CAN CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE BE JUSTIFIED?

Before we can justify or refute the idea of civil disobedience, we must understand the concept. It is the refusal to comply with certain laws considered unjust as a peaceful form of political protest. Also, it’s the refusal to obey certain laws or governmental demands for the purpose of influencing legislation or government policy characterized by the employment of such non violent techniques as boycotting and non payment of taxes. So, civil disobedience is just like saying, because government gave a certain law and it’s not favorable or sounds “injustice” to some set of people, they will intentionally and non-violently disobey either that law or another law, just to make the government know their non-conformity with that particular law.

For instance, during childhood days, when mummy disciplines children for a wrong done, which the children think doesn’t really require her whipping them, some children would go inside the house and hide somewhere. And when it’s time to eat, and mummy calls us out for food, some children will intentionally refuse to give heed. Just because mummy disciplined that child and he or she was not happy with that and wants to show mummy his or her displeasure. Some will wait until mummy comes and pets them before they go and eat the food.

Sometimes, the citizens of a country show their displeasure to a particular law made by the government agencies by using nonviolent means. It has been a major tactic of citizens of Africa, India and even America, since the onset of democracy. So civil disobedience, is a symbolic intentional violation of a particular law, rather than a rejection of the system. Civil disobedience isn’t an outright protest against leadership, it’s just a show of displeasure of a certain defined law. It’s not to impeach, implicate or fight with the leaders. According to history, the mordern concept of civil disobedience was clearly created by Mahatma Ghandi in South Africa 1906, and it was successful. He wanted to end the racial segregation in the American Civil rights, in southern United States by adapting philosophies of civil disobedience. Even though he was imprisoned for some time, after a couple of years, he got his freedom and the law was adjusted! Moreso, Martin Luther King Jr., a leader of another protest group in the 1950s also enacted the principles of civil disobedience in his days, and it was also successful. Nelson Mandela did the same thing and succeeded.

Therefore, looking at records, the principle of civil disobedience has provided results and for that reason it has achieved some standing in international law, which has given the citizens (in the US) freedom to show their displeasure at certain laws as far as it is non-violent, and the people are responsible for the outcomes of the protest. That is why, protests are more peaceful there (abroad) than in Africa and other continents. The Nigerian “End SARS massacre” which was supposed to be a peaceful protest, ended up taking the lives of many. Underlining some of the principles of a true civil disobedience protest; it is disobedience to a certain law, not the entire government, it is an intentional and non-selfish movement by the citizens, it is principled and non-violent, reasonable communication – the people speak up their grievances as they protest, and responsibility – the people are ready to face any panel in pursuit for justice. This is to prove that the people engage in civil disobedience in order to prove their intense concern over the issue at hand and not to cause problem in the society. Can protests in Nigeria be considered a true civil disobedience protest? You can tell.

The decision of whether civil disobedience is right or wrong is subjective and based on individual opinions. Nevertheless, personally, the justifications of civil disobedience depends on the nature of tactics through which it is practiced and the  purpose for which it is practiced. First, civil disobedience gives the citizens of a country the legitimacy to air their opinions in the political affairs of a democratic society. The people are not animals that just follow laws (especially those they are not comfortable with). A reasonable government should allow the people to show their displeasure or speak up. It’s part of their right to freedom of speech; it only depends on how it is being done. In Nigeria for example, filing a case or lodging a peaceful complain to the government yields little or no result; therefore, a peaceful civil disobedience seems to be the only way the people can get the attention of the government and the masses. If democracy is the government of the people, by the people and for the people, then the populace is an integral part of government. In fact, a philosopher says civil disobedience is their moral and political duty.

Also, civil disobedience has a justice-enhancing value. Actually, It’s not easy to lead a vast number of people. What is favorable to some, may not be favorable to others. Civil disobedience helps the government to take cognizance of some minority who are affected by some unfair laws, and one way the people can help the government see these lapses in justice is by civil disobedience. It can serve to help the government to enact completely justified laws to everyone, and correct them when they seem to depart from the justice for which they promised the people.

Lastly, civil disobedience contributes to social good. Everyone have their demands met at certain times, in the boundaries of justice made by consideration. Civil disobedience provides equality in the society.

In conclusion, a democratic society should be a society where equality is attained to the best of its capacity. And that's what civil disobedience does. Therefore, if there is a clear and deliberate injustice on governmental laws, civil disobedience is justifiable, if the purpose of the protest is to search for equal justice with the subject of the injustice, through the correction of the unjust law. Civil disobedience then, is a self improving, self correcting mechanism, as far as it is non-violent. In Nigeria for example, it is difficult to hold a non-violent protest and that is why it is not advisable for Christians to partake in such riots and protests, but we can seek other non-violent ways (like prayers) to air our opinions and not just keep quiet. The story of Daniel and the three Hebrew boys is an example. King Nebuchadnezzar had made a decree that everyone must worship his god. Daniel and his friends refused. Here was their reply,  “…be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up. Dan. 3:18.” At another instance, a law was made against praying to God, but Daniel refused, and still prayed in his room. Disobedience to authorities isn’t Gods command, but if the law negates God’s ordinance, “…we ought to obey God rather than men.”Acts 5:29

If we expect the people to comply to just laws, we shouldn't stop them from showing their displeasure to unjust ones.