Oh Poland, why are you the country of civil disobedience?

 As I was reading through section 55 of Rawls on civil disobedience one thing that I kept thinking of was Poland. However, not about the civil disobedience seen with individuals which happened a myriad of times in the last five years. The women strikes, the protests of law-abiding citizens about the proposed constitutional changes, mine workers, public transport workers, private firms’ owners, and many more have taken the streets of big and small cities in the past few years after a right-wing part Law and Justice gained majority in the legislative and won presidential elections. (Poland is a parliamentary republic.) That was not my main concern but rather what if it is the government that is acting in line of civil disobedience?

 

Rawls acknowledges that we must have a democratic society and we do have a democratic society in Poland with citizens who “recognize and accept the legitimacy of the constitution.” I would rather say that is the government that does not acknowledge such principles and can be accused of civil disobedience. The ruling party knowingly passed laws which are against the constitution and are doing so with an aim of bringing about change. In 2015, there was a legislative change concerning the age that a supreme court judge can have, which was openly against the constitution, and with an aim to replace the judge with a politically motivated judge, who can change the narrative of the Polish Supreme Court. (We do not have life-long appointees to the Supreme Court). This decision was later on seen as unconstitutional by the European Court of Justice but that did not stop Poland from further implementing it. This shows that the government had to deal with the eventual disagreement of the court (321). And unfortunately is one of many examples of such things happening in Poland.

 

The acts of the government are also politically motivated because of what kinds of issues they affect. Moreover, there can be an argument made that the government is a minority who is pushing an agenda by engaging in legally questionable actions. They are trying to impose their ideas on the majority, the citizens, who want to enjoy the fundamental equal liberties.

 

Another point that Rawls raises is that civil disobedience has to have a “public act.” This can be easily seen with the speeches, “acts of kindness” to the people, the hectic and disrespectful behavior in the lower chamber, which includes shouting, calling names, and non-verbal show of disdain. All of it makes up a public spectacle that shows the civil disobedience in Poland.

 

All of the aspects of civil disobedience put forward by Rawls can be found in the way the Polish government acts. I feel that Rawls would have an issue with putting a whole country in the category of civil disobedience but I believe we can do so and there is evidence to support my claim.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Development as White Saviorism

Sen’s take on viewing development as freedom seems coherent when the developing body is a part of the community that is being developed. There are troublesome aspects (like the implicit acceptance of unequal distribution of freedoms), but those can be justified and or fixed with minor alterations. However, the account’s flaws become prominent when applied to situations where the developing body is external to the community that is being developed. Because Sen does not factor in the context of when the development occurs and does not outline who can even be a developer, his account would allow for white saviorism.  The issue is not with what Sen’s account includes, but what it does not. Sen’s account does not argue for an equal distribution of freedom. While he believes we should expand freedoms in the most effective way, if this does not expand freedoms equally, it is not clear that Sen would view that as a bad thing. This leaves room for marginalized people in society to be even mor
Read more

I used to be a libertarian and i think Nozick is full of shit

In Anarchy State and Utopia, Nozick argues that patterned principles of justice will require “continuous interference with people’s lives” to continually realize their pattern of distributive justice (162). As an alternative, he argues for an unpatterned principle of distributive justice (PDJ) based on the principle of entitlement. I want to examine some of the key assumptions and concepts he makes in his account in this blog post.  Nozick’s entitlement theory views just modes of interacting with one’s holdings as necessarily leading to a just pattern of distribution. Namely, once justice in acquisition and justice in transfer have been achieved, the resulting distribution is just. As Nozick puts is “whatever arises from a just situation by just steps is itself just” (151). He also touches on “the rectification of injustice in holdings” but goes on to say that the exact nature of that principle is unclear and not discussed by him or others (152). This seems like a bit of a dodge to me.
Read more

The other face of the father of capitalism?

I found reading Smith's theory of Moral Sentiments interesting because a lot of it felt nothing like what he's purported to be according to all the "father of capitalism" stuff. I see how he developed something like the invisible hand because of how he develops his theory: based on observation. He makes empirical claims above human behavior in relation to which actions we approve and disapprove based on how much we can sympathize with the actor. Both this theory and the one about the invisible hand seems to be an explanation about an observed phenomena.  While I think that the method he uses to develop his theories are similar, the ideas present in this piece seems radically different than ideas on capitalism. The ideas that he present in Chapter two remind me a lot of Kantian ethics. The specific passage that reminded me of this was:  "When he views himself in the light in which he is conscious that others will view him, he sees that to them he is but one of the
Read more