This section seeks to introduce the reader to the issue of Civil Disobedience and Electronic Civil Disobedience in general. The first section provides a brief background on the issue of Civil Disobedience in general and in the Malaysian context, and the question of anarchy that arises with it. The problems regarding Klang Valley youth participation in Civil Disobedience and Electronic Civil Disobedience will be discussed in the problem statement. Key terms and concepts used in the research will also be defined, as will aims, objectives, research questions, as well as the scope and limitations of the research. The research will use phenomenological and positivistic approaches (survey, observation, literature review) to collect the data. Finally, the possible significances and contributions this research might have for the country will be briefly discussed.
1.2 BACKGROUND OF STUDY
Malaysia is no stranger to online and offline Civil Disobedience. The most famous occurrence of violent rioting and protest in Malaysian history was the riot of 13 May 1969. Since then, the government has often used 13 May as a fear-tactic to remind and to discourage citizens from protesting and rioting. No other mass rioting had occurred in the country until 1997, amidst the Asian Financial Crisis and exacerbated by the sudden dismissal and defamation of then Deputy Prime Minister, Anwar Ibrahim. This was also the first known account of widely used Electronic Civil Disobedience as people utilized message-boards to communicate with each other and mobilize a mass movement.
Civil Disobedience has only been increasing more in Malaysia in the 21st century, both online and offline, but it can be said that the internet was the main catalyst for real world prot...
... middle of paper ...
...ay claim to some right denied to him iii. Policy-based: When the citizen breaks the law in order to change a policy he believes is wrong.
Related to the concept of Civil Disobedience and Electronic Civil Disobedience or Hacktivism, is the issue of Direct Action. Direct action is activity undertaken by individuals, groups, or governments to achieve political, economic, or social goals outside of normal social/political channels. This can include nonviolent and violent activities which target persons, groups, or property deemed offensive to the direct action participant.
Martin Luther King, Jr. (1963) wrote:
Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. (King, Jr., 1963)
applies the principles of civil disobedience in his procedure of a nonviolent campaign. According to him, “In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self-purification; and direct action” (King 262). The first step, which is “collection of the facts,” clarify whether the matter requires civil disobedience from the society (King 262). The second step, “negotiation,” is the step where civil disobedience is practiced in a formal way; to change an unjust law, both sides come to an agreement that respects each other’s demand, (King 262). Should the second step fail, comes the “self-purification,” in which the nonconformists question their willingness to endure the consequences without any retaliation that follow enactment of civil disobedience (King 262). The fourth and the last step, “direct action,” is to execute it; coordinated actions such as protests or strikes to pressure no one, but the inexpedient government to conform to them, and advocate their movement, and thus persuade others to promote the same belief (King 262). This procedure along with principles of civil disobedience is one justifiable campaign that systematically attains its objective. King not only presents, but inspires one of the most peaceful ways to void unjust
York, Geoffrey. 2007. “Text-messages: the new Chinese protest tool.” Globe and Mail, Friday, June 1: A13.
"You may well ask, Why direct action? Why sit-ins, marches, etc.? Isn't negotiation a better path?' You are exactly right in your call for negotiation. Indeed, this is the purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and establish such creative tension that a community that has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. I just referred to the creation of tension as a part of the work of the nonviolent resister. This may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word tension. I have earnestly worked and preached against violent tension, but there is a type of constructive nonviolent tension that is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, we must see the need of having nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men to rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. So the purpose of the direct action is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. We, therefore, concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in the tragic attempt to live in a monologue rather than a dialogue" (King 474-475)
According to Thomas Jefferson, all men are created equal with certain unalienable rights. Unalienable rights are rights given to the people by their Creator rather than by government. These rights are inseparable from us and can’t be altered, denied, nullified or taken away by any government, except in extremely rare circumstances in which the government can take action against a particular right as long as it is in favor of the people’s safety. The Declaration of Independence of the United States of America mentions three examples of unalienable rights: “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. I believe these rights, since they are acquired by every human being from the day they are conceived, should always be respected, but being realistic, most of the time, the government intervenes and either diminishes or
It has been debated though out history whether or not nonviolence “works”. Many societies, and this without question includes the United States, have mostly relied on violent tactics. Many people believe that violence is the only way to stop wars, even though it creates war, and people tend to believe that violence is the one solution to many global and political problems. However, recent literature and research is starting to prove otherwise. Erica Chenoweth, a political scientist, recently published a book, Why Civil Resistance Works in 2011. The research highlights data that shows throughout history, nonviolent tactics are more effective than violent ones in various ways.
