Argument: Civil disobedience unjust in democracies; good means for change exist

Supporting Evidence:

• Fredrik Bendz. “Civil Disobedience”. 1997. – “In democracies we have representative democracy, which means that even though we may dislike a descision made by the politicians they were still made in a process where we had both the right and the possibilities to influence our polititians with rational arguments. And if we are not satisfied with their ruling, we can vote for somebody else in the next election. In a dictatorship civil disobedience is a necessity for the common man to achieve his goals, whereas in a democracy, at least theoretically, the descicions are made by the people.”

Counter-argument

I certainly agree with your argument, but majority rule, which is how we elect the politician that may be dissatisfying, is not always the best route. civil disobedience is a tool used to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. Tyranny of the majority is when the majority deprives rights from the minority without their consent. Voting (which is generally based upon the majority) may lead to tyranny of the majority. So, the minority must use peaceful means of civil disobedience to bring about change. A classic example is the civil rights movement, where African Americans (the minority) were at a disadvantage because of the abuse of the majority. Martin Luther King Jr. states in his letter from Birmingham Jail that, “Lamentably it is a historical fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but, and Reinhold Niebhur has reminded us, groups tend to be more immoral than individuals.” So decisions that are made by the majority of the people, are not always the just decisions. User:Kyoncat28