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE ACCORDING TO HENRY DAVID THOREAU
Civil disobedience is possible in the contemporary society, according to Henry David Thoreau, who first coined the term “civil disobedience, “ would say “yes” in many ways, our government fall short of the ideal and to silently abide by unjust laws id not in our best interest. In his essay “on the duty of civil disobedience’ Thoreau said, “I think that we should be men first and subject afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the laws, so much so for the right” in essence national law has never been the ultimate authority. Thoreau argues that it is up to each and every individual to recognise his own higher power and live accordingly. It is sometimes forgotten that right and wrong are not necessarily defined by law. Civil disobedience means breaking a law believed to be immoral and unjust. Like Thoreau, I believe civil disobedience can be justified and it is our duty as citizens to stand up for what we believe many important events bringing about social change were acts of civil disobedience. Colonist fought taxation without representation in the Boston tea party. Nelson Mandela encouraged the citizens of south Africa to participate in the purple raim protest and cape town peace march to denounce apartheid.
Henry David Thoreau a transcendentalist writer wrote an essay “on the duty of civil disobedience” which states that people should follow their own perspective when it comes to what is right or wrong. It is because of those people who stick to their beliefs when times seems harsh and unfair that changes came about, ultimately improving their lives of the people in this community.
CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE ACCORDING TO JOHN RAWLS
Civil Disobedience as defined by John Rawls is a “public, non-violent, conscientious yet political acts contrary to law, usually done with the aim of bringing about a change in the law or polity of the government”.
According to Rawls, apart from civil disobedience apart from it being a political act, it is also a public act and that certain conditions must be fulfilled for an act to be regarded as an act of civil disobedience. First of all civil disobedience must be carried out publicly and openly, not in secret. It must be by peaceful, nonviolent means. “to engage in violent act is likely to injure and hurt is incompatible with civil disobedience”.
Those who intend to carry out the acts of civil disobedience must first of all inform the government in advance of their intention towards that. Even before getting to this stage. Also, other means must have been employed, to no avail to get to the government to take of such an unjust judgement, oppressive and immoral law or to change its policy. It is only when other means had failed that civil disobedience should be resorted to. In other word, civil disobedience should be the last option always.
Those involve in the act of civil disobedience should not resist arrest if they are been ordered to be arrested. They should not try to run away, but rather avail themselves as long as they know what they are fighting for.
FEATURES OF CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE
Conscientiousness: this feature high lightened in almost all account of civil disobedience, points to the seriousness sincerity and moral conviction with which civil disobedience breach the law. On Rawls account of civil disobedience in a nearly just society, civil disobedience address themselves to the majority to show that, in their considered opinion, the principles of justice governing co-operation among free and equal persons have not been respected by policy makers. Rawls Restriction of Civil disobedience to breaches that defend the principles of justice may be criticised for its narrowness since, presumably, a wide range of legitimate values not wholly reducible to justice, such as transparency, security, stability, privacy, integrity and autonomy, could motivate people to engage in civil disobedience.
Communication: here, a parallel may be drawn between the communication aspect of civil disobedience and the communication aspect of lawful punishment by the state. Like civil disobedience lawful punishment is associated with a backward looking aim to demonstrate condemnation of certain conduct as well as a forward-looking aimed to bring about a lasting change in that conduct. The forward and backward looking aims of punishment apply not only to the particular offence in question, but also to the kind of conduct of which this offence is an example.
Publicity: the feature of communication may be contrasted with that of publicity. The latter is endorsed by Rawls who argues that civil disobedience is never court or sacrifice, it is only ever committed in public openly and with fair noticed to legal authorities
Non Violence: A controversial issue in debates on civil disobedience is non violence. Like publicity, non violence is said to diminish the negative effects of breaching the law. some theorist go further and say that civil disobedience is, by definition, non violent according to rawls, violent acts likely to injurer are incompatible with civil disobedience as a mode of address.
EVALUATION
Going by the nature of things, in relation to the natural law, all right comes with certain obligations which each human, government or organization ought to achieve or carryout in other for such groups or individuals to gain a full benefit of this said rights or claims which are much fundamental to all humans.
Disobedience, been a process by which one tries to debunk or reject certain duties , ideas and roles been expected of a person, can been explained also as a process by which one manipulate nature, concepts or ideas to his or her own advantage as against the actual process or demand been expected from such an individual.
Civil disobedience can then be seen as a moral weapon in the fight for justice as against injustice and unjust policies by the ruling class or government. But disobedience as a moral is been used here as a subjective idea. Just the saying goes, man is both a social and political being or animal, humans sometimes organize themselves in agreement to protest against any form of tyrant government who’s policies is to the detriment of the general or a particular group of persons in the society. An unjust law, or a law been driven or design with deceptive and unjustified tools and claims is actually not a law. Relating this to Nigeria, a country with a high population density, pluralized religious and cultural systems, such a multi-ethnic state has a kind or form politics which I can describe as an unhealthy and pragmatically, unjust policies which is always been moved to the detriment of the minority or weak religion or cultures. For more than fifty years now, Nigerians cannot boast of constant power supply, quality educational platforms and system, modern and standard healthcare facilities, good road networks, efficiency in security, and stable economy and the poverty rate or level keep increasing while a tiny minority population keep getting richer to the detriment of the poor and weak people.
Despite the fact that no being on earth will call misunderstanding or disagreement and protest a virtue but the condition at which it is been carried out or the cause might justify such a movement to be moral because such an unhealthy political system as that which is been experience in Nigeria can necessitated such kind of a protest or disobedience, even if it will involve violence, as long as it will be for the good of the majority and host of individuals in the society who are been exploited day and night by the ruling class.
CONCLUSION
When injustice becomes a law, resistance becomes a duty to all its victims. Civil disobedience is an unavoidable process of reacting to such unwanted policies. civil disobedience is the active refusal to obey certain laws, demands and commands by an individual as against the government of the day. It should be non violent, according to thoregu’s1848, in his book titled “civil disobedience”, he sees civil disobedience as a
By such, a process called civil disobedience; people tend to stand against injustice and inequality in the state, this we can see pragmatically in the American civil rights movement.
Civil disobedience do come into play in situations where people have no other choice but to resist such an oppressive government. Biafarans, been Nigerian's had no other choice but to resort to civil disobedience in other to sure the world it's anger in relation to the Nigerian government must especially their northern counter part who are predominantly Muslims. Such an act of nepotism is a crime against humanity they told the world.
REFERENCE:
M.M. UZOMAH, The concept of law (De-Young printing press, kafanchan. 2018)
D. BOUCHER & P. KELLY, Political Thinkers (Oxford university press. 2003).
O. AJIMOTOKIN, Role of Law and the Society (Festalcom international. 2010)
J. OMOROGBE, Social-Political Philosophy and International Relations (2007)
J. OMOROGBE: philosiphical jurisprudence 2007
Encyclopedia of Britanica
google