Civil Disobedience: The case of the Indignados





Robin Drelangue & 
Jaime Gimenez Sanchez de la Blanca


06/01/2012

"My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain
in civil rights without determined legal and non violent pressure.
History is the long and tragic story of the fact that privileged
groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily",
Martin Luther King, «Letter from Birmingham Jail»


Introduction

Soon after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, Francis Fukuyama stated that history
had come to an end (Fukyama 1992). Two decades later we attend to a global
financial crisis which has shaken the very foundations of both the economic and
political system. The river of history keeps flowing and mankind has to adapt to its
new waters. Over the last year we have seen people all over the world rising up to
claim for their rights. In some places they even asked for rights that they never had
before. No matter if bloody dictators stood in their way. In other latitudes, where
people have enjoyed freedom and advanced political rights for a long time, weary
citizens have shown their indignation at the concentration of wealth into fewer and
fewer hands (OECD 2011) and their disaffection with the political management of the
economic crisis.

This new stage in history requires new responses from the people to achieve social,
political or economic improvements. The remarkable progress of Information
Technology (IT) represents one of the most significant changes. IT has transformed
human behavior. The internet allows instant and horizontal communication.
Therefore, it has become an essential tool for activists all over the world. Social
network sites have played a significant role in events such as Arab revolutions or the
Occupy movement. Internet emerges as an alternative to more traditional mass
media (television, newspaper, radio) that may be more vulnerable to changes in the
maneuvers of intervention (political or economic actors).

But the most important challenge for the new protesting movements is Globalization.
The blurring of national boundaries makes identifying the target a more complicated
task. Nowadays, protesters do not have a clear target at which to direct their
demands. Decision making power has spread beyond the traditional centers. A lot of
different actors participate in the decision making process. This significantly hinders
the success of the protesters in reaching their goals. Therefore, new ways of
protesting must be developed.

In this paper, we will analyze a new social movement which wants to change the
rules from top to bottom. Focusing on the Spanish Indignados, we will try to find out if
this movement is committed, engaged in civil disobedience actions.

Defining Indignados
  
"To see this, we must look, look. I tell young people:
looking for a little, you will find. The worst attitude is
indifference, saying "I cannot help it, I get along."
By including this, you lose a key component that makes the human.
One of the essential components: the power of indignation
and engagement which is the consequence."
Stéphane Hessel, «Indignez-vous !»

Some time now after the eviction of the “Occupy Wall Street” movement of Zuccoti
Park by the NYPD forces, we must face the evidence of the mutation of Civil
Disobedience. As a related event, we have chosen to observe the most significant
movement in Europe in the past year, the Spanish Indignados because of its direct
implication, either in terms of action or in terms of claimsiv. Also, as one of us has
been directly involved in the events that took place in Madrid’s most emblematic
square. Furthermore, his direct participation in the movement had also consisted in
blogging and micro-journalizing this event. The meeting of the two redactors of this
paper took place in different circles of reflexion about activism in Copenhagenv and a
reflexion about civil disobedience, especially due to a course in Copenhagen
University. With a view of an objective work, the idea of being two on this work is
clearly functioning with a will to mix both an inside and outside point of view about
Indignados.

The Indignados movement began the 15th May 2011, seven days before Spanish
local elections, with a demonstration in Madrid. Around 20,000 people went to the
“Puerta del Sol” to express their dissatisfaction with the Spanish government
management of the economic crisis. The demonstration also tended to claim the
disaffection of people to the sphere of professional politics, due to several cases of
corruptionvi, the disapprobation of the Spanish electoral law, which benefits the two
main parties (the conservative Partido Popular and the social democrat Partido
Socialista Obrero Español) and makes the real representation of the smaller parties
quite difficult (Márquez and Ramírez, 1998). Adding that, a really high rate of
unemployment -especially among the youth- motivated a massive affluence to the
“Puerta del Sol” square.

