Civil disobedience is the deliberate disobeying of a law to advance a moral principle or change government policy. Those who practice civil disobedience are willing to accept the consequences of their lawbreaking as a means of furthering their cause. Henry David Thoreau first articulated the tenets of civil disobedience in an 1849 essay, “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience.” He argued that when conscience and law do not coincide, individuals have the obligation to promote justice by disobeying the law. Civil disobedience was a major tactic in the women’s suffrage movement, the campaign for the independence of India, the civil rights movement, and the abolition of apartheid in South Africa.
People who practice civil disobedience are able to imagine a better social order. The behavior of these citizens are not motivated by selfishness but by the desire to universalize proposals aimed at improving the life in society.
ResponderEliminarConsequently, people who practice it are proud of. For them, civil disobedience is another civic duty, a requirement that comes from certain convictions to which it is possible to assign a target value and constructive.
A contingent example in our country are the student demonstrations, where now the dispute is not only for the education improvement, but also the legitimacy of a constitution that is no longer tolerated.
Civil Disobedience is, today, one of the channels of protest, social and effective expression to the omnipotence of the political and economic power worldwide.
Civil disobedience is THE DELIBERATE DISOBEYING OF A LAW TO ADVANCE A MORAL PRINCIPLE... or our fisrt step to start a decent life!
ResponderEliminarBut whta is the price? if this desired change, does not occur...
In my opinion in relation to the argument proposed by Henry Thoreau about Civil Disobedience I am not totally agree,because I think that when we want to promote justice, we have to find other ways, It is not necessary to break the law to succeed in a cause. I am agree with the fact that as individuals we must defend our rights, but in a peaceful way and without violence. It is just my humble opinion (tiare)
ResponderEliminarBut, Thoreau was against the violence, as a matter of fact, he was one of the pioneers to propose the idea of pacifism and no-violence, which is not to resort to violence, either as a method of protest or in response to violence.
ResponderEliminarThat is true, but inevitably in the course of the fight to get what people want is going to happen violence in all its forms.
ResponderEliminarand I personally think that nothing justifies the violence.
ResponderEliminarCivil Disobedience is generally exercised by people aware of and committed to society. In this sense, Gandhi was one of those who achieved India's independence through non-violent demonstrations. He was a great example of conviction and dedication to helping others.
ResponderEliminar... without the need for violence
ResponderEliminarI agree with you. He was one of those who demonstrated that whithout violence we can get justice. Human beings have the right to express themselves the way they want and this has been demostrated with the student movement in our country. If he could win a battle without violence, I think in these days It also could be possible.
ResponderEliminarI think that the basis of "Civil Disobedience" can be put to a very deep study. The fact that Henry Thoreau had gone living into the woods for two years maybe shows an attempt at returning to the roots of his own humanity. I believe this because of what I've read about his work, in which he hints that he'd sooner have the abolition of all forms of government than the bad government he is stuck with. By this piece of information I cannot less than remember an anthropologyst and author called Pierre Clastres, who wrote a book about the "societies without state" (oposing this term to the more traditional one of "archaic societies"), in which he came to the conclusion that the lack of a state and of any kind of government that can be practiced in a society that has one is far from an undesireable condition, and actually quite the opposite.
ResponderEliminarNow I know the narrow subject here requires that the person who is willing to commit civil disobedience is required to deal with the consequences of such. In the piece posted at this blog, civil disobedience is equivalent to a repulse manifestation which only consequence most likley will be a punishment for the law-breaker and the arousal of awareness of his/her cause into the general public.
ResponderEliminar... And I also think that this "political disagreement" does not refer to change everything… It is just about to change laws that hamper the development of marginalized social groups.
ResponderEliminarCivil disobedience is break chains, its show respect for yourself and your neighbor, it is the mixture among conviction, strength and union, it is the principal part to produce a big change, it is students organized, fighting for a legitimate cause!
ResponderEliminarThis concept was the birth of bigs purposes, the spinal column of Gandhi and Luther King, rebellion against a unfair system.
Today in Chile is the expectation for a better education...
I believe that Civil Disobedience keeps our dreams alive, there is not doubt that we are hopeful that changes may occur. Civil Disobedience, on the other hand; allows us to buil a better future, a better society. This allows us to keep a social conscience and fight for a fairer society. Always being tolerant.
ResponderEliminarElections do not give the people sufficient opportunityto express their will. In certain circumstances civildisobedience is a powerful method of making the will of the public heard. Is this the case here in Chile?
ResponderEliminarCivil disobedience has to do with political will, conviction and the great desire to change things that are unfair to the majority of people, who feel that the existing system is not equal for all. It is a matter of having political will in order to consolidate any movement. It is a powerful tool to express such demands.
ResponderEliminarToday in Chile, in the name of 'public safety' or 'public order', citizens rights are restricted, as to be free to walk certain streets or to express ideas in certain public places.
ResponderEliminarWe have seen that student demonstrations have been marred by anti-social act that take advantage of this fair cause. But, When citizens are entitled to oppose the law? Such decision and how they depend of each other, can occur provided they do not affect third parties, but student demonstrations don't do it, and everyone has the right to stand up for what it considers fair.
In my opinion I think It is the case of Chile, because There has been a lof of dissatisfied from the citizens against the present government. I think people have had the need to take the streets and express themselves freely, each of them with their different reasons. I think in these times people need to be clearly heard and Chile has been a country in which Civil Disobedience is frequently practiced.
ResponderEliminarI think, WE as student want to be heard, through this "powerful method" but if we do not have answer yet...
ResponderEliminar...we are not really being heard!
I think that the civil disobedience method is clearly the case here in Chile, but as the examples given in the description there are other countries that had used it too, showing that in general people need to express what they think is right and fight to promote justice.
