The Institutionalization of Civil Disobedience as Means of Democratization

By Anabella di Pego

“The establishment of civil disobedience among our political institutions might be the best possible remedy for this ultimate failure of judicial review. The first step would be to obtain the same recognition for the civil-disobedient minorities that is accorded the numerous special-interest groups (minority groups, by definition) in the country, and to deal with civil-disobedient groups in the same way as with pressure groups, which, through their representatives – that is, registered lobbyists – are permitted to influence and ‘assist’ Congress by means of persuasion, qualified opinion, and the numbers of their constituents. These minorities of opinion would thus be able to establish themselves as a power that is not only ‘seen from afar’ during demonstrations and other dramatizations of their viewpoint, but is always present and to be reckoned with in the daily business of government.”

-- Hannah Arendt, “Civil Disobedience,” in Crisis of the Republic

The above passage, on the one hand, is situated in a specific historical context: the events of the Vietnam War and the protest movement that responded to it. As a result of a Supreme Justice’s refusal to pronounce the war conduct of the U.S. government illegal and unconstitutional, Arendt explained that the only remedy that could rectify this injustice was for the American public to collectively practice civil disobedience.

On the other hand, and beyond the context of the Vietnam War, I consider Arendt’s support for civil disobedience a relevant concern given the problems confronting representative democratic systems around the world today.

[caption id="attachment_15777" align="alignleft" width="300"] Pericles' Funeral Oration (Source: Wikipedia)[/caption]

The question of an ideal form of government has been one of the fundamental issues of philosophy and political theory since these disciplines’ respective origins. In the 20^th century, philosophers reached a relative consensus around democracy, an agreement which accompanied the expansion and consolidation of representative democracy in Western countries. The fall of the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union ultimately sealed the outcome of this dispute.

However, since the beginning of the 21^st century, we have seen protest movements emerge that have denounced our system of government for a variety of reasons, including not being democratic enough. Whether in Greece, Spain, or Brazil, demonstrators have used local concerns as means to question the very practice of democratic government. It is in light of these events that we can appreciate Arendt’s call to institutionalize civil disobedience as an opportunity for us to reconsider our democratic institutions and reopen a debate on the ideal form of government.

The failure of judicial bodies to deal with the powers of the state, which Arendt denounced in the case of the Vietnam War, has spawned protests in Latin America. The relatively young Latin American democracies not only remain in debt due to their poor attempts at addressing poverty, but they now also manifest serious flaws at an institutional level. As a result of the expansion of political classes’ power, their ineffectiveness, and their co-opting of justice, citizens have been rendered helpless against the established powers in Latin America. This has enabled a number of tragic events to transpire. Recently, drug gangs massacred a group of students in Mexico, a tragedy which demonstrates that the most basic right, namely the right to life, is being violated by illegal actors whom the Mexican government is powerless to stop. Elsewhere, the death of a prosecutor the day before they were scheduled to to submit an accusation against the Argentinian president in Parliament casts a shadow on state institutions and on the ability of citizens to hold members of government accountable for their actions.

[caption id="attachment_15778" align="aligncenter" width="600"] Gang members of a Mexican drug cartel (Source: EliteDaily)[/caption]

In this context, Arendt’s proposal for “the establishment of civil disobedience among our political institutions” is seen as a way for us to make the voices of citizens and organized minorities heard. Significantly, she argues that we must blend the discontent that gives rise to protests with fair governance mechanisms, which we can then incorporate into our institutions and, by extension, help shore up democratic government. Our task is thus to use the problems and political conflicts of the streets as means to transform our democratic institutions.

Of course, the institutionalization of civil disobedience, at least in a theoretical sense, is paradoxical since civil disobedience cannot be institutionalized without ceasing to be such. However, in practice, we can understand Arendt’s proposal as a call for new spaces of participation inside our systems of government. These political structures could help incorporate associations and groups that are currently relegated to the more informal realm of civil society, from where they can only put pressure on political systems indirectely via collective action.

Realizing Arendt’s proposal is not an easy task. But despite its difficulties, it is significant insofar as it urges us to reconsider our faltering institutions, especially in the Latin American case. Only through the institutionalization of civil disobedience can we seek to overcome the narrow-minded thinking of most political classes and respond to the ever-increasing demands of democratization around the world.

(Featured Image: Civil Disobedience; Source: UTNE)