Topics in Political Philosophy. Justification for Civil Disobedience

Justification for Civil Disobedience
Name
Institutional Affiliate
Justification for Civil Disobedience
Introduction
The recent protests witnessed across the United States following the indiscriminate killing of individuals from the African American community are characteristic of the country’s struggles with the social injustice of racial discrimination. Racial discrimination and segregation in the United States is a highly sensitive issue with a polarizing effect on the nation, as evidenced by its historical struggles with social injustices from the era of slavery. Efforts to address the social injustice of racism in the country include the implementation of inclusive policies and abolishment of discriminative legislation across the social, political, and economic dimensions. The country records significant breakthroughs in the fight against racial discrimination including the abolition of slavery and abolishment of Jim Crow’s policies that facilitated segregation of the African American community across the outlined social dimensions. Efforts or interventional measures towards addressing the social justice issue take different forms ranging from violent to non-violent protests or activism. Martin Luther King, Jr. makes for one of the celebrated activists from the United States who championed the use of non-violent protests against the systems and policies perpetuating racial discrimination across the country. Renowned for his significant role in the Civil Rights Movement, Martin Luther King, Jr. led and participated in various acts of civil disobedience in the 1960s. Among such acts include the Birmingham protests held in 1963, which resulted in the arrest of the celebrated civil rights activist for holding a parade without a permit in contravention of the existing legislations against the same. Martin Luther King, Jr. led his fellow African Americans in protesting the unjust laws perpetuating the social injustice of racial segregation and discrimination in Birmingham. In his response to criticism from some of the members of the Birmingham clergy, Martin Luther King, Jr. justifies his participation and the use of direct action in advocating for change against the social injustice of racial discrimination. Martin Luther King, Jr. posits that civil disobedience is a legal process that seeks to address the inadequacies of existing legal systems and regulatory authorities perceived to be facilitating the oppression of the rights and freedoms of an individual or group of people as witnessed against the African American community. Provided herein is a justification of civil disobedience as a legal action or process based on the cross-examination of Martin Luther King’s Letter from Birmingham Jail with the different point of views on civil disobedience held by other individuals including Malcolm X and John Rawls.
           Martin Luther King, Jr. sets an excellent platform for justifying civil disobedience as a legal act or process of seeking justice through his letter in response to the criticism of his role and participation in the Birmingham protests of 1963 from fellow members of the clergy. In a letter titled, A Call to Unity, the Birmingham clergy criticized Martin Luther King, Jr. and his followers for staging the direct action and highlighted their discontent across different matters (Martin Luther King, pg. 1117). Besides the criticism from the clergy, Martin Luther King, Jr. faced charges of breaking and infringing on the constitutional provisions barring such protests or parades. The fact the he was charged for holding and leading a parade without permit or permission from Birmingham’s regulatory authorities on the same deemed civil disobedience to be a contravention of the law. However, Martin Luther King, Jr. provides an entirely different point of view on the different concerns raised by legal and religious authorities in Birmingham, Alabama and justifies civil disobedience as an appropriate and law abiding course of action to address social justice issues in society. The cross examination of the responses given to some of the issues and concerns raised based on the different point of views held by the likes of Malcolm X and John Rawls provide justification to the legality of civil disobedience. 
           Among the concerns raised by the clergymen in their letter to Martin Luther King, Jr. was their discontent with his outsider status in leading and participating in the Birmingham non-violent protests. The clergymen considered Martin Luther King, Jr. to be an outsider as he was not a resident of Birmingham or Alabama at large and thus not eligible to participate in the efforts to solve matters affecting its citizens (Martin Luther King, pg. 1117). Martin Luther King, Jr. responds by claiming that being the head of a national organization, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, justifies his role, presence, and participation in the social justice movements in Birmingham, Alabama and across the nation (Martin Luther King, pg. 1117). He also alludes to his Christian duty and mandate to seek freedom for all beyond the constraints of his birthplace (Martin Luther King, pg. 1117). King further states that it his social responsibility to respond to any threats to justice in society anywhere across the nation on the premise that tolerating injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere irrespective of the geographical barriers and differences. According to John Rawls’ The Justification for Civil Disobedience, it is the role and responsibility of members of society to establish just and efficient institutions while also upholding or complying with their provisions (Rawls, pg. 244). The just and efficient institutions herein refer to the set arrangements agreed upon by members of society towards providing unique social conditions to the advantage of all members of society. In exercising the noble duties and responsibilities, individuals and groups alike should support the establishment of just systems, comply with their guiding principles, while also meeting the set obligations of the same when need arises. It is on the basis of the social contract theory that individuals and groups alike exercises their political obligation to protect the rights and freedoms for all individuals as enshrined in the United States’ constitution, for instance, or even the basic human rights (Rawls, pg. 245). Hence, a just and efficient system or institution is one that builds around the observation of equal rights, freedoms, and liberties for all members within a given social agreement. The segregation policies practiced across Birmingham, Alabama contravened the social agreement of equal liberty for all as they functioned to the advantage of the White majority group. Complying with the discriminative policies and regulations went against the guiding principles of social contract theory (Rawls, pg. 245). The established systems and institutions in Birmingham served to the advantage of the White majority group across the social, political, and economic dimensions at the expense of the rights, freedoms, and liberties of the African Americans across the same dimensions (Martin Luther King, pg. 1118). Martin Luther King, Jr. used civil disobediences as an avenue to exercise his duties and obligations to the social agreement by pointing out at its inadequacies in oppressing the rights and freedoms of the African Americans in Birmingham, Alabama. In essence, the non-violent Birmingham protests held in 1963 reflected the manifestation of King’s political obligation as enshrined in the constitution to participate in the abolishment of an unjust system and establishi...