Civil disobedience is a kind of resistance where people respectfully disagree to obey laws and commands of the government. Sometimes civil disobedience can occur when people refuse to keep the commands and demands of international power. Civil disobedience is like non violent resistances where people rebel against unfair laws which they feel are not good for their country or state. It is a form of resistance which has been used over time. To start with, the earliest civil disobedience was noted in Egypt when they resisted the British employment in 1919 during the revolution of that time. In the Indian non violent resistance, civil disobedience was used by Gandhi’s team as they campaigned for independence which would eventually set them free from the British Empire. It was also employed in Apartheid by the South Africana’s as well as by the Americans during the American Civil Rights Movement particularly by Martin Luther King.
Civil disobedience is believed to have roots in one of the former king Thebes daughters. It is also believed that she accepted to face the threat of death provided she meets her expectations and wish of giving a good burial to her deceased brother. It is from this action that the Percy Shelly poem on the Mask of Anarchy was founded. This became the foundation of the civil disobedience practiced by Thoreau since like the Kings daughter he based his conscious on the right course of action accepting to face jail and death. Like Pecy Shelly who opted to present his disobedience through poem, Thoreau chose an essay since he believed that to convince people not to pay tax in support of a fight you must first start by yourself and then go ahead and explain the thought in your mind to the entire community. David Thoreau was keen enough to practice the poets idea of non violent resistance through poem which he followed by writing an essay on Civil Disobedience. It is also the Shelly’s non violent action against wrong political will that motivated Gandhi to campaign for a free India, an independent India. For sure, as noted by Cavallaro (380), the modern concepts of non violent protest originated from this poem.
Among the successful civil disobedience ever undertaken, mass civil disobedience has been the key. This is common for both King and Gandhi who both practiced mass civil disobedience at a time that the conditions and environment were unfavorable. Gandhi as a spiritual and political leader pioneered resistance through mass civil disobedience and he guided his followers through independence by establishing non violence resistance, which enabled him to revolutionize the freedom and civil rights movements around the globe. Just like Gandhi, Martin Luther King, a clergyman turned activist became an outstanding leader who founded Christianity movements and ensured advancements towards civil rights. They were both goal oriented leaders as Gandhi aspired for self governed India and King aspired for first class citizenship where every person enjoys equal rights and freedom. These two rulers practiced non violence resistance, with the King going to India, Gandhi’s place to learn from Gandhi’s technique of passive resistance. The two leaders were both assassinated with Gandhi being shot during his night public walks and king being shot standing at his hotel room balcony. However, the two great leaders had differences as well. To start with, Martin Luther King struggled more than Gandhi. The King struggled against a phenomenon that was widespread in the all world, the white and black phenomenon. However, unlike Gandhi who had entire nations support in his mass civil disobedience against a ruling party in India, the king had no nations support against this global phenomenon. Indeed these two leaders practiced civil rights at different times and in different places which make them to be totally different (Steven et al., 1180).
In non- revolutionary disobedience people choose to disobey rules and laws of the country based on their personal judgments and conscience. In this kind of civil disobedience individuals present their displeasure against political will by not observing rules and laws brought by the politician in power as was manifested by Thoreau, Gandhi, King and Apartheid. Indeed, due to lack of freedom and inability of people to resist the existing powers, people hardly resist or showed their displeasure to rules as Thoreau did through his actions and essay. His refusal to pay tax which was implemented by the government was not an action to be taken lightly. However, he stood and disobeyed the law by even further writing an essay to describe his refusal. This was an act that Thoreau believed only heroes and patriots could do. Without doubt, it was an act that Thoreau believed could bring out people displeasure against that command, but to his disfavor some viewed him as an enemy. Surely Thoreau spent quite some time in jail for this good act. Thoreau practiced non violent and non evolutionary civil disobedience and its impact was very vital upon the society and the government. Therefore, as discussed above people should only go to civil disobedience after looking unto their conscientiousness. And even so it must be for the right course of action as outlined in Thoreau’s statements, Gandhi’s speeches and the Kings Sermon and movement (Cavallaro, 370).
Non violent actions or civil disobedience where people use solitary approaches have gone a long way into shaping our country. Indeed it can be very wrong to say that civil disobedience doesn’t work because from history we can see the fruits and successes that civil disobedience has brought. The American Civil Rights Movement which was founded and moved by King Martin Luther is an example where the disobedience has been successful. Provided the purpose of the disobedience is explained to people, the movement against the unfair law or command becomes justified into people conscious and they are moved to lead a non revolutionary civil disobedience as was done by the Luther King. It is therefore very clear and understandable that solitary civil disobedience initiated by one person as was the case in Thoreau’s resistance to paying tax can be justified within peoples conscious and develop into non revolutionary civil disobedience which has got great impact. In fact collective civil disobedience which is usually the ultimatum of individual’s civil disobedience initiation can have great impact like the Apartheid and Gandhi’s case. However, before initiating a civil disobedience it should be appropriate and wise for the party or parties involved to consider the action and the consequences that will result from their action. Indeed it is on this basis that many human activists base their disobedience (Gross, 16).
Work Cited
Cavallaro, J. L. The Demise of the Political Necessity Defense: Indirect Civil Disobedience and United States v. Schoon, 2003. Vol. 81, California Law Review, pp. 351–385
Gross, R. A. Quiet War With The State; Henry David Thoreau and Civil Disobedience. 2005, the Yale Review, pp. 1–17
Steven M. B. et al., The State Made Me Do It: The Applicability of the Necessity Defense to Civil Disobedience, 1987. Vol. 39, Stanford Law Review, pp. 1173–1200
