Democracy can’t exist without respect for the rule of law

Ask any lawyer to give a view on any topic and he will give you 10. Ask a good lawyer and he will probably give you 20. So the Occupy organisers today seem to be courting trouble by asking no less than five lawyers to give their views on something as nebulous as civil disobedience.

I said nebulous because if you care to look it up on the internet, you will find no definitive definition of civil disobedience.

In fact you will find there are as many views as there are different aspects of civil disobedience; from passive protest to active resistance; from pleading guilty to contesting guilt in a court of law; from protesting a law, to protesting a government policy, to protesting a government administration; even from something as fundamental as the use, or non-use of violence.

The difference of views appears to be infinite. But there is general consensus that at least one common factor can be found, and that is, a willingness to respect and accept the relevant legal system. That is the marked difference between civil disobedience and open revolt or armed revolution.

Note I said respect for the legal system, not a particular law. For although civil disobedience started out as a form of protest against a particular law, its proponents never advocate any form of escape from lawful punishment. A willingness to accept lawful punishment is the very essence of civil disobedience.

That in itself is a form of respect to the rule of law. Respect for the legal system is not so much as part of the content of the rule of law as the very foundation of it. For without respect, the entire philosophy of the rule of law cannot flourish.