You are on page 1of 7

Constructive:

Civil disobedience in the modern society is largely unsuccessful and is not justified in an
ever evolving world. As Otto Von Bismarck said, "The great questions of the day will not be
settled by means of speeches and majority decisions, but by iron and blood." It is because I agree
with Otto Von Bismarck, Prussian and German Chancellor from 1862 to 1890, in the position
that civil disobedience does not solve democratic issues that I stand to negate the resolution:
Civil disobedience in a democracy is justified. For the clarification in today's round, I offer the
following counter definitions:
Civil Disobedience: refusal to obey governmental demands or commands especially as a
nonviolent and usually collective means of forcing concessions from the government
Realpolitik: a system of politics based on a country's situation and its needs rather than on
ideas about what is morally right and wrong
Both definitions are derived from the Merriam Webster Online Dictionary.
The highest value within today's round is Pragmatism. Pragmatism is defined by the
Merriam Webster Online Dictionary as a reasonable and logical way of doing things or thinking
about problems that is based on dealing with specific situations instead of on ideas and theories.
This ideology seeks to maintain practical thinking, rather than moral thinking, and approaches
tasks with law and order. Pragmatism is important in regards to democracy because it is not the
role of the people, but the role of the government to protect its citizens, promote economic
growth, maintain law and order, and embrace and foster a free society, while always furthering
the nation.

The best criterion for evaluating this resolution is protecting the rights and lives of all
citizens throughout the obedience of government laws. This criterion best achieves my value of
Pragmatism because in order for a nation to be successful, the entirety of its population must
obey the laws of the land. A select few cannot deviate from the laws simply because they deem
them to be unfair.
In negating the resolution, I offer the following contentions:
Nonviolent Civil Disobedience implies contempt for the law.
Civil disobedience that seeks to invoke a higher law beyond and above the system of
current laws can never be justified. This is because the very nature of civil disobedience
threatens stable social order. An effective system of laws, and the peaceful and orderly life of a
community under the laws, is only possible when the authority of those laws is not easily
overthrown by principles outside the legal system. Whether citizens have the right to assemble
and protest, national law is disregarded and although not inevitable, social chaos is almost
invited.
Take the recent Baltimore riots for example. Armored vehicles lined this battered citys
main thoroughfares and thousands of law enforcement officers and National Guard troops
worked to maintain order and enforce a citywide curfew, amid scattered reports of unrest after a
day of protests. As the curfew went into effect at 10 p.m., hundreds of people remained in the
streets near the intersection of Pennsylvania and West North Avenues in blighted West Baltimore,
where a CVS drugstore had been looted and burned during Monday nights riots, after the funeral
for Freddie Gray, who died after suffering a spinal cord injury in police custody. Police reported
glass bottles being thrown at them, and some even trying to challenge them. Its sad, this dont

make no sense, said Clarence Cobb, 48, one of many neighborhood residents who, describing
themselves as brokenhearted, came out to survey the wreckage and clean up. It comes to a point
where you just got to take pride in your own neighborhood. This makes us look real bad as a
city.
Moreover, earlier riots in Ferguson, Missouri, resulted in burnt buildings, broken
windows, and trash littered throughout the streets when the sun rose after the night of the court
ruling. Militarization of the police was required due to the violence of the protestors. Both
scenarios illustrate how civil disobedience implies contempt for the law.
Admittedly, not all acts of civil disobedience result in violence; however, the very act of
disobeying a law because one disagrees with the premise surrounding it deliberately breaks down
the law in the community and sets a negative example for the youth. Civil disobedience
deteriorates the fabric of a law abiding community and exemplifies the value of pragmatism,
because it is the role of the government to protect all its citizens, and the role of the citizens to
obey the laws.
I offer my second contention:
Nonviolent Civil Disobedience endangers the welfare of those involved and those
surrounding.
Although the nonviolent protests of Gandhi and Martin Luther King proved influential in
their fight, they are rare examples. Even during the civil rights movement, led by the nonviolent
southern preacher, hundreds were injured and killed during these nonviolent protests. In more
recent times, the riots in Baltimore saw the death toll rise to more than 300.

The outrage witnessed in Baltimore earlier in the year can be partially attributed to
concepts within the realm of social psychology. Group polarization refers to the tendency for
groups to make decisions that are more extreme than the initial inclination of its members. These
more extreme decisions are towards greater risk if individuals' initial tendencies are to be risky.
This aspect of social psychology goes hand in hand with the theory of deindividuation.
Deindividuation is a concept in social psychology that is generally thought of as the loss of selfawareness in groups. This concept explains the behavior of people in the Baltimore riots, and
other violent protests; and how they become lost in the crowd, acting uncharacteristically.
Stanley Milgrams and Solomon Aschs famous studies on conformity help prove the dangers of
protests, and the violence that can ensue.
I offer my third contention.
Nonviolent Civil Disobedience is not justifiable because it is not a successful method when
resolving conflict.
Since the beginning of civilization, humanity has faced issues such as inequality and
injustice. The victims of these issues demand their rights be met, but without any substantial
leverage, their demands go unanswered. In 1849, the American philosopher Henry David
Thoreau published In Resistance to Civil Government, an essay in which he introduces a
method for the people to enact change in government. Thoreau advocates non-violent resistance
to unjust laws through non-cooperation. This method of nonviolent resistance was undeniably
effective in the hands of Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.; however, Nelson
Mandela was forced to abandon nonviolence in his fight against South Africa. The concept of
civil disobedience that Thoreau outlined in In Resistance to Civil Government is not always a
plausible strategy for government resistance.