ResponderEliminarCivil disobedience is necessary to make changes in the actual way of govern, because laws are made from the people's needs, but people change through the years so we need to adjust or to perfect the laws according to it. So we can't follow rules when these rules are against of principal rights that improve social life ;for example I think that here in Chile, it seems that the public order has priority over the right to freedom of speech and expression. Do you agree with me?
I believe that civil disobedience not always has bad consequences. In fact, people who break the law have more opportunities to achieve their objectives or at least part of it, because if you want to produce a law change, is necessary a civil disobedience. Like Thoreau said, this is the most effective way to do big changes and promote a real justice for the people.
ResponderEliminarEste comentario ha sido eliminado por el autor.
ResponderEliminarMagdalena has made a point.
ResponderEliminarNot only In Chile, it seems that the public order has priority over the right to freedom of speech and expression, but also here there are people who do not care about this right, a clear example is Cristian Labbe, Providence's mayor, which in its latest decision against students rights, his answer was that he only governed by the Rule of Law and anyone who is not with the law, is not with him. But, Who in the process of social change, at this level, is with the law??? If this happens precisely to change it.
ResponderEliminarI think most of the countries of the world give priority to public order over the right to freedom of speech. There is no doubt that being an "activist" and fight for the rights of the human race is underestimated. However, the impact caused by Civil Disobedience has an effect on society and It calls to ask oneself how the system works. The government prefers to keep public order, in order to keep society in a state of "alienation" and to close to the idea of free speech when there is some discontent. So, I agree with Magdalena.
ResponderEliminarI certainly belive that we have the responsability to express what we think , however there MUST be limits and according to Thoreau , He said that " individuals have the obligation to promote justice by disobeying the law".. BUT what does it mean? can I became a murder? Even though the advantages that civil disovedience could have gave us in the past, I think people are not able to do that now. First, because of the individualism which is present in the whole world, increasing every day more and more. Second, there is a law because of a reason. I cannot image what could happen if thoreau´s ideas became real.. hundred, millions of people taking the law by their hands.. In simple words, I disagree with civil disobedience because we have to keep in mind that my freedom ends where the other's begins..
ResponderEliminarIn my opinion, nowadays the spirit of civil disobedience has been growing in Chile and many other countries because of the internet, specifically to the social networks such as Facebook or Twitter. It is very useful to the people in order to get informed about objectives, points of meeting, demands, dates and events related to a next civil movement against the government law. Thanks to it, a large number of people join to the civil disobedience making the movement more powerful and effective.
ResponderEliminarI disagree with Fallon, the civil disobedience is necessary to make changes, you have to remember that there would always be unfair laws for the people, and the only way we have to appeal constitutional defects is by doing illegal acts. I think that kill somebody is not the Thoreau’s idea, everyone has to be morally responsible for their own actions during a civil disobedience. Almost always a violent action is more effective than a non-violent, but the second one could be effective too like the case of Gandhi, who led the India to independence advocating non-violent civil disobedience.
ResponderEliminarI think my idea can be missundertood...what I wanted to say was that .. civil disobedience must have limits..I agree when thoreau says we have to express our apinions,however we´re many people thinking by separate.. as a result, for example here in Chile, we have a constant disagree of hundred of students against the goverment and in the other side, goverment.. rejecting every student´s proposal related to education. as a result.. 4 months of strike,march and violence and any answer until now.
ResponderEliminarand I'm not saying you have to kill someone, but freedom has always been freedom, and I think it´s too wide term, that´s all.
ResponderEliminarIn my opinion, I think that Civil disobedience is necessary to make big changes in all society, especially in our country. Each government in power impose their way to think and their own laws which not always have relation to what people need or want. On the other hand, our laws, written in our “Constitution”, are very old-fashioned and these laws don’t represent to the current society, because it changes through the years. Big changes in society are possible only if people fight for them, for example in this moment students are not satisfied with educational system which has many faults, in where the main point is inequality.
ResponderEliminarThe problem of civil disobedience is that in many cases, people take advantage of the situation to destroy and making vandalism which weaken any movement.
but that's part of the freedom given. I think big changes could be achieved, but also big risks like the violence you´ve mentioned.
ResponderEliminarSome say “productive violence” must not be directed against innocent members of the public or against the police,often causing serious injuries. Others say protest must be peaceful or not at all.
ResponderEliminarIn respect of what Magdalena said, I agree with her, the social order IS the most important item for a government at any given point. I also agree with Tiare, when she says that almost every country in the world prefer it's population to live in a permanent state of alienation. I believe that the upper social classes through the centuries have been doing exactly that, desperately trying to avoid first the commoners, and later on the working class from getting "the wrong ideas" about social order. People who don't have "wrong ideas" of their own are incapable of civil disobedience,therefore incapable of changing the social order.
ResponderEliminarAbout what professor Ubeda just said, I believe that there's no such thing as "productive violence". When violent acts are commited in the midst of a civil disobedience act (like, for example, a non authorised march of parents and students going through Providencia to protest about the the decisions of major Labbé)the most likely thing to happen is that the public opinion will sympathize with the victim of the violent at per se, for example, the owner of a car that's been burned, or the peasants that now must cross the street in an unsignaled spot, etc.
ResponderEliminarAbout Paola's comment, I remember when we had to read the novel "1984" by George Orwell, which relates how a repressed society live without being able to express their fellings and also obeying the rules imposed by the government. I think this novel could be compared in some points with the present societies. I hope you remember it too Paola.
ResponderEliminarI do remember it Tiare, although I believe that it is a bit of a strong parallel with our current society, and actually inspired by the failure that was expected at the Soviet Union.
