A Philosophical Analysis of Civil Disobedience: Beyond Conceptual Absurdity to Good Governance

In getting their voices heard by the government, citizens engage in various conscientious and political actions which have been brought under the conceptual umbrella of ‘civil disobedience’. As a result of the successes of public actions in Western democracies in terms of expanding the scope of citizens’ participation in governance through communication, evaluation and determination of state policies and the resultant quality of governance, the idea of public action has become popular, desirable and fashionable across the world. Through critical analyses of various theories, debates and thoughts, the paper argues that civil disobedience fails as an appropriate action for individuals or groups to challenge or protest their perceived injustice associated with laws and policies of government because of the inherent ambiguity in the original conception of the idea of civil disobedience; the inability of its proponents to successfully justify the elevation of personal moral conviction (conscience) above State laws and policies and; the failure of the civil disobedients to critically delineate the boundary of civil disobedience and other forms of criminal actions. The paper affirms the important role of consistent citizens’ democratic engagement in public affairs and proposes the sovereignty of the rule of law within the civic space as the sustainable means to good governance.