With populism and authoritarianism on the rise around the world, there has been considerable talk of “resistance,” especially in the US.
A rather broad term, resistance could refer to everything from supporting opposition candidates to the life-threatening work of those who went underground to sabotage Nazi occupations during World War II. Such vagueness is helpful, if one wants to appeal to as many citizens as possible, but it can also cloud one’s thinking when weighing how best to achieve concrete goals.
As it happens, there is a more precise alternative to “resistance” that is rarely mentioned nowadays: civil disobedience.
In theory, civil disobedience should be an effective weapon against populists, but, in practice, it faces two formidable challenges. First, there is a widespread misunderstanding of what civil disobedience actually entails and, second, changes in the media landscape have made it harder to convey the message of civil disobedience to a broad and diverse audience.
Philosopher John Rawls offered the classic definition of civil disobedience in the early 1970s. Simply put, it means overt law-breaking, but in a conscientious, non-violent manner aimed at persuading fellow citizens that a law ought to be changed because it is unjust.
In Rawls’ formulation, those who commit acts of civil disobedience should be prepared to accept the penalties for doing so.
Today, even protests that do not break any laws are often decried as “uncivil” or too “divisive” for an already polarized society. When citizens confronted politicians during US Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings, they were derided as a “mob.” Even fellow liberals have admonished the Black Lives Matter movement for being too aggressive and the noisy demonstrators who gathered in Budapest to protest against Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s increasingly authoritarian government have been dismissed as “liberal anarchists.”
In each case, the “civil” in civil disobedience has been conflated with civility, as in politeness or general respectability.
For his part, Rawls was adamant that any law-breaking be undertaken “within the limits of fidelity to the law.”
He was echoing Martin Luther King Jr, who argued that one who breaks the law in the name of civil disobedience “is in reality expressing the very highest respect for the law,” by highlighting its fundamental injustice in such a way as not to foreclose on future cooperation with one’s fellow citizens. Thus, King believed that, “one who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly … and with a willingness to accept the penalty.”
That invocation of love should not be taken to mean that civil disobedience must be non-confrontational.
A highly sanitized and sentimental historical accounting of the 1950s and 1960s might seem to suggest that the civil rights movement succeeded merely by appealing to arch-American political principles of freedom and equality. In reality, part of the movement’s strategy was to seek out confrontations with police and defenders of white supremacy. Those clashes generated images of white brutality that made at least some whites reconsider their unconditional defense of “law and order” under the Jim Crow laws.
In a recent study of protest movements spanning more than a century, social scientists Erica Chenoweth and Maria Stephan show that tough, but non-violent confrontation has been twice as likely as violent alternatives to bring about its stated goals.
According to their data, sustained participation by a mere 3.5 percent of a population can be enough to achieve fundamental political change.
Yet the history of the US civil rights movement also points to a novel problem in our age. Rawls, King and other defenders of civil disobedience took it for granted that the message — an appeal to principles of justice — would reach a majority of citizens undistorted, but today, the public spheres in many nations have become so fragmented and partisan that King’s idea of “national opinion” now seems nonsensical.
As a recent groundbreaking study by three Harvard University academics shows, the US has become home to a deeply insular “right-wing media ecosystem” in which all “news” is immediately reframed to confirm the identity of right-leaning citizens and in semi-authoritarian contexts such as Orban’s Hungary, media are now completely dominated by government-friendly actors.
Under such conditions, most appeals to what Rawls called a “public sense of justice” are sidelined, severely distorted or silenced altogether.
Accordingly, potential practitioners of civil disobedience should not allow themselves to be caught in a trap of politeness and respectability. When opposition politicians recently disrupted the proceedings of the Hungarian parliament by blocking access to the speaker’s podium and heckling Orban to his face, they were accused of attempting a putsch. In fact, they were merely shining a spotlight on the fact that the national assembly is no longer a normal representative body passing legitimate laws.
Still, aspiring disobeyers will have to account for the increasingly fragmented and polluted nature of the public sphere. Sometimes, that will mean engaging fellow citizens directly on the street, in the marketplace or even through door-to-door canvassing.
In other situations, it will mean live-streaming acts of civil disobedience and hoping that authoritarians’ brutal methods are exposed to a large enough audience through social media, and on still other occasions, it will mean pushing for structural changes, such as a return to the Fairness Doctrine by broadcasters in the US.
Civil disobedience would certainly be more effective in a less distorted media landscape, but it still represents one of the most effective forms of democratic “resistance” available.
Jan-Werner Mueller is professor of politics at Princeton University. His latest book is What is Populism?
Copyright: Project Syndicate
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS