Benefits Of Civil Disobedience

“If society is tranquil, it is not because it is conscious of its strength and its well-being, but because it fears its weakness and its infirmities; a single effort may cost it its life. :
― Alexis de Tocqueville

Throughout history, resistance has been analogous to change; from the American revolution to modern day global decolonization, the introduction and diffusion of new ideas is integral in a society intending to improve. In a free society, peaceful resistance prevents stagnation-- it is not only beneficial, it is essential.
A free thinking society ought to exercise its right to think freely; without doing so, civilization halts at a precipice. For instance, Thoreau, in his argument for Civil Disobedience, argues that citizens simply
“wait...for others to remedy the evil, that they may no longer have it to regret.” He claims that governments are, by their own nature, slow and inefficient; that without the will of the people catalyzing change, people feebly submit their wishes to elites. Simply casting a vote isn’t enough: without action that creates urgency, such as civil disobedience, or protest, such change is relegated to the never ending bureaucratic nightmare of reform law. To put it concisely, inaction comes at the cost of expediency. Similarly, in Tom Mullen’s discussion of Muhammed Ali’s anti-war stance, Mullen argues that refusing to enlist was an act of defiance to the idea of war, rather than simple draft dodging. He cites Ali himself: “Why should me and other so-called ‘negroes’ go 10,000 miles away from home, here in America, to drop bombs and bullets on other innocent brown people who’s never bothered us and I will say directly: No, I will not go.” Essentially, the government runs on majority rule: the party with the majority in Congress, an elected president, and their own judiciary controls the system. But, minority rights should not deteriorate at the cost of the majority’s will. Thus comes into play civil disobedience, an immediate way to have one’s voice heard, ideas contemplated. Both Thoreau and Ali’s ideas explore how change is driven by attention-- without the awareness and national spotlight that civil disobedience creates, ideas are ignored, and ultimately, society stagnates.
Strict obedience to the law encourages the powerful to abuse their influence.
During Germany’s Third Reich, govemment and high ranking military officials found out about a new scientific development: methamphetamines. Trying to find any edge that would win them their war, they quickly found that these drugs could keep their soldiers awake for days, force their gestapo officers into cruelty, and keep their war machine running smoothly. This was obviously a short term solution-- the adverse effects of methamphetamines, and the resulting illnesses within the military, especially among high ranking officials and critical army personnel quickly brought to light the impossibility of Germany’s permanent victory: it was only short-lived. Without the protest of the citizenry, the drug induced mania of the soldiers and officials catalyzed the near impossible. Slowly, and then all at once, Germany succumbed to the wishes of a sociopathic fascist, one who killed millions, and left the country in both literal and economic ruin. Just as in Germany, the powerful challenged the rights of the citizenry in American during the late nineteenth century during the industrial revolution. Workers were not paid, often working for eighteen hour days in dreadful conditions. It took the formation of a coalition of workers to challenge the power of the wealthy, who had, essentially, purchased the power of the people in the legislative body. Without their collective power to protest, and peacefully demonstrate their importance to the tycoons and government, the workers would continue to be exploited indefinitely. Without controls on their power, the powerful will always challenge the bounds of morality, just as in Germany, and in the American industrial
revolution.
Without civil disobedience and protest as vital parts of democracy, the direct chain between the will of the people and the government becomes ever thinner. In modern society, the media serves as the main link between elected officials and the citizenry. Today, the relevance of this issue cannot be understated: without events like the recent women’s march, and the media’s due diligence in reporting and supporting the will of the people, society may change in unforeseeable, and ultimately unchangeable directions. It is not only our right, but our responsibility to fight for the change we want to see