Non-Violence and the International Community

Despite the the growing evidence in support of the effectiveness of non-violent campaigns, sometimes groups will grow frustrated with the lack of international attention they get, and resort to violence; for example, the rehashing of tensions in Israel have many Palestines, and many of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in support of the Palestinian run group, Hamas (seen as a terrorist org. by the US).  Hamas has been retaliating with violence, as they have in the past, and they have indeed received attention; whereas, the older, non-violent political organization, Fatah, has taken a back seat.  Violence was a key reason in the split of friendly ties between Hamas and Fatah in 2007, and it seems like the cooperation between these two influential powers will continue to be marred by the institution of violence in campaigning and resistance.

It seems to me that this is a problem that must be fixed, beginning not with organizations like Hamas, but the international community, including the UN, and several NGO's that fail to recognize and support the legitimacy of non-violent campaigns in their infancy.

Raz on Regimes

In our class discussion on Tuesday, we brought up the question of the idea of liberal regimes.  I think it is safe to say that most people would consider the United States to be a "liberal" regime, in Raz's sense of the definition.  However, I think we came up with a few examples that found contradiction with the assumed notion of Raz's that Liberal states always protected the right of "political participation," such as voter reg. laws, ect.

My question is this- if we are open to the possibility that, in the United States, it is possible to experience an infringement upon one's political participation, does it follow that the United States is an illiberal state?  It seems to me that there could be a few answers to this.  Firstly, one could accept under Raz that the United States is an illiberal regime.  Secondly, one could accept that the inconsistency in this case lies not with the US, or any state, but with Raz's definition of liberal and illiberal being to cut and dry.

This would open up the possibility of accepting that perhaps Liberal states do indeed occasionally have illiberal laws, that need to be corrected.  In this new scenario, one now must also question whether or not Raz's claim, that civil disobedience in of itself is never justified in a liberal regime, is still consistent with his concepts of statehood.  With that being said, it seems that if the second conclusion is drawn, it may be better to go back to the drawing board instead of patching up the original theory.

Haskar: Non-cooperation versus CD

In the Haskar reading, he pulls the example of the milk man strike, citing the milk man's justified employment for higher wages, even if it means the suffering of those who depend upon the milk.  In this case, Haskar argues that the need for the milk man to feed his (potentially starving) family with proper wages is justified in the end, despite the fact that others dependent upon the milk may suffer as a consequence to the strike.

Is this civil disobedience?  While Haskar does note that civil disobedience does need non-cooperation, although non-cooperation does not always need CD, I would definitely consider this example in particular to be non-cooperation; as their is no government or laws for the milk man to interact with.  Of course, one could argue the aim is legislation regarding higher pay laws, but, hypothetically, if the milk man were merely exercising his leverage as a valued employee, would this be CD and NC, or just NC? I personally think it is merely the latter.

CD: Essay Outline

During his thoughts and reasoning regarding the case against civil disobedience, Herbert J. Storing ultimately makes the assertions that civil disobedience is largely irrelevant to the issues of today.  He goes on to separate the concept of civil disobedience from that of provoking a test case via judicial review, and questions the integrity involved (alludes to violence) of this concept as well.  Herbert J. Storing's case against civil disobedience is flawed, int he definition he assigns to the concept, and the minimal implications and practicality he asserts that it has.

I've just given a rough outline of a few key/broader premises to my argument below.

-There seems to be an argument against the irrelevance of civil disobedience today, as the actions regarding the Arab Spring, symbolic federal tax evasion, and socioeconomic protests in many countries, including the United States.

-Civil disobedience is not in a fact a "transition" or "subordinate" to conventional political action or revolution; it is, in of itself, a medium through which laws are challenged.  This is given, of course, that "fidelity of law" is maintained, and other feasible, legal, options are explored.

-Operating, loose definition of Civil Disobedience, with these necessary (but not inclusive) conditions:
-A justified and nonviolent act.  (I will go indepth on my analysis of what it means to be justified, and nonviolent)
-An action involves members of said society, and a recipient. (their sovereign governing body)
-Maintains "fidelity of law."
-Conveys sincerity to fellow citizens. (fidelity and sincerity go hand in hand.)