Civil disobedience is justified when citizens experience injustice Essay

Civil disobedience is justified when citizens experience injustice from the government - Essay Example It includes disobeying particular laws that are considered as unjust and other laws in drawing attention to the perceived injustice in the society. Examples of civil disobedience include the Civil rights Movements of 1960s and the recent Arab uprisings in North African countries and Asian countries. Some unlawful acts that citizens may engage in include non-payment of taxes, trespassing to government buildings, and damage of property and obstruction of traffic in the major highways. Citizens accept the adverse consequences of their actions as a means of furthering the objectives and causes. Civil disobedience was a major tactic of advancing the rights of Women in the USA, and the abolition of Apartheid in South Africa in early 1990s. This paper will discuss the reasons why civil disobedience is justified when citizens experience injustice from the government. Civil disobedience has been successful in ending injustice in the society. Many government policies are flawed and civil disob edience is only effective method of ending injustice in the society. Civil disobedience is mainly geared at advancing social issues that affect the majority of the citizens in the society. According to Martin Luther King, Jr letter from Birmingham jail, injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. If injustice affects a single group of individuals directly, it will also affect other members of the society indirectly. According to his letter, the government should address the causes of the demonstrations in Birmingham and not the effects of the demonstrations (Ingram 90). Martin Luther’s letter clearly indicates that the minority has used all the available channels like negotiation but civil disobedience is the last resort to end the injustice. Negro leaders had sough negotiations but political leaders consistently refused to negotiate in good faith in ending the social injustice. According to Martin Luther, it is essential to create tension if the society has refused to negotiate so that leaders can confront the real injustice issues. According to Luther, justice delayed is the same as justice denied but violence should not be used to achieve justice. According to Luther, racial segregation in the society has denied Negros fundamental constitutional rights thus are justified to demonstrate so that authorities can resolve the injustice (Ingram 90). According to John Locke (1632-1704), the government derives its authority from the people and its major duty should be to protect the basic rights of the citizens. Locke asserts that people have the rights to alter the government if it has failed to protect their fundamental rights. Locke rejects absolute monarchy since it will harm the rights of the citizens to choose their government. According to Locke, the citizens are justified to engage in civil disobedience if their rights and liberties have been violated by government policies. According to Locke, the legislative government should not alter la ws in order to limit the rights and liberties of the citizens. According to the Social Contract theory by John Rawls, free people need to agree on the rules governing their relationships in order to live in harmony. According to Theory of Justice by Rawls, every individual should have equal rights and freedoms in the society and economic inequalities should not disadvantage the minorities in the society. John Rawls assert that all citizens should be treated as ends and no means to an end thus justice can only be attained through fair distribution of resources and according to free choices of the citizens. All individuals are entitled to equal natural rights and the rights protected by justice