Democratic Society

An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law. Martin Luther King, Jr. Abstract The following paper will present the theory and possibilities of implication of the phenomenon of civil disobedience understood as one of the most powerful and most effective tools of democratic society when it comes to implementing the necessary and indispensable changes required for the improvement of the political domain and the social public sphere.   In the first part I will present the narrow but orthodox and widely discussed definition of civil disobedience presented by John Rawls in his Theory of Justice (1971). Given such a definition, as well as the major conditions under which the actions undertaken in the name of civil disobedience can be justified, I will focus my analysis on two major aspects of the discussed notion.   Firstly, I will discuss civil disobedience, which is in its essense an unlawful act, paradoxically expresses the highest respect for the positive law by the person performing the civilly disobedient act through one’s submission to the judgment of the law which is an object of one’s protest. This way, civil disobedience presents itself as the phenomenon which, not having a legal recognition (not being legalized), holds super-legal force required to impose the changes on the unjust legal system or on the particular unjust regulation.   Secondly, I will point out that civil disobedience, as a public act performed by the people (the subjects of the particular law), expresses the will of the people and, therefore, it can not be used (by themselves) in the ways contradictory to their best self-interest but always supported by the “the commonly shared sense of justice” (Rawls). From this premise I conclude that the universal human rights, as thier supporters claim, are one of the main ends of the political activism in the recent decade and should be advocated in the civilly disobedient manner.   In the last part I will contrast the Rawlsean definition with a much broader and more relevant understanding of civil disobedience when it concerns today’s globalizing world. In this world, the nation-states cease to be the only political actors when confronted with the transnational public sphere, and, therefore, the understanding of civil disobedience as a transversal arena of public dissent presented by Roland Bleiker (2000) is more appropriate. In this definition civil disobedience becomes, not only a political instrument of particular subjects of a particular society, but it also becomes a tool for the international mobilization of means and of people in the name of presenting and imposing the respect for the universal human rights despite the national borders and societal paradigms. 

The Palestine issue and the Israeli regime's occupation are among the most crucial matters on the global stage. The situation of Palestinians in the territories controlled by this regime, referred to as the 1948 territories, holds significant importance. Western countries have consistently aimed to present the Israeli regime as a democratic model, using the status of residents in the 1948 areas as evidence. This article utilizes a qualitative and comparative approach to address the query: What is the situation of Palestinians residing in the occupied territories of 1948 within the Israeli democracy? The hypothesis posited is that while Israel exhibits some elements of democracy based on recognized criteria, reliable statistics suggest that the Arab community does not benefit from this purported democracy to the same extent as the Jewish community, calling into question the foundational principle of the Israeli democracy. By examining reports from Israeli and international authorities, this article concludes that the Israeli regime cannot be deemed a democratic regime for all its citizens. Furthermore, the respect for human rights within this regime, particularly for the indigenous minority residing in the occupied territories, is nothing but a myth.