Civil Disobedience : Bane of Boon to the Concept of Just Society? Essay

Even as the nations are engaged in tackling the menace of terrorism among its rank and file, the debate over what makes a ‘just society’ has renewed itself with fresh questions evolving out of it, especially from the perspective of civil disobedience, where issues on ethics, emotion, justification and morality are embedded in an inseparable way and therefore add complexities in the comprehension of just society. Thus this paper weighs some pertinent points involving the concept of just society from the perspective of civil disobedience before arriving at an inference on whether civil disobedience is a bane or a boon to the concept of just society. A Brief Definition of Just Society â€Å"Just Society† refers to a particular condition of a society, where its subjects enjoy some freedom beyond laws that are framed, provided that freedom should ideally be directed towards garnering collective benefits for the society. This facility of a citizen goes down under the head of â€Å"fair treatment† of the state to its subjects and is commonly known as social justice. With time, this freedom has become a medium of the thinkers and well wishers of the society to share and air their views to draw the attention of the government on several issues pertaining to the well-being of the concerned society. Different political ideas, ideologies or situations create different interpretations of a just society. As for example, the left-wing ideology could prescribe an extensive use of income redistribution after judging its present state as a deterrent to the just society, while a right-wing political party could stress on philanthropy, open market system or charity to attain social justice for the society. However, the broad base of just society is powered by the concepts like equality and human rights. A Brief Definition of Civil Disobedience The briefest definition of civil disobedience could be like â€Å"an act guided by conscience towards preventing or developing a condition in the society, which might overstep certain areas of written law, yet that overstepping is not intended to oppose the law†. Civil disobedience is supposed to be an outcome of a serious observation of any flaw or the scope of development in the society, totally backed up by moral and ethical values and totally devoted towards a positive change in the society. Here the gray area lies in the quality of such an observation and inference. For example, a group of thinker might observe that certain areas of taxes are burdening the citizens and thus be waived, while another group might observe a positive impact of taxes on the citizen. However, civil disobedience is supposed to act under the guideline of equality and human rights and it has to be morally justified. Understandably, these preconditions are liable to vary according the laws of various states. The Questions The preconditions of civil obedience raises certain questions like why a civil disobedience would be considered as anarchy, if it fails to remain within such preconditions like moral justification or total submission to the written law of the land. Reasonably, questions like that evolve out of human rights’ parameter or the natural human qualities like emotion – where driven by the cause, one might go overboard and breach the law to end up in the prison. There are questions too, about the applicable yardstick of identifying the nature of civil disobedience or distinguishing it from ordinary offences. Civil disobedience is generally not considered as a crime in a democratic society. Thus, if a civil disobedient is jailed or otherwise punished, it becomes a recognized offence, which, in other words, stands as a different interpretation of the person’s motive. Perhaps it is for this reason even the founder of the very coinage ‘civil disobedience’, Henry David Thoreau, once rued over the apathy of the society towards the plight of the intellectuals who raise voice for the society itself – after he was jailed for refusing to pay the state poll tax to American government as a protest against governmental plan to prosecute a war in Mexico. An agitated Thoreau wrote in his essay – â€Å"Only a very few people – heroes, martyrs, patriots, reformers in the best sense – serve their society with their consciences, and so necessarily resist society for the most part, and are commonly treated by it as enemies† (Thoreau, 1991). Towards Making a Just Society Thus questions like above validate another query like ‘what makes a just state’, and stress on garnering more flexibility through legal parameters instead of leaving the subject on the leniency of the government – like when, in spite of acting on moral drive, a civil disobedient stands at a crossroad where the state can either overlook his/her offence or jail him/her. In either of the action, the government stands to loose – if it overlooks the situation it might be blamed for not doing its duty, and if it imprisons the person, it might be condemned of violating human rights. This indicates that to create a just state, states have a role to formulate a convincing script of the division of justice like Compensatory (corrective) justice, Retributive justice or Distributive justice. The observation of Thoreau as mentioned earlier, also points towards another roadblock towards making a just society. Since the range of values like transparency, security, privacy, integrity and autonomy cannot be fully defined by the scripts of justice, the governmental interpretations of them can invoke mixed reaction among people – some might resort to civil disobedience, some might remain skeptic to the situation. Majority should be able to justify the situation and their best role in it, before pursuing a cause. Thus people should be equipped to meet the standards of civil disobedience or to reap any benefit out of it – â€Å"Justified civil disobedience†, says John Rawls, â€Å"can serve to inhibit departures from justice and to correct departures when they occur; thus it can act as a stabilising force in society† (Rawls, 1971). This situation speaks about the important role of the civil society too – that it is their duty to educate and inform the mass about the nature of civil disobedience (direct or indirect) and the possible consequences attached to them. Alongside it should be a joint effort by state and the civil society to spread awareness about how civil disobedience differs from legal protest, rule departures and conscientious objection – and more importantly how it has no relation with the breakaway groups like radical protesters and extremists. CONCLUSION There can be no doubt that civil disobedience keeps the society lively and interacting, besides being instrumental in guarding the common interest of people through the conscientious voice of the citizens. Without this vigilance, the concept of just society cannot be put into action. While the governmental interpretation of just society determines the scope and outcome of civil disobedience, the clarity of perception of the civil society about ‘just society’ keeps civil disobedience movement on its desired track. Thus, both state and the civil society have to share the task of disseminating appropriate education at the every corner of the society to invoke awareness on judiciary system and the scope of civil rights. This awareness would then automatically serve as a shield to the civilians and as an alert to the state. However, in the modern context of terrorism or increasing rate of violence, some might opine that civil disobedience has lost its sting – which is in fact, not true. Now the new world order evokes global citizens to resort to civil disobedience on global issues like terrorism or environment, which might have no bearing with the local state’s policy or its actions. This speaks about how the civil societies across the globe have adapted itself to the new avatar of civilization – they are now connected to one another for the sake of making a ‘just global society’ – all the while depending on a common tool like civil disobedience. Thus, in both of its new and old role, civil disobedience proves to be a boon to the concept of just society. Ends Works Cited Rawls, John (1971), A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Thoreau, Henry David (1991), ‘Civil Disobedience’ in Civil Disobedience in Focus. Hugo A. Bedau (ed. ), London: Routledge. Works Consulted Brownlee, K. (2007). Civil Disobedience. Web Article. Retrieved on Dec 1, 2007, from http://plato. stanford. edu/entries/civil-disobedience/#FeaCivDis Civil Disobedience. Web Article. Retrieved on Dec 1, 2007, from http://www. answers. com/topic/civil-disobedience