ResponderEliminarIn my point of view; I believe when we want to demand the rights that belong us by nature, the fight needs to be peaceful; like Fallon said, we do not have the right to restrict the freedom of the other people, we must be tolerant and we must to be responsible for our acts.
ResponderEliminar"Others say protest must be peaceful or not at all" Well, It might sound contradictory and even irrational, but I always thought that, if marches and student proposals were not related with vandalism acts or hunger strike, it would never have appeared on television or in the table of government, because deep down we know it´s one of the ways we have as effective pressure ..
ResponderEliminarAs Magda said, the student protests in Chile are a clear example of civil disobedience, which is the concrete result of a society that hasn’t been heard by their governors. But we are dealing right now with the consequences. And the consequences are huge.
ResponderEliminarIn my case, my little achievements are fading away and I keep stepping back. So far, I will still be in debt for a long time with the bank which paid my career for a year I didn't study.
Here in this blog we are talking about rights, order, ideals, movements, changes and the important matter needs to be resolved, but what happened with the group of people who wanted to continue with their lessons, projects, the ones that really need to keep studying?! DON’T THEY HAVE RIGHTS TOO?
I don’t want to sound pessimistic but being victorious is the only thing that is going to make me feel that everything is worth the effort.
I agree with Fallon, some people make vandalism in the name of freedom and justice but I think that this happens because we are misunderstanding freedom with libertarianism (go beyond lacking moral discipline)!
ResponderEliminarI think civil disobedience has limits based in moral principles, don't forget the description of Henry David Thoreau: "when CONSCIENCE and law do not coincide, individuals have the obligation to promote justice by disobeying the law".
Maybe if we don't misunderstand vandalism with “false freedom” then we wouldn't have cases here in Chile like rioters looting shops, or cars burning in the middle of the street!
As a response of Francisca Urra’s post , not always we can win or feel completely satisfied with the results of our demands; however, if we could advance at least a little bit more in our request, I think the effort will be worth.
ResponderEliminarI disagree with the civil desobedience. All people have to observe the law of their countries. Undoubtedly all people are free, but we have to respect to each other. Our rights are linking with our duties. Nowadays we can see violence between police and students who are prostesting, but who is right? the policeman who is protecting the citizens security or the students who are fighting for a better education
ResponderEliminarIn my opinion, this is unfortunately necessary to make things happen because very often we can not expect too much of politics who do not represent the population. The problem is that when people want to destroy a system that is obviously wrong, they have to know what other system they want to replace it and under what conditions.
ResponderEliminarFrancisca...I ask myself the same question. I think maybe we (human beings part of a society) need something else than just "being victorious" as you said, something else like not only ask for rights but also do our duties. Simple things like to register to vote and make democracy the way is supposed to be, or maybe keeping studying and learning while fighting corruption to improve education and this way we wouldn't be working against what we are asking for.
ResponderEliminarI don't know...it's a complex issue, sometimes I contradict myself.
I agree with you Francisca. Nowadays, people seem to think only in their rights, but where are their duties? I have always thought that, as Fallon previously said: "my freedom ends where the other's begins…" I think that being tolerant and respectful with feelings and ideas of others is also a general duty.
ResponderEliminarPersonally, my daughter is in kindergarten and its school had normal classes because they, as a general agreement, didn't want to join to the strike. However, students of other places took the school and they left many children without "the right" of study. Now, she has to go to other school (even further than the “real one”). Of that way she doesn't get out the academic year.
Unfortunately, our society still don't have the ability of respect all different positions, or at least, be tolerant, for this reason dialogs between government and students don't have positive results, because none of them want to give up in order to defend their ideals.
Este comentario ha sido eliminado por el autor.
ResponderEliminarI think as the Chilean society considered itself as a democratic one, every kind of protest or different ways of thinking should be accepted. In this way we can find people who stick by the rules and some others who obviously want to break them. Unfortunately, for those who believe in stronger approaches to make their opinions be heard, their ways of doing it are not accepted for most of the Chilean society, by this I don’t mean to say I don’t back them up or reject them, I’m just saying that the current society doesn’t.
ResponderEliminarI also think that there is an intrinsic conviction that things only will be achieved making our requests more radical, which is totally valid from a democratic point of view. However, there lies a big problem because our current Constitution has recourse to protect the civilian state and uses all the legal resources to make it well.
Personally, I think the Constitution is not up to the current society because when it was written there were others needs and the political and social atmosphere or circumstances were others too. Additionally, like many historians have said the Constitution should meet the requirements of the society and not the other way around like is the case of Chile.
Civil disobedience is the free expression of a repressed soul that needs a way to be exposed, just in order to make a change, try to moving mass and finaly find a sort of light on a blind world
ResponderEliminarFamily, school, work, etc. have taught us to obey even if we do not like it.
ResponderEliminarWe live in a democracy with laws chosen by a majority (by the way, very old-fashioned laws). Those who do not agree with it, must still submit to it and try to make it change by putting their votes in other hands.
The right to strike exists; the right to express ourselves through peaceful actions and spontaneous movements is a reality, nowadays. Thank to that right, we can speak without being punished.
Francisca, unfortunately, Chilean students who want continue studying normally have to cooperate in order to make a real change in our educational system. I know it is not fair for somebody who can’t pay the university in cash to "make sacrifices" for people that have debts, but I think this is a social problem and it is ethical or humane supporting our classmates in this "fight", walking on the streets or in strikes, even though not always be an effective way.
ResponderEliminarPamela...I agree with you but just in one of your points; obviously a democratic society contains diffrent points of view.However it doesn´t mean that everyone will be able to do whatever it wants, because we don´t have the right to restrict the citizens´freedom.
ResponderEliminarPamela,It is evident that the Constitution should be changed, because we live in a society with a lot of different demands, and clearly those requirements are not the same than a few years ago. People change and laws should evolve.
