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

The resolution does not state--nor will I attempt to argue--that civil disobedience is universally appropriate in a democracy. Rather, I will argue that injustice is possible in a democracy, and that in the struggle to right some given injustice, there are a number of appropriate, escalating options, of which one is civil disobedience. Thus, in a democracy, civil disobedience is an appropriate weapon in the fight for justice. Concerning the definition of justice, which is in itself its own debate, and the cause of much frustration and nitpicking in LD rounds. Let us make the assumption that 'justice' is a knowable, universal good, which can be fought for and won by some means. Let us focus on the idea of democracy--rule by the people. Even in the purest, most ideal form, there will be some kind of minority--whether 1 person or 49.9% of the population, it does not matter. My opponents view of a democracy where every person's view is heard and implemented equally is only possible in a single person state, which defeats the prime reason for government. Our modern democracies have evolved with laws that protect the minority and provide redress for grievance. Yet therein lies the rub. The "proper channels" as my opponent refers, are created by the majority. In my opponents "true" democracy, the minority can have their voice heard, they can shout their view from the mountaintops, yet there is no guarantee that the majority will grant their demands. The existence of a democratic government does not imply the existence of a just government. Just as the existence of 'proper channels' does not imply the existence of those channels being just. Further, the social contract is not a one-way street or a light-switch. My opponent is correct in saying that "in a social contract citizens agree to obey laws set down for them by the government;" however, in return the government has a obligation to provide justice and security. Likewise, unlike business contracts, the social contract has different degrees of violation, from both the People and from the Government. There is a difference between driving five miles over the speed limit and high treason. If there is, as the resolution states, "a fight for justice," we can safety assume that the democratic government has failed its obligation to provide justice, and thus is in someway violating the contract made with the People. However, with some exceptions of grave, extreme injustice, just because a given injustice exists, the purpose and validity of the government does not disappear into thin air. Civil disobedience seeks to repair a damaged social contract, not destroy it. Consequently, the idea that people will break the laws in the name of civil disobedience is not germane to this debate because it lacks the necessary fight for justice, as stated in the resolution. The difference between crime and civil disobedience is the fight for justice. Finally, we need to address the appropriateness of civil disobedience as a tool to bring about justice. One does not hunt deer with a bazooka, nor does one go to war with only a pocket knife: the tool must be appropriate for the use. There is a spectrum of injustice, and the weapon to combat a given injustice must be appropriate for the occasion. I agree with my opponent that the first solution must be to try the proper channels. If, however, it is not successful, then a stronger solution must be found. Here is where non violent civil disobedience is appropriate--to try to sway the majority to fix the injustice. At this point, those who participate in the non-violent action willfully accept the risk to their safety because they value justice more than their personal safety. Sometimes, when non-violent action is unsuccessful, armed conflict is necessary, as in the American Revolution. Civil disobedience is an appropriate weapon to fight injustice in the context of democracy because it is a non-violent way of trying to persuade members of the majority to make needed changes to improve the just nature of the society. Contrast this method to terrorism or a coup d'etat, and it is easy to see how non-violent means fit with the goals of a government by the People. The fight for racial equality in the 1960's was largely fought with Civil Disobedience. The gains toward racial equality made in that decade did not require the government to be overthrown or the majority to have their rights infringed. Yet because of the sit-ins and protests, decades of injustice were righted. In conclusion, even though a government may be by the people, for the people and of the people, there is no implication of how just that government will be. When an injustice exists, the social contract between the government and the minority is damaged, but not destroyed. There are many methods of fighting injustice, from the 'proper channels' to sit-ins to terrorism to civil war. Yet, not all these methods are appropriate for at all times. When an injustice exists and lesser methods have failed, non-violent civil disobedience is an appropriate weapon to highlight the injustice and move the majority to repair the wrongdoing.