smartcybers786@gmail.com 
#Civil #disobedience #historical #context #Political #Economy
Former Prime Minister Imran Khan has recently called for civil disobedience. An informed discussion on this topic requires a proper understanding of the initiative in its political and historical context.
Civil disobedience is a form of political activism in which individuals or groups refuse to comply with certain laws, demands, or orders from a government or authority, often in a non-violent manner. This is usually done to express opposition to laws or policies that are considered unfair or immoral. Although the concept of civil disobedience can be traced back to antiquity, its modern understanding has evolved significantly, drawing on various philosophical and political theories.
Civil disobedience differs from merely illegal actions because it is motivated by a moral or political motive rather than personal gain or disorder. It involves public, deliberate acts of violation, often with the knowledge that the individual or group will face legal consequences. Its defining characteristic is nonviolence, as it seeks to avoid harming others while protesting perceived injustice.
Participants often accept punishment for their actions as part of a protest, even while opposing particular laws, emphasizing their commitment to the cause and their respect for the rule of law. Thoreau famously said, “Under a government that unjustly imprisons anyone, the truest place for a just man is prison,” emphasizing the moral responsibility to resist unjust laws, even That at personal cost.
The idea of civil disobedience can be found in various ancient traditions, where actions against unjust authority were seen as a moral duty. In ancient Greece, Socrates’ refusal to escape from prison after being sentenced to death for his beliefs can be seen as an early form of civil disobedience. Socrates famously argued, “I do not see why I should not try to persuade the Athenians not to execute me, but I will not try to escape my punishment.” His position emphasized the moral obligation to obey Athenian laws, even when they led to an unjust punishment, raising important questions about the relationship of the individual to the state.
The modern concept of civil disobedience emerged most prominently in the 19th century, particularly through the work of the American transcendentalist Henry David Thoreau. In 1849, Thoreau wrote Civil Disobedience (originally Resistance to Civil Government), a direct response to the US government’s actions regarding slavery and the Mexican-American War. Thoreau refused to pay taxes to a government that he believed was involved in slavery and militancy. His article argued that individuals have a moral duty to oppose unjust laws, even if it means breaking the law. Thoreau wrote, “Government is best that does not govern,” advocating a government that does not perpetuate injustice. His work has had a profound influence on countless activists around the world, shaping the modern understanding of civil disobedience.
In the early 20th century, MK Gandhi adapted Thoreau’s ideas into his campaign for India’s independence from British colonial rule. Gandhi’s philosophy of satyagraha, meaning “power of truth” or “power of the soul”, emphasized nonviolent resistance to oppression. He believed that peacefully defying unjust laws could expose the moral bankruptcy of the authorities. The Salt March of 1930, where Gandhi led mass protests against the British monopoly on salt production and taxation, was a symbolic act of civil disobedience. Gandhi’s approach influenced global movements for civil rights and freedom, influencing figures such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela.
In the United States, civil disobedience became an important weapon during the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Martin Luther King Jr. drew on the teachings of both Thoreau and Gandhi to combat systemic racial discrimination and segregation in American society. King’s commitment to nonviolent civil disobedience reached its peak during events such as the 1963 March on Washington and his letter from a Birmingham prison, where he eloquently defended the necessity of civil disobedience in the struggle for justice. “One has a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws,” King wrote, emphasizing that challenging laws that perpetuate injustice is not only legitimate but necessary.
In South Africa, Nelson Mandela and others used civil disobedience in their fight against apartheid. Mandela’s commitment to peaceful resistance and his acts of civil disobedience were central to the end of apartheid and the establishment of a democratic South Africa. As Mandela famously said, “It is said that one does not know a nation until one has been in its prisons. A nation should not be judged by its highest citizens. how it treats its people, but also how it treats its lowest people,” emphasizing the moral imperative to challenge laws that perpetuate racial injustice.
The ideological foundations of civil disobedience are rooted in several philosophical and ethical frameworks. Social contract theory, for example, holds that governments derive their authority from the consent of the governed. Thinkers such as John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau suggested that when a government imposes unjust laws, it loses its moral legitimacy and that individuals have the right to rebel or disobey those laws. Civil disobedience, in this light, can be seen as an act of reclaiming moral and political agency against an unjust state.
Natural law theory, which traces its origins to philosophers such as Aristotle, Cicero, and Aquinas, holds that there are universal and discoverable laws based on reason. Laws that violate natural rights or moral principles are unjust and have no legal force. From this perspective, civil disobedience is not only morally permissible but becomes a duty for those who recognize the violation of fundamental human rights or natural justice. As Aquinas said, “An unjust law is no law at all.”
Utilitarianism, especially as described by John Stuart Mill, also influenced civil disobedience. Mill argued that individuals should be free to express dissent against the state as long as their actions did not harm others. In this framework, civil disobedience is justified if it aims to promote a greater social good such as justice, equality or human rights. The moral value of civil disobedience, in this context, is judged on the basis of its contribution to the good of society at large.
Finally, John Rawls’s theory of justice, mentioned in A Theory of Justice, provides another basis for civil disobedience. Rawls’s concept of the “veil of ignorance” suggests that just laws are those chosen under conditions of impartiality and fairness, without knowledge of one’s position in society. Civil disobedience can be seen as an expression of moral duty when laws violate the principles of justice that rational people would agree upon in a true position of equality.
Civil disobedience has played an important role in challenging systemic injustices and driving social and political change. Whether in opposition to slavery, colonialism, segregation, or oppressive regimes, acts of civil disobedience have demonstrated how nonviolent resistance can be a powerful force for development. The theoretical underpinnings of civil disobedience—social contract theory, natural law, utilitarianism, and Rawlsian justice—show that these actions are rooted in deep moral and philosophical beliefs about justice, human rights, and the rights of individuals.
As long as governments enforce unjust laws, civil disobedience will continue to challenge the status quo and advocate for justice. Regarding Pakistan, it remains to be seen whether the civil disobedience will yield any result and whether the government will be able to live up to the aspirations of the people.
The author is a professor in the Faculty of Liberal Arts at Beacon House National University, Lahore.
