A call for civil disobedience has been issued recently by former prime minister Imran Khan. An informed debate on the subject requires proper understanding of this move in the political and historical contexts.

Civil disobedience is a form of political activism in which individuals or groups refuse to comply with certain laws, demands, or commands of a government or authority, often in a nonviolent manner. This is typically done to express opposition to laws or policies perceived as unjust or immoral. While the concept of civil disobedience can be traced back to ancient times, its modern understanding has evolved significantly, drawing upon various philosophical and political ideologies.

Civil disobedience is distinct from mere illegal actions as it is driven by a moral or political purpose rather than personal gain or anarchy. It involves public, deliberate acts of defiance, often with the knowledge that the individual or group will face legal consequences. Its defining characteristic is nonviolence, as it seeks to avoid harm to others while protesting perceived injustice.

Participants often accept the punishment for their actions as part of the protest, emphasising their commitment to the cause and their respect for the rule of law, even while opposing particular laws. Thoreau famously stated, “Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison,” highlighting the moral responsibility to confront unjust laws, even at personal cost.

The idea of civil disobedience can be traced to various ancient traditions, where acts of defiance against unjust authority were seen as acts of moral duty. In Ancient Greece, Socrates’s refusal to escape from prison after being sentenced to death for his beliefs can be viewed as an early form of civil disobedience. Socrates famously argued, “I do not see why I should not try to persuade the Athenians not to execute me, but I will not attempt to avoid my punishment.” His stance emphasised the moral obligation to obey the laws of Athens, even when they led to an unjust punishment, raising important questions about the individual’s relationship with the state.

The modern conception of civil disobedience emerged most prominently in the 19th century, particularly through the work of American transcendentalist Henry David Thoreau. In 1849, Thoreau wrote Civil Disobedience (originally titled Resistance to Civil Government), a direct response to the US government’s actions regarding slavery and the Mexican-American War. Thoreau refused to pay taxes to a government he believed was complicit in slavery and militarism. His essay posited that individuals have a moral duty to oppose unjust laws, even if it means breaking the law. Thoreau wrote, “That government is best which governs not at all,” advocating for a government that does not perpetuate injustice. His work has had a profound impact on countless activists worldwide, shaping the modern understanding of civil disobedience.

In the early 20th Century, MK Gandhi adapted Thoreau’s ideas to his campaign for Indian independence from British colonial rule. Gandhi’s philosophy of Satyagraha, meaning “truth force” or “soul force,” emphasised nonviolent resistance to oppression. He believed that peacefully defying unjust laws could expose the moral bankruptcy of the authorities. The Salt March of 1930, where Gandhi led a mass protest against the British monopoly on salt production and taxation, was a symbolic act of civil disobedience. Gandhi’s approach inspired global movements for civil rights and independence, influencing figures such as Martin Luther King Jr and Nelson Mandela.

In the United States, civil disobedience became a crucial tool during the Civil Rights Movement in the 1950s and 1960s. Martin Luther King Jr drew upon both Thoreau’s and Gandhi’s teachings to confront the systemic racial discrimination and segregation entrenched in American society. King’s commitment to nonviolent civil disobedience reached its height during events like the 1963 March on Washington and his Letter from Birmingham Jail, where he eloquently defended the necessity of civil disobedience in the struggle for justice. King wrote, “One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws,” asserting that it was not only permissible but imperative to challenge laws that perpetuated injustice.

In South Africa, Nelson Mandela and others utilised civil disobedience in their fight against apartheid. Mandela’s commitment to peaceful resistance and his acts of civil disobedience were central to the eventual dismantling of the apartheid regime and the establishment of a democratic South Africa. As Mandela famously said, “It is said that no one truly knows a nation until one has been inside its jails. A nation should not be judged by how it treats its highest citizens, but its lowest ones,” underscoring the moral necessity of challenging the laws that perpetuated racial injustice.

The theoretical underpinnings of civil disobedience are rooted in several philosophical and ethical frameworks. Social contract theory, for example, holds that governments derive their authority from the consent of the governed. Thinkers like John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau suggested that when a government enacts unjust laws, it loses its moral legitimacy and individuals have the right to rebel or disobey these laws. Civil disobedience, in this light, can be seen as an act of reclaiming moral and political agency against an unjust state.

Natural law theory, which traces its origins to philosophers such as Aristotle, Cicero and Aquinas, posits that there are universal and discoverable laws based on reason. Laws that violate natural rights or moral principles are unjust and lack legitimate authority. From this perspective, civil disobedience becomes not only morally justified but a duty for those who recognise the violation of fundamental human rights or natural justice. As Aquinas put it, “An unjust law is no law at all.”

Utilitarianism, especially as articulated by John Stuart Mill, also influences civil disobedience. Mill argued that individuals should be free to express dissent against the state as long as their actions do not harm others. In this framework, civil disobedience is justified if it aims to bring about a greater societal good, such as justice, equality or human rights. The moral worth of civil disobedience, in this context, is evaluated based on its contribution to the well-being of society at large.

Finally, John Rawls’ theory of justice, outlined in A Theory of Justice, provides another foundation for civil disobedience. Rawls’s concept of the “veil of ignorance” suggests that just laws are those that would be chosen under conditions of impartiality and fairness, without knowledge of one’s position in society. Civil disobedience can be seen as an expression of moral duty when laws violate the principles of justice that would be agreed upon by rational individuals in an original position of equality.

Civil disobedience has played a pivotal role in challenging systemic injustices and driving social and political change. Whether in opposition to slavery, colonialism, segregation, or oppressive regimes, acts of civil disobedience have demonstrated how nonviolent resistance can be a powerful force for progress. The theoretical foundations of civil disobedience — social contract theory, natural law, utilitarianism and Rawlsian justice — reveal that these acts are rooted in deep moral and philosophical convictions about justice, human rights and the rights of individuals.

As long as governments enact unjust laws, civil disobedience will continue to challenge the status quo and advocate for justice. With reference to Pakistan, it remains to be seen whether civil disobedience will produce any results and whether the regime will become amenable to the aspirations of the masses.

The writer is a professor in the Faculty of Liberal Arts at the Beaconhouse National University, Lahore.