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

My opponent wrote: "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." I certainly agree that there is no absolute consensus on what constitutes a democracy. For example, he referred to the violent struggle to bring an end to Apartheid in South Africa. Few people would disagree that the successful outcome of this uprising was a good thing, yet, until last month, Nelson Mandela was on the US terrorist watch list and the ANC was considered a terrorist organisation. http://edition.cnn.com... That said, the Economist's Intelligence Unit is highly respected source of information and categorises countries as follows: Full democracies Flawed democracies Hybrid regimes Authoritarian regimes It further states: "Democracy presupposed equality before the law, due process and political pluralism." http://www.economist.com... I trust this will suffice as sufficiently definitive for the purposes of this debate. Reading this report, by the way, it was interesting to note that the UK only ranks at 24th in the world, even though democracy itself was born there when King John signed the Magna Carta at Runnymede in 1215. This is probably because Britain (as my opponent duly pointed out) does not have a constitution and also because all Acts of Parliament must be approved by the head of state, the monarch, who is not elected. The United Sates, the so-called "Land of the Free", doesn't fair much better though, being ranked as it is at a lowly 17th place. However, I suspect that if George Bush and his brother Jeb hadn't rigged the vote in Florida at the last election and Al Gore had been properly installed as President, the country's place in the rankings would be much higher! But I digress. The topic of this debate was the acceptability of civil unrest in democratic countries. So while I would agree with many of the examples my opponent cited in his last argument, these uprisings didn't take place in what would generally accepted as democracies. For example, whereas the fight for freedom in South Africa could be considered justified, as the black majority did not have any legitimate way to change the government or influence its policies, the IRA bombing campaign in the UK during the latter part of the last century must be considered terrorism, because the majority of the population (of both Ulster itself and the Britain as a whole) wished Northern Ireland to remain a part of the country which is officially called The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. My opponent continued: "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" and went on to refer to religious, international and moral "laws" and claim it is necessary to break them in order to make a positive change in legislation. There is an element of truth in this argument. For example, in the UK, laws are interpreted by the judiciary and precedents are set for future cases (which is not the case in a constitutional democracy such as the United States.) However, the decision reached by the court does not fundamentally change any given law. Also, certain aspects of UK law are subordinate to European Union legislation. Additionally, the country is subject to the decisions arrived at by various international organisations such as the United Nations and is also party to numerous international treaties, but this relates to the nation as a whole and I cannot think of a scenario whereby civil dissobedience in a full democracy has been supported by any international authority. It is also true that people with certain religious beliefs or people with strong personal convictions (such as the pacifists who refused to fight in the last World Wars) may feel justified in breaking the law, but they must and should pay the consequences because laws enacted by a democratically elected government represent the will of the majority of people. In conclusion, whilst civil disobedience can certainly be justified in countries where the citizens have no other option than to rise up against their oppressors, it is unacceptable in a democracy because in this type of country the government is the servant of the people and if the political party in power's performance is unsatisfactory the citizens have the opportunity to replace it with another at the next general election.