ResponderEliminarWhen we decide to break the law and offer resistance to the leaders, we have to accept the consequences of our actions, understanding that the Government is not going to accept that opposition in a simple way. In my opinion, civil disobedience is good, because it gives us the power to make our voice heard if something is wrong. However, we must be careful of using this faculty, because the attempt to promote justice could generate an unpleasant situation, full of violence and intolerance.
ResponderEliminarRelated to our problem as chilean students, I think that the civil disobedience is done or halfway.
ResponderEliminarFour months is a lot of time, but if we give up now, it four months will be a waste of time.
I agree with you Romina, we must follow rules in almost everything we do. Our democracy system is not working as we all wish and the only thing that we have is our right to freely express our opinions.
ResponderEliminarI agree whit Camila Alarcón, I belive that anything can work if we use the suitable behavior and take the correct decision.
ResponderEliminarSome would call it Civil Disobedience. I prefer calling it Standing up for your rights. Along history, it has been shown that big changes in society have been brought by joining up and raising voices. There's no need for violence, althought it may occur. Of course, there will always be someone who's being "affected". Regarding the Student Strikes, those who are affected are of course those who want to go to school normally. However, at the end of the day, when things come to an end, the benefits are for those who fought and for those who were afected altogether.
ResponderEliminarUnfortunately, in our country, any cause serves to the mob. Not only on student demonstrations we have seen vandals tarnish the movement, but also in many other events like drivers's protests, housing debtors, municipal workers, etc.. It is not a question of whether the protests are violent or not, because they are entirely peaceful, but hindered by resentful people who take advantage of any opportunity they see. On the other hand, People who protest peacefully, make it for a good cause,the same people who are being left behind by a country, working parents who have debts wishing a better education for their children, generally opportunities they never had. People who borrow money and take credits while banks earn 300%. People who can not ever come out of poverty. and people who fight for to be treated in a public hospital, among many others. Isn't it reasonable they want to change their situation??? It is understandable that other people do not sympathize with these movements, but they must remember that most go through the same difficulties.
ResponderEliminarYeah, Fabiola, I agree with you. Unfortunately, we, as students, have our backs to the wall. We have started a fight for high quality and free education and we can not back down. As you said above, four months is too much time, but it is better to continue than to give it up.
ResponderEliminarViviana, I think that we need a new Constitution now; like you said our requirements as a 21th century democratic society show that. I personally believe that it is worth to continue fighting for that huge change and for a better education.
ResponderEliminarFabiola, you’re obviously right, the only thing that I tried to say was that the ideal of a democratic society is that everyone has the legitimate right to express themselves as they deem best, I never wanted to say it was OK to restrict the legitimate rights of the others citizens.
Este comentario ha sido eliminado por el autor.
ResponderEliminarPersonally, I think that if we are fighting for a better education, we shouldn’t stop to study, maybe is a utopian idea, but I believe that it is a good way to demonstrate to authorities that we are not only fighting for our ideals, but also we are interested in our academic year. We could study a couple of hours, and the rest of the time we can invest it expressing our discontent, thus we make some noise.
ResponderEliminarI agree with you Romina Pino and I really want the situation change and I am quite sure that those people want it too. Unfortunately, in our country every single one of the public utilities doesn’t seem to be working properly, and the most affected are our children and the elderly. Our Public Health System, the Public Educational System and the Social Security System are clear examples of that. Or do you think it is right that a sick person have to wait hours and hours for medical care? Or that public school gets a bad education in terms of quality, thing absolutely opposite to the private schools? Or retirees who worked all their lives receive a retirement pension? To many Chileans none of this is fair and that’s why Chilean society is rising, because they are tired that their rights do not be respected and only those with money have the best services. That’s why I am proud that Chilean people lose the fear and decided to show their discontent.
ResponderEliminarMaybe you´re right viviana, I personally believe that we should have kept studing and at the same time.. we could have gone to the marches. However you have to keep in mind that we are part of a whole and if the comunity want to be without clases .. what can we do?
ResponderEliminarI think that in order to improve our lives, we should fight for what we think is our birth right, such as a high quality education or a good public health system. In those cases, we should do what we have to do, even if it means a general strike, as in our case,but we can't expect to change our country in two months,that's an utopia.
ResponderEliminarThat is right Fallon. As we are living in a Democratic country, it is suposed that we should respect all ideas, no matter what.Therefore, I think that the fact of some students want to study, also could be respect for those that support the strike. I have met many people that think of you as a traitor if you do not agree with all their ideas. In that moment I wonder where is the power of free will, if you cannot express your own ideas freely.
ResponderEliminarI agree with you Patty! However, I think all the advances of our humanity seem to be referred to breaking the law.
ResponderEliminarIf a group of people is elected and that upsets somebody, their only recourse is to vote against them in the next election or, in the mean time, go on strike.
I think here in Chile the statement "we must respect the rules otherwise everything crumbles" is totally old-fashoned, nowadays.
We are livng in a world where democracy and ree will are supposed to be legal, aren`t we? In order to that I believe that every human being in this earth has the choise to raise its voice and fight for its rights. It isnn`t appropriate that we must obey a rule that we are totally against it. Why should women, man, children, etc, be quite and obey what central governmet says or what politicians under a bi-nominal system decree. Please do not understand that I agree with violence, not in a chance!!! I am only saying that if you are in total disagreement with a rule or a policy you must raise your voice and figth for your personal opinion, and has the option to do that. Repression isn`t the way to control a population. This always under the belief of respect to others. Promoting and building a society where every citizen can debate and is heard by other citizens and central government is the world that I would like to be living in.
ResponderEliminarPatty: what you said is right; changing a reality in two months is a utopia, but students know that a change in our education is necessary. They know that they are probably fighting for their children, even their grandchildren, but if they don`t figth now, who will?
