The rise of populism and authoritarianism around the world is accompanied, especially in America, by increasingly frequent mentions of "resistance". This rather broad term covers everything from supporting opposition candidates to the risks that members of various resistance movements took during World War II by sabotaging Nazi installations. This vagueness can be useful when you need to mobilize as many citizens as possible, but it can also be confusing when you need to find the best way to achieve specific goals.
However, there is a more precise term that is rarely mentioned today: civil disobedience. In theory, civil disobedience can be an effective weapon against populists. In practice, however, it faces two serious challenges. First, there is widespread misunderstanding of the meaning of civil disobedience. Second, changes in the media landscape make it difficult to convey the message of civil disobedience to a wider and more diverse audience.
The American philosopher John Rawls gave the classic definition of civil disobedience at the end of the 70s of the last century. Simply put, civil disobedience is an open violation of the law, but in a conscientious and non-violent way, with the aim of convincing fellow citizens that some law should be changed because it is unjust. In Rawls' formulation, those who resort to civil disobedience must be prepared to accept punishment for this act.
Today, even protests that do not violate any laws are often described as "indecent" (uncivil), or they are assigned to encourage "divisions" in an already too polarized society. Citizens who confronted politicians during the Senate questioning of Judge Brett Kavanagh were declared a "mob". Even many liberals are inclined to move Black Lives Matter they transfer excessive aggressiveness. The rowdy demonstrators gathered in Budapest to protest the increasingly authoritarian government of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán are being dismissed as "liberal anarchists". In each of these cases the word "civil" (civil) in the term civil disobedience is confused with civility (civility), in the sense of decency or dignity.
As for Rawls, he was emphatic that law-breaking must be undertaken "within the bounds of fidelity to the law." Here he follows Martin Luther King, who argued that one who breaks the law in the name of civil disobedience "actually expresses the highest respect for the law" by pointing out its fundamental injustice, so as not to close the possibility of future cooperation with his fellow citizens. In this sense, King believed that “he who breaks an unjust law must do it openly, with love... and willingness to accept punishment".
This appeal to love does not mean that civil disobedience must avoid conflict. Based on fond and sentimental memories of the 50s and 60s, one could conclude that the civil rights movement was able to achieve its goals simply by appealing to the original American principles of freedom and equality. In reality, however, part of the movement's strategy was to provoke confrontations with the police and white supremacists. These conflicts generated images of white brutality, which led at least some white people to question their unconditional support for the "law and order" that prescribed racial segregation.
In a recently published study of protest movements of the last century, sociologists Erika Chenovet and Marija Stefan show that nonviolent confrontation had twice the odds of success than its violent alternatives. According to the data they present, the permanent participation of only 3,5% of the population in non-violent protests can be enough to cause a fundamental political change.
And yet, the history of the American civil rights movement also points to a new problem, specific to our era. Rawls, King, and other advocates of civil disobedience took it for granted that the message of civil disobedience—an appeal to the principles of justice—would reach the majority of citizens unaltered. But today the public spheres of many countries are so fragmented and biased that King's idea of "general national public opinion" becomes meaningless.
As a recently published study shows, a deeply isolated "right-wing media ecosystem" is flourishing in today's America, in which all "news" is distorted to confirm the identity of right-wing citizens. At the same time, in semi-authoritarian contexts like Orbán's Hungary, the media is dominated by actors sympathetic to the regime. Under such conditions, appeals to what Rawls calls the "public sense of justice" are generally curtailed, distorted, or completely silenced.
Potential perpetrators of civil disobedience should not allow themselves to be caught in the trap of decency and dignity. When opposition politicians recently interrupted a session of the Hungarian parliament by blocking access to the speaker's floor and heckling Orbana, they were accused of attempting a coup. In fact, they only drew attention to the fact that the national assembly is no longer a representative body of all citizens that makes legitimate laws.
However, potential disobedients would have to take into account the increasingly fragmented and polluted nature of the public sphere. In some cases, this will mean that they will have to reach out to their fellow citizens directly on the street, at the market or even through a door-to-door campaign. In other situations, this will involve broadcasting acts of civil disobedience live over the Internet, in the hope that the brutal methods of an authoritarian regime will thereby be exposed to a sufficiently large social media audience. In some cases, it will be necessary to press for structural changes such as a return to the Doctrine of Fairness in Reporting.
Civil disobedience would certainly be more effective in a less distorted media landscape. And yet, it is still one of the most effective forms of democratic "resistance" available to us.
(Project Syndicate; Peščanik.net; translation: R. DINIĆ)
Bonus video:
