At the core of democracy is the idea that the government serves the rights and liberties of its citizens. When the powers that be fail to do so, it is the duty of the disadvantaged and their allies to protest. Legal channels often do not give sufficient opportunity for citizens to protest these injustices. In such cases, civil disobedience is the only way to retaliate. Therefore, civil disobedience is not only beneficial to a democratic society; it is crucial to it.
Politicians generally agree that, in a democratic society, the rule of the majority should not undermine the rights of the minority. When such a circumstance arises, does the minority not have the duty to protect its own? This principle is especially relevant when unjust laws jeopardize …show more content…
It, like any method of protest, raises awareness of the issue at hand among the masses and reminds the government that those whose rights are threatened by the status quo have the passion and the power to lead them to influence. An example of this can be seen in the Section 504 protests of the 1970s. Having long awaited the passage of Section 504, a law which promised to protect the rights of disabled persons, and fearing that it would be signed with fewer protections than promised, disabled citizens occupied HEW offices across the country, including a San Francisco protest which lasted nearly a month. These protesters participated knowing that the protest would cause them harm; they acknowledged that the prolonged sit-in could exacerbate their medical issues, and that they risked their liberty in obstructing government happenings. By carrying out this protest, the activists showed disabled citizens’ dedication to and competence in political action. Such actions encourage further resistance against unjust governmental practices, eventually effecting change, as these protests successfully …show more content…
This argument assumes, however, that these methods are accessible, which is unrealistic. Since the conception of the American national government as we know it, interest groups have lamented the difficulty and inefficacy of attempting to change the status quo through governmental means. Even litigation, to which interest groups often turn as an easier alternative to activism through the legislative branch, is far from a foolproof method of achieving progress. Although courts are supposed to interpret the law and the Constitution without political charge, it is impossible to make such decisions without influence of the culture at large. Therefore, even this purportedly unbiased branch of government is susceptible to the whims of the population in power -- and therefore inherently poses a disadvantage to minorities. Even when members of historically disadvantaged groups attempt to change unjust systems from inside, they often find their efforts thwarted; for example, Louisville judge Olu Stevens was suspended without pay for daring to speak out against racism in jury selection (Riley). It is evident that legal pathways to policy changes are insufficient for those who need political action the most, and that they keep government out of the hands of the greater population; therefore, it is often necessary to organize people into political action by other means.
In a perfect
Politicians generally agree that, in a democratic society, the rule of the majority should not undermine the rights of the minority. When such a circumstance arises, does the minority not have the duty to protect its own? This principle is especially relevant when unjust laws jeopardize …show more content…
It, like any method of protest, raises awareness of the issue at hand among the masses and reminds the government that those whose rights are threatened by the status quo have the passion and the power to lead them to influence. An example of this can be seen in the Section 504 protests of the 1970s. Having long awaited the passage of Section 504, a law which promised to protect the rights of disabled persons, and fearing that it would be signed with fewer protections than promised, disabled citizens occupied HEW offices across the country, including a San Francisco protest which lasted nearly a month. These protesters participated knowing that the protest would cause them harm; they acknowledged that the prolonged sit-in could exacerbate their medical issues, and that they risked their liberty in obstructing government happenings. By carrying out this protest, the activists showed disabled citizens’ dedication to and competence in political action. Such actions encourage further resistance against unjust governmental practices, eventually effecting change, as these protests successfully …show more content…
This argument assumes, however, that these methods are accessible, which is unrealistic. Since the conception of the American national government as we know it, interest groups have lamented the difficulty and inefficacy of attempting to change the status quo through governmental means. Even litigation, to which interest groups often turn as an easier alternative to activism through the legislative branch, is far from a foolproof method of achieving progress. Although courts are supposed to interpret the law and the Constitution without political charge, it is impossible to make such decisions without influence of the culture at large. Therefore, even this purportedly unbiased branch of government is susceptible to the whims of the population in power -- and therefore inherently poses a disadvantage to minorities. Even when members of historically disadvantaged groups attempt to change unjust systems from inside, they often find their efforts thwarted; for example, Louisville judge Olu Stevens was suspended without pay for daring to speak out against racism in jury selection (Riley). It is evident that legal pathways to policy changes are insufficient for those who need political action the most, and that they keep government out of the hands of the greater population; therefore, it is often necessary to organize people into political action by other means.
In a perfect