ResponderEliminarWell, according to what it was said, I think Government is obliged to represent the population´s thoughts and our rights. If something is not working, people are free to go on strike and let the entire country know that they are not happy with the situation. The role of the Government, then, is to listen to what it is being asked and try to improve the situation. To reach an agreement, it is necessary tolerance on behalf of us all.
ResponderEliminarCamila: you made a point; TOLERANCE that is what we need to be a better world. If people listen to eachother and reach some point of agreement everything would be easier. Our culture as chileans must change, otherwise we will be living in a constant war, where anybody could be ending hurt... Go TOLERANCE!!!!!!!!!
ResponderEliminarI totally agree with Valentina,sure we have to do our best,not only for our generation,but also for the future ones. I think my point was misunderstood, I meant that we can pretend to get a free education in a couple months, what, I think, we should do is starting to accept that am important decrease in our tariffs would mean a great achievement for now,at least.
ResponderEliminar(Sorry I used before Valentina's account someway)
ResponderEliminarI totally agree with Valentina,sure we have to do our best,not only for our generation,but also for the future ones. I think my point was misunderstood, I meant that we can pretend to get a free education in a couple months, what, I think, we should do is starting to accept that am important decrease in our tariffs would mean a great achievement for now,at least.
I agree with you, I think everybody has right to protest and expressing their dissatisfied against government and the current political system, but it always has to be with respect to other human being, as fallon and viviana said "my freedom ends where the other's begins" but some people cannot understand this and they mistake freedom for vandalism.
ResponderEliminarI understand that many students may be bored about this situation, because we have been on strike for about four months and there has not been a solution yet. At first I also felt in the same way, but then I realized that I was being selfish and individualist, I understood that there are thousand of students fighting for a right that belongs to them, fighting for what they believe is right. I agree with Valentina in the sense that we must be tolerant to build a better future with a better education, but I also agree with Patty. We can not pretend to get free education in a couple of months, but if the fight continues and if the movement does not give up, I think we can achieve good results.
ResponderEliminarI think that when someone wants to change society because of a visionary purpose it is always seen as a violent act at the beginning just due to the people who do not dare them to move and to the fear face up to changes. It appears as a revolutionary movement, but it is just a freedom expression.
ResponderEliminarAccording to the opinion of María José Mancilla, I agree with the idea that this "political disagreement" does not refer to change everything, but I believe it is focused to change those things opposed to freedom, because sometimes laws are against liberty for expressing legalism, strict expectations, traditionalisms, manipulations, demands, negativism, control, critics, meanness, among others ways that are typical of strict laws in most of the government systems. It is beyond marginal groups or social issues. It is peculiar of human being. Freedom; expressing our wills and being considered.
ResponderEliminarYes, I totally get the point of tiare,there is different kindof feelings involving this situation and one of them it's to be tired of the vandalism,that only harms our struggle.
ResponderEliminarOn the other hand, as Viviana said before, I also think that we could keep fighting for our rights of a better education, somehow, studying as usually. Actually, I would prefer to coming back and finish our fourth year. Although, If we want to prove how important is for us, as students who want a better future, to achieve our “dream” of the education for everyone, we should keep proving our point with protest and with dialogue and being, sometimes, more flexible with the proposals.
I totally agree with camila, the government has to listen to population and try to improve our country, and I think that it's time for the government to change its act and to worry about quality of life of all us.
ResponderEliminarI agree completely with Fallon when she said that we do not have the right to restrict the freedom of the other people, because as Magdalena wrote, we are misunderstanding freedom with libertarianism. In other aspect, when I read what Paula and Viviana said about the link between out rights and our duties, I agreed, too. For instance, we have the right to express our opinion but, in the other hand, we have the duty to respect the other’s and being tolerant. I coincide with Fabiola’s sentence: we don’t have the right to restrict citizens’ freedom. And, of course, Camila, we must be careful when we use that faculty, because the limit that separates our space to claim a right sometimes goes above exceeding to the other people’s thinking and rights.
ResponderEliminarI read some posts and I think that most of the time civil disobedience is the only way that
ResponderEliminarcitizens have as a way of expression against something that they think is unfair or unsatisfactory to the society. It’s true that we can choose those who govern but unfortunately the chosen ones don’t always come to agree with people, and the problems start when we aren't able to reach an agreement and to think about a common solution. Generally the conflict is caused when politicians are dominated by ambitions and want to manipulate people. At this point people begin to feel betrayed by those who represent them and lose their patience as the governor loses their way and stops to listen to people demands, leading them to think that laws exist just for a few. When losing their patience people begin to yell and protest and problems start. Sadly, violence always will be there because both parts think that the only way to make themselves heard is to subjugate the other and agreements only appear when the struggle loses their strength and both parts get tired and bored of the subject.
About that, Carolina, I think, because I don't have the necessary knowledge about the finances of our country, that maybe it is not possible get what we want in terms of money, but I am totally sure that, at least, we can attain a change.
ResponderEliminarSomething that has been on my mind all this time is the powerlessness of having a non-representative government. As Camila said, government is obliged to represent the population’s thoughts and our rights.
ResponderEliminarIt’s in that point that I understand what Thoreau wanted to express when he said: Civil disobedience is the deliberate disobeying of a law to advance a moral principle or change government policy. According to the dictionary Merriam Webster, “representative”is standing or acting for another especially through delegated authority. Having a non-representative president attempt on our principle of democracy in consistency, fullness and respect.
I don`t agree with you Francisca when you say: "violence always will be there because both parts think that the only way to make themselves heard is to subjugate the other". During the student movement have existed some isolated disturbances conducted by a few hooded men that are cowards and don`t show their faces, but clearly this situation does not represent the ideal of the students. I do believe in dialogue between people, and I refute violence in all of its ways.