Nelson Mandela, praised as one of the most influential figures throughout history,
initially accepted Thoreau's concept of civil disobedience as an effective strategy for his cause.
After a spectacle of violence where the government opened fire against ANC demonstrators in
Sharpeville, South Africa, Mandela abandoned his nonviolence stance. Disillusioned, he decided
that violence was the only choice, saying, I, and some colleagues, came to the conclusion that as
violence in this country was inevitable, it would be wrong and unrealistic for African leaders to
continue preaching peace and non-violence. After leaving the country unlawfully and traveling
abroad to help organize his cause, Mandela was sentenced to life imprisonment, barely escaping
the death penalty.
Nonviolent civil disobedience and demonstrations have failed in other nations as well. In
1989, a protest of over a million people in Tiananmen Square, Beijing, was quickly dispersed
when tanks of the People's Liberation Army entered the square and troops began firing into the
crowds. Hundreds were killed and thousands were injured. As recently as June of 2009,
demonstrations in Iran were answered with violence when civilians protested against the election
of incumbent president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In Georgia, peaceful demonstrations were
answered with violence when government forces used violent and excessive force to disperse a
series of largely peaceful demonstrations in the capital. These acts of violence which arose
through the failures of civil disobedience reinforce Bismarcks ideology of pragmatism and
realpolitik, showing that true progress is not made through doing nothing.
Moreover, civil disobedience is largely unnecessary in a democratic government. In
Federalist 10, James Maddison discusses the creation of groups which are made to influence
government policy. Today, they are known as interest groups. Civil disobedience often falls into
this category because the protesters want to affect government policy to benefit themselves.

Maddison also discusses linkage institutions which link the people to the government. They are:
voting, media, political parties, and interest groups. Interest groups affect policy in a number of
different ways, including grassroots and direct lobbying, mass mailings, and amicus curiae
briefs, which are briefs submitted by a third party to help determine the outcome of a court case.
Additionally, interest groups have had much success in changing government policy. Matt
Grossmann, professor at Michigan State University, states in his scholarly journal, Studies of
the policy process indicate that interest groups often play a central role in setting the government
agenda, defining options, influencing decisions and directing implementation. Furthermore,
studies conducted by Burstein and Linton, authors of the article, The impact of political parties,
interest groups, and social movement organizations on public policy, show that interest groups
are often found to have a substantial impact on policy outcomes.
So between interest groups and civil disobedience, both want to influence government
policy; however, interest groups seek changes in government through legal processes, principles
which this nation was founded upon, whereas civil disobedience has no moral regard for the law
of the land.
In a world where violence runs rampant, and lawlessness is second nature, civil
disobedience is not the most effective means of resolving a conflict. The multiple failures of this
nature of protest display the flaws in its ideology. Although some prominent leaders have seen
success, the negatives of civil disobedience outweigh its advantages.
Rebuttal:
Refer to printed Handouts

Works Cited:
Cohen, C. (n.d.). Seven Arguments Against Civil Disobedience. Retrieved November 29, 2015,
from http://carl-cohen.org/books/CivilDisobedience/chapter6.pdf
Desai, A. (2015, November 15). Baltimore Homicides Top 300: Riot Riddled City's Death Count
Surges To Cross 'A Sad Milestone' Retrieved November 29, 2015, from
http://www.inquisitr.com/2568965/baltimore-homicides-top-300-riot-riddled-citys-deathcount-surges-to-cross-a-sad-milestone/
Grossmann, M. (2012). Original Article. Retrieved November 29, 2015, from
http://www.palgrave-journals.com/iga/journal/v1/n2/full/iga20129a.html#bib6
Otto von Bismarck. (n.d.). Retrieved November 29, 2015, from
http://www.history.com/topics/otto-von-bismarck
What is Pragmatic Conservatism? (2012, May 29). Retrieved November 29, 2015, from
https://thepragmaticconservative.wordpress.com/what-is-pragmatic-conservatism/
The Pros and Cons of Civil Disobedience :: Civil Disobedience Essays. (n.d.). Retrieved
November 29, 2015, from http://www.123helpme.com/pros-and-cons-of-civildisobedience-view.asp?id=202148

You might also like