In a democracy, civil disobedience is an appropriate weapon in the fight for justice.

Long understood as the direct government by the people, the word "democracy" is today used to describe a broad assortment of governments. Indeed, one of the most oppressive regimes in the world today, calls itself the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, more commonly referred to simply as North Korea. Now, of course, no reasonable definition of democracy would include Kim Kong Il's oppressive dictatorship. However, the word democracy has become more elastic over the years, with most every regime trying to describe itself as being in one form of another a democracy. It is worth noting, though, that as recently at the 18th century, democracy was looked on as a form of government unlikely to promote justice. In the Tenth Federalist Paper, James Madison disparaged democracy claiming that "democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. " Instead, Madison and his fellow Federalists argued in favor of what they believed was a wholly different form of government, a "republican form," by which they meant "a government in which the scheme of representation takes place. " Today, the form of government that the Federalists described as "republican" is no longer thought of as being in opposition to democracy but rather itself a form of democratic government. The republicanism that Madison championed as an alternative to democracy is now considered a form of government. Similarly, over the years, many of the rights and liberties enumerated in the American Bill of Rights and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man have similarly been incorporated into the popular understanding of what democracy entails. Rights which were originally thought of as checks on democracy are now understood of as a necessary part of democracy. With the definition of democracy contested and something of a muddle, it will be a challenge for my opponent and I to find common ground. For instance, my opponent can safely concede that Gandhi acted appropriately since there is no one who would argue that the British Raj was a democracy. However, what to make of the government Thoreau was protesting? Was the United States in the nineteenth century a democracy? If it wasn't a democracy, what was it? It seems to me that my opponent's main argument is the fact that civil disobedience often leads to unnecessary violence, which could easily be avoided with peaceful protest. I agree, however civil disobedience has a history of overcoming oppression and unpopular policies where all other methods have failed: For example: -Gandhi's civil disobedience was instrumental in winning liberty for India, and Martin Luther King's tactics won basic rights for black people in America. -In 1998 rioters in Indonesia successfully protested against the despotic system of government that existed under the Suharto regime. In all of these cases there was no other avenue open to redress grievances; law breaking, whether Gandhi's non-violent marches or King's encouragement of the burning of rate books, was the only way to protest effectively. Furthermore, it is the conflict with authority that gives the protest its power and urgency, and brings an issue to a wider audience. The suffragettes, the civil rights movement and the anti-Apartheid struggle are all examples of an eventually successful cause that won by its confrontation with authority, where more sedate methods would simply not have succeeded. In all these cases, any violence against people was not initiated by the protesters, but began because of the heavy-handed and violent response of their oppressors. This brings me to the point of "just violence". Violence can be a means to bringing attention to a cause. If the cause is good and just, such violence may be justified. Indeed, the American Revolution was a violent revolution, and many American historians argue that it was a justified reaction to King George III. If a violent revolution can be considered just, then violent civil-disobedience can be just as well, again, assuming the cause is just. Also, some laws may not be "just laws". If a certain law breaks fundamental "natural" or "universal" laws, then that law must be broken. National laws cannot be the ultimate authority - men and women are also under higher laws. It was established in the Nuremberg trials that sometimes international laws must override national ones. Many Christian thinkers (such as Martin Luther King) and other philosophers have argued that the law of God, or "natural law" is paramount, and that national laws which do not accord with it are unjust and should be resisted. Even under the theory of social contract, the state can be resisted if it becomes oppressive and so breaks its side of the contract. One might say "well, if you don't like a law. .. go to court and challenge it". Not every just cause can be pursued through the courts (e. g. the campaign for Indian independence). Not every democracy has a written constitution or charter of rights, appeal to which allows the courts to override the will of the legislature (for example, the UK does not). Even in cases where a case could theoretically be taken through legal channels, the courts are often controlled by the same political elite as the government, and there is no guarantee of justice. And in any case, challenging an unjust law in court requires civil disobedience. Someone has to break that law deliberately, in order to be arrested and prosecuted for it, so that the case arrives in court in the first place. Thus, I do not feel that ALL civil disobedience is an appropriate weapon for justice, nonetheless in many cases it may be not only appropriate but necessary.