- By engaging in public, nonviolent, and conscientious breaches of law, citizens can draw attention to perceived injustices and appeal to the sense of justice within the broader community.
- The European Court of Human Rights has addressed this balance in cases like Kudrevičius and Others v. Lithuania (2015), emphasising the state’s duty to facilitate peaceful assembly while also acknowledging legitimate security concerns.
- By enabling individuals and groups to express dissent and advocate for change, peaceful protest serves as a critical mechanism for maintaining the health and vitality of democratic systems.
The right to peaceful assembly and protest is a cornerstone of democratic societies, enshrined in many constitutions worldwide.
Article 37 of the Constitution in question exemplifies this principle, guaranteeing citizens the right to assemble, demonstrate, picket, and petition public authorities.
This fundamental freedom is echoed in international human rights documents such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Scholars like John Rawls have argued that civil disobedience plays a crucial role in democratic systems.
In his seminal work “A Theory of Justice,” Rawls contends that civil disobedience can serve as a safeguard against unjust laws and policies, acting as a “stabilizing device” in a constitutional regime.
This perspective suggests that acts of civil disobedience, when carried out thoughtfully and with clear purpose, can actually strengthen democratic institutions by highlighting injustices and prompting necessary reforms.
Rawls argues that civil disobedience becomes justified when there are serious infringements of the basic liberties of citizens or when there are clear violations of the principle of fair equality of opportunity.
In such cases, he posits that civil disobedience can be an appropriate last resort after legal means of redress have been exhausted.
By engaging in public, nonviolent, and conscientious breaches of law, citizens can draw attention to perceived injustices and appeal to the sense of justice within the broader community.
Furthermore, Rawls sees civil disobedience as a way to maintain the stability of a just constitutional order over time.
By providing a mechanism for marginalised voices to be heard and for unjust laws to be challenged, civil disobedience helps prevent the erosion of democratic principles.
It serves as a check on the power of the majority and ensures that the rights of minorities are protected.
In this way, acts of civil disobedience, when properly constrained and motivated by a commitment to justice, can paradoxically reinforce the rule of law by correcting deviations from the principles of justice that underpin a democratic society.
The suppression of peaceful demonstrations by law enforcement contradicts basic democratic principles.
Legal scholar Ronald Dworkin, in his book “Taking Rights Seriously,” emphasises that the right to protest is integral to political freedom and must be protected even when it causes inconvenience or disruption.
Economic policies that exacerbate poverty often spark public outcry. Amartya Sen’s work on welfare economics underscores the importance of public discourse in shaping economic policy. In “Development as Freedom,” Sen argues that open dialogue and democratic freedoms are essential for addressing economic hardships.
When governments appear unresponsive to citizens’ concerns, it can lead to heightened social tensions.
Political scientist Robert Dahl, in “Polyarchy,” stresses the importance of responsiveness in democratic systems, arguing that a lack of government responsiveness can undermine political stability.
Historical precedent shows that citizens have often united against perceived economic injustices. E.P. Thompson’s “The Making of the English Working Class” documents how shared economic grievances can foster collective action and social movements.
The concept of confronting an “unfeeling, arrogant, oppressive ruling class” echoes themes from revolutionary literature. Hannah Arendt’s “On Revolution” explores how perceptions of governmental oppression can catalyze revolutionary sentiment among diverse groups of citizens.
It’s important to note that while the right to protest is protected, there are legal limitations. The U.S. Supreme Court case Cox v. Louisiana (1965) affirmed the right to peaceful protest while also recognizing the government’s authority to impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.
The balance between maintaining public order and protecting the right to protest remains a complex legal issue.
The European Court of Human Rights has addressed this balance in cases like Kudrevičius and Others v. Lithuania (2015), emphasiing the state’s duty to facilitate peaceful assembly while also acknowledging legitimate security concerns.
Contemporary scholars like Zeynep Tufekci have examined how modern protest movements mobilise and impact policy.
In “Twitter and Tear Gas,” Tufekci analyzes the strengths and challenges of digitally-networked protest movements in effecting political change.
Civil disobedience has long been recognised as a potent method for effecting social and political change, with historical examples ranging from the American civil rights movement to India’s struggle for independence.
At its core, civil disobedience involves deliberately breaking unjust laws or refusing to comply with government demands as a form of protest.
While often effective in drawing attention to societal issues and catalysing reform, this approach raises complex ethical questions about the balance between individual conscience and societal order.
In her book “Conscience and Conviction: The Case for Civil Disobedience,” philosopher Kimberley Brownlee delves into these ethical considerations, examining the moral foundations that underpin acts of civil disobedience.
Brownlee argues that civil disobedience can be morally justified in democratic societies when it stems from sincere moral convictions and aims to address serious injustices.
She contends that such acts serve as a vital form of political participation, allowing citizens to engage in a dialogue with their government and fellow citizens about fundamental societal values and norms.
However, Brownlee also acknowledges that civil disobedience has its limits and potential drawbacks. She explores the tension between the moral imperative to resist unjust laws and the need to maintain social stability and respect for democratic processes.
Brownlee’s work prompts readers to consider under what circumstances civil disobedience is ethically defensible, how it should be carried out to maximise its moral legitimacy, and what responsibilities both protesters and authorities have in responding to acts of civil disobedience.
By thoroughly examining these issues, Brownlee’s analysis provides a nuanced framework for evaluating the ethics of civil disobedience in contemporary democratic societies.
In conclusion, the right to peaceful protest stands as a cornerstone of democratic societies, enshrined in constitutions and safeguarded by international legal frameworks. This fundamental freedom allows citizens to voice their concerns, challenge authority, and participate actively in shaping public discourse.
By enabling individuals and groups to express dissent and advocate for change, peaceful protest serves as a critical mechanism for maintaining the health and vitality of democratic systems. It acts as a safeguard against governmental overreach and provides a platform for marginalized voices to be heard.
However, the exercise of this right often creates tension between protesters and authorities, as evidenced by numerous incidents worldwide. Law enforcement agencies, tasked with maintaining public order, sometimes find themselves at odds with demonstrators, leading to confrontations that can escalate into violence.
Striking the right balance between protecting public safety and respecting the right to protest presents an ongoing challenge for democratic governments.
It requires nuanced policies, well-trained law enforcement personnel, and a commitment from all parties to uphold democratic principles even in the face of disagreement.
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE: Executive puppets: The rubber stamp role of Kenya’s National Assembly
As societies continue to navigate complex economic, social, and political challenges, the importance of peaceful protest as a means of democratic expression becomes ever more apparent.
Governments face the difficult task of addressing citizen grievances while maintaining stability and order. Finding constructive ways to engage with protesters, address their concerns, and incorporate diverse perspectives into policy-making processes remains a crucial challenge for democratic systems.
Ultimately, the ability of a society to protect and value peaceful protest while effectively responding to citizen concerns serves as a measure of its democratic health and resilience.
The writer is a lawyer and legal researcher
