by Jim Rose in politics - Australia, Rawls and Nozick Tags: Australian political parties, civil disobedience, John Rawls, non-violent direct action, political activism

Most activists take to the streets because if they ran openly for office, they would struggle to get 1% of the vote. Their best options are entryism and branch stacking.

The strength of democracy lies in the ability of small groups of concerned and thoughtful citizens to band together and change things by running for office and winning elections.

That is how new Australian parties such as the ALP, the country party, DLP, Australian democrats and Greens changed Australia. One Nation even had its 15 minutes of fame. Australian state upper houses even have Christian and shooters parties and many independents. Many started in someone’s living room.

Some find democracy frustrating because they cannot win openly at the ballot box even under proportional representation in federal and state upper houses.

When the “shooters” party and “no aircraft noise” party can win ahead of you, it is time to accept that your message of struggle and direct action simply does not resonate with the electorate.

John Rawls, discussing non-violent direct action, argues that in a nearly just society, those who resort to civil disobedience present themselves to the majority to show that, in their considered opinion, the principles of justice governing cooperation amongst free and equal persons have not been respected.

Rawls argues that civil disobedience is never covert or secretive; it is only ever committed in public, openly, and with fair notice to legal authorities. Openness and publicity, even at the cost of having one’s protest frustrated, offers ways for the protesters to show their willingness to deal fairly with authorities.

Rawls argues:

for a public, non-violent, conscientious yet political act contrary to law being done (usually) with the aim of bringing about a change in the law or policies of the government;

that appeals to the sense of justice of the majority;

which may be direct or indirect;

within the bounds of fidelity to the law; and

whose protesters are willing to accept punishment. Although civil disobedience involves breaking the law, it is for moral rather than selfish reasons; the willingness to accept arrest is proof of the integrity of the act.

Rawls argues, and too many forget, that civil disobedience and dissent more generally contribute to the democratic exchange of ideas by forcing the champions of dominant opinion to defend their views.

Legitimate non-violent direct action are publicity stunts to gain attention and provoke debate within the democratic framework, where we resolve our differences by trying to persuade each other and convince the electorate.

Too many acts of non-violent direct action aim to impose their will on others rather than peaceful protests designed to bring about democratic change in the laws or policies of the incumbent government. That ‘might does not make right’ is fundamental to the rule of law.