Civil disobedience has its roots in one of this country’s most fundamental principles: popular sovereignty. The people hold the power, and those entrusted to govern by the people must wield
The following essay will attempt to evaluate the approach taken by Dworkin and Habermas on their views of civil disobedience. The two main pieces of literature referred to will be Dworkin?s paper on 'Civil Disobedience and Nuclear Protest?' and Habermas's paper on 'Civil Disobedience: Litmus Test for the Democratic Constitutional State.' An outline of both Dworkin's and Habermas's approach will be given , further discussion will then focus on a reflective evaluation of these approaches. Firstly though, it is worth commenting on civil disobedience in a more general context. Most would agree that civil disobedience is a 'vital and protected form of political communication in modern constitutional democracies' and further the 'civil disobedience has a legitimate if informal place in the political culture of the community.' Civil disobedience can basically be broken down into two methods, either intentionally violating the law and thus incurring arrest (persuasive), or using the power of the masses to make prosecution too costly to pursue (non persuasive).
There are many features of civil disobedience. Civil disobedience according to Rawls must be political in nature; agents engaged in civil disobedience must be appealing to a “common conception of justice”. It is aimed at changing the law, thus, it is a method requiring political engagement. The goal of this is to bring the law into conformity with the theory of justice. In order to make it a particularly clear case of rejecting the ou...
In our country’s history, Civil Disobedience has had positive effects upon legislation and societal norms. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution states five basic forms of expression that are to be protected by the government: Speech, Press, Assembly, Religion, and Petition. The Founders, in essence, created a means by which the average citizen can achieve political and social change. Justice William J. Brennan Jr. stated in 1989 that, “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government cannot prohibit the expression of an idea simply because the society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”* When citizens speak out or
Several months ago the affiliate here in Birmingham asked us to be on call to engage in a nonviolent direct action program if such were deemed necessary. We readily consented, and when the hour came we lived up to our promise. (King, 1963)
The ideology of nonviolence has come to play a major role in political struggles in the United States of America and, indeed, in nations around the world. Almost every organization seeking radical change in the USA has been targeted by organizers for the nonviolence movement. Organizations like Earth First!, which originally did not subscribe to the ideology of nonviolence, have since then adopted that ideology or at least its set of rules for protest and civil disobedience. Yet nonviolence activists have put little energy into bringing their creed to establishment, reactionary, or openly violent organizations.
Storck, M. (2011). The role of social media in political mobilisation: a case study of the January 2011
The Role of Civil Disobedience in Democracy. " Civil Liberties Monitoring Project. American Civil Liberties Monitoring Project, Summer 1998. Web. The Web.
As humans are imperfect and irrational, they throughout history have formulated governments to deter and prevent crime, organize communities, and act in the best interest of the ruling group [majority or minority]. Since governments can be irrational and humans are emotional, disobedience to authority has and shall always exist in civilised society. True civil disobedience according to Erich Fromm and Mr. Thoreau is against an irrational authority and the focus of protestation is irreconcilable with oneself. Civil disobedience by citizens is intended to evoke change but is drastically different in methodology depending on the government type. The consequences of civil disobedience in mind, in this essay I hereby advise civil disobedience solely
A very well-known method of expressing disagreement within a group that is still used consistently today is marching in protest. This was used for civil rights related reasons on August 28, 1963 when multiple activists organized the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. The political rally included upwards of two hundred thousand Americans aiming to raise awareness and promote change within the struggles African Americans faced daily in the country. (History.com Staff 2010, March on Washington) The march was originally carried to victory by leaders of civil rights-based organizations included in The Big Six, which consisted of CORE (Congress of Racial Equality), James Farmer, John Lewis, Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, Reverend Martin