ResponderEliminarExactly, that is why exist the universal suffrage,which according with the same source is ‘a vote given in deciding a controverted question or electing a person for an office or trust’ and, for this reason, people demand what is a birth righ,since is people who decide who may better represent us. That is why, not only students are dissatisfied withour government, and especially with the responses of our representatives.
ResponderEliminarRelated to the violence inside a civil disobedience topic, I think most of the time there will be violence inside a civil movement, and not necessarily is our fault or the policemen have to be guilty. There will always be a third minority group (who join the movement), representing another ideal and promoting violence as a way of negotiation.
ResponderEliminarI know Valentina, But I'm talking about the civil disobedience through the history, we must remember examples like French or Russian revolution against the monarchy and their decisions. Now, the new generations (as the student movement for example) understand that violence is not necessary; however, the politician, which is part of old generation with other philosophy, think different or they don't understand the real movement's intentions; They feel intimidate or they're afraid because they think that the young people wants a violence revolution and, this way, they react ofensively with politics, police, or military repressions, and this generate unecessary violece; and the raped group, looking for the way that they can protect theirselves, reacting with violence. I think that all this relation is a vicious circle.
ResponderEliminarIf we read the article 1 of Human Rights we find: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. It is a truth that we are born free and equal. Free to have an opinion or to express opposition (Art. 19: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.). However, “in a spirit of brotherhood” is also an important aspect. In the way to reach an aim, sometimes the pride can blind our conscience of understanding each other. When we consider a polemic topic, it is necessary to have empathy and patience. Obviously student demands are too important and it is a right to have education, but everything has its time. The government is supposed to be representative and students to be patient.
ResponderEliminarRelated to what has been said so far, I personally think divergence will always be with humankind, but how we answer to it does not have to be violent. There are a lot of examples of applying nonviolent civil disobedience in human history, an example is, as I said before, the nature of nonviolence described in Gandi’s demonstrations to make Britain abandon India. Nonviolence is a much better, moral and effective way of dealing with conflicts. Fortunately, nonviolence is becoming an issue nowadays. Non violent civil disobedience is the most powerful way to avoid aggression while fighting for some major aim, in this case, the unfair chilean educational system.
ResponderEliminarAccording whith what Carla said about the article 1 of Human Rights, I want to emphasize the part that establishes that we every human being is 'Free to have an opinion or to express opposition'
ResponderEliminarand 'this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers'. Therefore, the government as the representative of our voices, should not try to discredit our movement and ours own leaders, such as Ballesteros,so often. Moreover, students have suffered enough repression already, for the only reason that a group of criminals have prejudice our fair fight.
As Carla mentioned, maybe what students and the government really need is time to reach an agreement.
I like the quote 'Free to have an opinion or to express opposition'. For that purpose democracy requires responsible citizens and not disciplined individuals. Civil disobedience is the inalienable right of every citizen. It shows disapproval, this is not about to disobey for fun, to mock, ¡but to refuse the unbalanced chilean educational system!
ResponderEliminarI totally agree with Carla and Patty when they say that both Government and students need to get an agreement to put and end to this conflict, but now none of them want to give up to others opinions and that is the reason why is difficult the communication between them.
ResponderEliminarAs Valentina said, tolerance is what we need to have a better society and to get a solution to this major social problem that affects to everyone.
I personally think that we are fighting for big educational changes and big changes require time. I agree with Patty when she said that in two months it is impossible to achieve the free education that we all want, but I am sure that Chile has the economic resources to do it, but our authorities don’t want to make it happen.
Another issue is the unjustified violence of the students and the police. I want to emphasize that I do not accept violence as a way of manifesting our point of views or as a way to repression. I am in favor of non-violent protest and non-violence ways to enforce the law. Additionally, I think that everyone can enforce their rights while not harm others rights.
Another important point is that civil disobedience is not only matter of a group of people; there are so many cases in which only one person can make the difference, practicing a hunger strike or doing other activities in order to be heard by the government. It is a shame that most of those cases are going unnoticed.
ResponderEliminarEste comentario ha sido eliminado por el autor.
ResponderEliminarI think that there has always been a discontent between what citizens want and what the government grant in our country. This affects many fields like education, health, housing, public services, the salary people earn, the benefits every employee has, among others. In the last months, In Chile, the discontent has been reflected through massive and historic demonstrations, where even the police repression or the loss of scholarships are not an impediment to achieve their ideals. This civil disobedience will be worst everyday and the limit between what you can really ask for and the thing that the government is able to grant will be tighter and tighter; people will lose the notion about what the country can really grant through the economic resources.
ResponderEliminarI think Frida made a point, it is similar to what I was talking about before, and I quote Frida's comment: 'the limit between what you can really ask for and the thing that the government is able to grant will be tighter and tighter'. This is exactly the problem, we can assure that we, as a country, have the enough money to support a free education for,according with an study made for Sernam, 24.6% of the population of Chile in 2007. Therefore, I think we should be capable to understand both points of view.
ResponderEliminarI think we all want an agreement between the students and the government. We know that the situation is difficult. Sometimers there is not dialogue; a lot of violent people tarnish the cause of the student movement; as a students we feel attacked by people who think differently to us; nevertheless, time and fight will strengthen our convictions.
ResponderEliminarCivil Disobedience does not mean being violent or do what we want, It means respect our own principles and enforce them, being responsible for our actions.
I think that is the point Patty, we have to understand the both sides, because I am sure that education is not the only subject in which there are problems,also in health, transport, etc.
ResponderEliminarEste comentario ha sido eliminado por el autor.
ResponderEliminarReading about Government-students situation in previous post of Frida and Patty, I was thinking about Government position.I think that it is very difficult that they agreed with all the demands, because they probably think: “if we accept all the demands that students are asking for, then people from other sectors will come to us in pursuit of benefits for them too. That situation won’t be good for us, because we would have to invest a lot of money in things that were not budgeted”. That's mean, less incomes for politician world.
ResponderEliminarI think that Civil Disobedience is one of the many ways to protest against something and we normally use this way nowdays, according the different cases, forms and situation. for example if we are disappointed and angry with the new public transport, we can allow that the people do not pay the price in a way to strike, this is an example of NOT VIOLENCE to fight for something, because you should pay the price of the public transport, is a service and you are using that but if the service does not work we need to claim and that I say before is my way to do it.
ResponderEliminarbut this civil disobedience or violent disobedience depend on of the situation clearly too, this is a game. we need negotiate with other parts, and as they behave is as we respond, with a pacific way or violent way.
somebody talked about Gandhi, but for example Gandhi was a single man, he never got married, and the behavior of the men and women is different when have a family who must eat to survive and the government is stealing them. their reaction can not be pacific in anyway, the violence shakes the streets in this situation, and if you do not believe me look the situation on Europe, specifically in Greece now in the newspapers, or in the great society of France five year ago when they protested for the law of immigrants and the against racism, and recently six months ago in England too, the strikers burnt houses, buildings and vehicles and the police murdered somebody.
we have a different situation here in Chile, I hope we do not became so violent with ourselves.
It is like a game where everybody can win, can lose or like always only somebody win benefits (the government or people with the power) and the rest of people must shut up and obey the new rules. Do not allow this more, it is enough. We need be brave and claim our rights, it is like Patty says about Frida's comment
I think we have to be more realistic about our demands because require for free education means a big change and this kind of changes always takes a long time of negotiation so, I do believe that we can advance in our demands, however, the government would never give up, at least for the rest of this year.
ResponderEliminarViviana you are right, if the government accept and make an agreement with the students where the education is totally free, from the society will born many claiming for different issues like my example before, the public transport, in fact today on Alameda's street passed taxi-protesting for the raise of price of the fuels of this week in $35 Chilean pesos,I listened today that drivers will protest by the fuel's tax, but why we do with our education and this longest strike in Chile?,We will stop for this, and dont lose nothing or be brave and take risk; on the other hand I listened yesterday too that if we ask for a better supervision of the public and private resources, of the infrastructure and if the government ask them (private and state education) for transparency and economic reporting every month and a contract where they must ensure us our education and the quality of it.
ResponderEliminarthat change doesn't exist and must be fundamental and primordial reform to start talking about free and quality education.
I was reading all your post, there exist different opinions but we all agree in one important thing; the law is old-fashioned, because the modern life and the new generation has different needs as a result the people demand chachange now.
ResponderEliminarI think that Emmerson has a point, the problem is not the people, is the government, they don´t want to give up, becouse it is to show flippancy and a weak government.
ResponderEliminarI know that a father must to give to their children what they need and no necessarily what they want, in this case the father has to distinguish between the need and the desire. If we interpret those words,maybe the government should give as what we need and not what we want as a good father. However the government get confused and don´t know what is a need and what is a desire of the people.
Emmerson about "free education means a big change and this kind of changes always require a long time of negotiation";this is right but my suggestions in my before text are realistic and concrete, in fact in the congress exist a law proyect about "supervision of public and private resources" which didn't take and was held by the Senators, the reasons are clear I think, many of this lawmaker and senators have economic contribution on private institutes and particular schools, and this is unfavor for themselves obviously.
ResponderEliminarAnd Fabiola comments is true too, they think about old things, and make one thousand of meeting without make an agreement together, also they don't work everyday that they have to go, and only they go to spending time, spending breathe, and chear in the congress
I think what Pamela said is absolutely right, to find a solution for this conflict is necessary that government and students give up in their opinions.
ResponderEliminarOn the other hand, I think government and politician in general don’t care what population want, they only think about what is better for them and to have a good career in politics.
Yes, it seems that politicians only care about their interests. However, sometimes we must believe, especially now that the CONFECH decided to dialogue with the government. I hope things will change (one day) from now on.
ResponderEliminarEste comentario ha sido eliminado por el autor.
ResponderEliminarI think Pamela and Carolina are completely right, someone must to give up, it is better if both give up (student and government) because it shows a mutual agreement and a vote of confidence, that in my opinion is very necesary to establish a good dialogue.
ResponderEliminarRomina, I know that we want the same, and the dialogue is the first step, but I feel that we have to wait a long time to find a result.
ResponderEliminarI have the feeling that people often forget that we are the ones who elect our leaders. I have read a lot on non-representative leaders and governments, but I do not see a new political movement raising from these same people who complains so much about it. There are no new suitors to public charges among these people, therefore no posible candidates who can truly represent this new kind of citizen, so strict and severe to judge, but also so eager to keep out of troubles. I believe this is a goal to Civil Disobedience, to generate a new political class that represents the population, and truly, all we get are new flesh of old parties.
ResponderEliminarOf course we can't change the whole education system in few months, that's utopia like someone said. Social changes are gradual so I think that “martyrs” aren’t a good way to do pressure (I’m talking about cases as hunger strikes) I mean, I appreciate that some people are willing to attempt to their own lives just to promote changes in society, but we have to be realistic at some point...Changes are gradual!
ResponderEliminarPaola, I think a little like you. We have a lot of non-representative leaders and government, but I have the feeling that we, as society still being conservative, because in general we cannot accept extreme right or left governments (right now we can confirm that fact is true)although, one of them has good ideas about how to change our legislation.
ResponderEliminarEste comentario ha sido eliminado por el autor.
ResponderEliminarAt the beginning of this topic were mentioned examples of Civil Disobedience. One of them was the civil rights movement which was led by Martin Luther King. I know thta the causes are completely different if we compare it with the movement that take place in our country; However, I would like to mention a phrase from Martin: "almost always, the creative dedicated minority has made the world better".
ResponderEliminarWe all know, as Emmerson said, that free education is impossible in a few months. Besides, We also know that there is now a government that does not represent the citizens.
Despite the bad things, I want to emphasize the dedication, creativity and commitment of this movement. After all, Civil Disobedience also has to do with the commitment we have for a cause and the creativity to make a non-violent struggle.
Bryan you are absolutely right, all Chilean Senators and Representatives are involved in the Educational System and obviously they are not interested in changing the current educational laws. Additionally, Paola you made a point, most of the time citizens forget that is due to us that those politicians get these public offices and vote for them even though do not feel fully represented for them. Unfortunately to us none of this new political class, like Camila Vallejo, represents the needs of Chilean citizens, they are just thinking about themselves and the benefits they would win as student movement leaders and they are not very different from our current parliamentary.
ResponderEliminarI agree with you Pamela. Personally I think the student movement's representatives are looking for their own benefit. They do not represent the thinking of the majority. In my case, I do not feel represented of any of them.
ResponderEliminarYou are right, girls. It is so sad to feel that we are not represented for those who are supposed to be the voice of the Chilean students. However, what can we do? Sometimes I think this situation will become worse, but we just have to wait for a deal between the authorities and the students.
ResponderEliminarPaola: and I also think that people forget how important is to be well informed at the time of choosing our representatives. I would dare say that an important number of people are so naive that to me it's as if some people choose their representatives according to the popularity of their election propaganda and gifts more than politic proposals and points of view!
ResponderEliminarWe need to be well informed! that's the first step to improve social problems and to be able to work against injustice.
I missed a few hours from here, but I see that several ideas have emerged. Many of them are ideas that I understand and share. Connecting with the latest things that have been said, I think the way of governing and legislating our country there are too many gaps, which are used poorly by people like senators, congressmen .. among others. Also I stressed what some of you have commented before about information, I think we´re responsible for our actions and in some way, our voluntary ignorance.It´s so easy to claim victim but what do we do to change things?
ResponderEliminaror in Thoreau´s words "individuals should not permit governments to overrule or atrophy their consciences, and that they have a duty to avoid allowing such acquiescence to enable the government to make them the agents of injustice". His motivations were many, but his most relevant ideas became known because of his knowledge and because he´d a firm conviction of his ideals.
ResponderEliminarEste comentario ha sido eliminado por el autor.
ResponderEliminarAs Fallon, I also missed a few hours, but after reading most of your comments I have to say that I agree with Magdalena and Paola about being well informed about our cause. Perhaps, many people does not know about what candidates or representatives have to offer, but they are deceived by a good advertising campaign. Now,we know that our representatives in Confech are trying to be our voices the best they can, but sometimes their points of view are not exactly as we think it should be.
ResponderEliminarI agree and I share your opinions, I am registered in electoral register, but it´s difficult for me vote for someone who represent my ideals, it is the same case of student leaders, as someone said before, they are just thinking about their careers and their own benefits.
ResponderEliminarEste comentario ha sido eliminado por el autor.
ResponderEliminarFallon just said something important. We have to point out the fact that there're some gaps in our legislation just because the people from our country are not willing to change that. They prefer to stay at home and see how a few people control everything. So, if congressman or senators tend to take advantages of that "gaps" is only because we allow them to do those things. Concerning to what Patty said some comments below, it is sometimes difficult to have the same point of view since Confech is representing a large number of people (thousand of students) so, they have to focus on the things everyone have in common, not in the ones that are thought in different ways.
ResponderEliminarThat is exactly my point Emmerson, Confech as confederation represents a large number of people and they pretend to do it,according to what most of students want. It is similar to government's role,but the most significant difference is that the government are more concern about finances and, even if they assure that a high quality education ir their priority and, also, it is really important to give opportunities to those who are not able,in terms of money,to study higer education. There is a huge distance between what they declare and what they do.
ResponderEliminarFallon's and Emmerson's comments talk about a custom very followed in our people, we always allow that politicians, lawmakers, and rich people make decision for ourselves, and they always choose for their benefits, this is the Chilean's custom, others make decision by ourselves.
ResponderEliminarFor example something that we can take from Argentinian is when they have problems or are dissatisfactions for anything, all the country, in its totality it stops, I remember one time when in Argentina the price of the meat rise was too much, all the country, everybody didn't go to buy meat for two weeks, and if we think that Argentinians eat meat three or four time at least in one week, imagine the happiness of the butcher's shops, of the butchers and of the distributors, the loss that they had, the fall was immediate, and nevermore there has been an abuse at least in the price of the meat, but here in Chile on the other hand rise the bread and nobody said anything, then go down the price of the flour, and the bread was kept in the same price, almost as thousand pesos, but nobody was claiming, in fact themselves that produce the flour started protesting because even they were buying the too expensive bread. the time have come, it is time to make our decision and left our television, computers and have a real life, and make solutions for this problems where we will be part of the solution and not be part of the problem.
we must take our position in this system and make a better system for us, for our children and our family.
I think what Bryan says is not that easy to apply here in Chile. As most of us know, nowadays students are protesting for better conditions in terms of education. They've been making lots of things to change the way people see education (as a bussiness) for months but still there're no changes at all. So, we have to separate things that can be changed almost immediately from the ones which take time to modify
ResponderEliminarI agree with Brayan’s post, but I think our country have different kind of problems. Education is more important than meet. The chilean student movement are fighting for serious problems in education as profit, quality and accessibility.
ResponderEliminar