Following the end of the demonstration a few dozen people camped in the square.
During the second night of camping they were removed by the police. Protestors
chose to use non-violent resistance. Police had no choice but using force to clear the
place. Pictures captured by amateur cameras spread quickly across the internet. The
tough intervention carried out by the law enforcement officials increased the outrage
of those who had been in the demonstration two days before. So during the next
days thousands of people went to “Puerta del Sol” to protest both against the police
action and the political management of the crisis. They set up a new camp in the very
same square, but this time with several hundred members. The camps also
expanded all over the country. Every important Spanish city had its own camp.
Beyond being mere sleeping places, these camps were meeting points for restless
minds and people concerned about politics. For days on a bunch of different ideas
stormed the squares. Madrid’s camp was the most numerous. Tens of thousands
slept in the capital’s central square for some nights.

One of the greatest shows of strength of the movement took place in the Spanish
capital city the day before to local elections (21st May). Political demonstrations were
banned that day due to peculiarities of electoral law. The so called “day of reflection”
should be respected to keep the streets free of electoral propaganda on the eve of
every ballot. Despite this prohibition (ratified by the supreme court during that
weekix), Indignados packed the Puerta del Sol square, committing a massive illegal
act. This lack of fear to break the law, as well as their rejection of violence and the
public and political character of their actions, is one of the reasons by which we have
come to ask ourselves if Indignados are in an act of civil disobedience.

People involved in the camps organized themselves dividing the tasks. Different
groups were formed to optimize the work. “Communication”, “Action”, “Cleaning” and
“Infrastructure” were the names of some of these groups. There were also thinking
groups focused on various/different topics (politics, economics, environment,
feminism, etc.). To coordinate all the tasks, a general assembly was held weekly.

Decisions were reached by direct unanimous democracy. This assembly was open to
everyone who wanted to participate. Sleeping in the camp was not a requirement to
take part in the decision-making of the newborn movement.

The Puerta del Sol camp lasted until 12th June. After almost one month, protestors
decided in assembly to leave the square. However, the Indignados movement did not
die on that date. From then on weekly “popular assemblies” were convoked in every
district of Madrid. They still continue today.

The Indignados movement, also known as “15-M” because of its date of birth,
achieved huge support among Spanish society. Some polls found around 80 per
cent of respondents agreeing with the demands of the protesters.

Their goals have never been clear at all. The extraordinary diversity of points of
view made the definition of their demands difficult. Also, the method of unanimous
democracy caused slow advancement in the decision-making process of the movement.
However, they have been able to elaborate some proposals.

Indignados are still alive in Spain. During the campaign for the general election of
20th November 2011, they decided not to support any political partyxii. In their
manifesto they define themselves as “individuals” who “do not represent any political
party” and who have joined “freely” to create “a new society that puts lives above
political and economic interests”. They state as well that they “will continue fighting…
peacefully.”

Nowadays, all the camps in Spain have come to an end. But 15-M actions keep
going. Chiefly, they have created an anti-eviction movement. They try to stop the
evictions of families who cannot pay their mortgages. As one of their principles, they
always renounce to use violence. They just sit in front of the door of the house which
is going to be evicted. Sometimes police remove them by force and the eviction can
be carried out. Some other times Indignados manage to create enough social
pressure to stop the eviction. They also illegally occupy uninhabited buildings to
rehouse evicted families.

2011 Spanish protesters received the name of “Indignados” due to the tiny book
Indignez-vous, written by Stéphane Hessel a short time before the beginning of the
movement. They have revolutionized Spanish political life. Political parties, trade
unions and mass media pay close attention to their actions. Indignados have
introduced in Spanish public debate some topics once taboos such as the
shortcomings of political system, corruption inside the administration or the unequal
distribution of wealth.

Now that we have the comprehensive framework for understanding our subject of
study, we will analyze its theoretical components to try to find out the answer the
question of this essay, : Can the case of Indignados be defined as actions of Civil
Disobedience?


I. Indignados, fitting classical theories of Civil Disobedience

Nonviolence, integration in public sphere, illegality, the Indignados seems to fulfil all
the requirements for being a movement of civil disobedience according to the
definition of Simmons.

1. Non violence, a questioning

As a main feature of the 15-M movement, the non-violence clearly inscribed those
actions in civil disobedience tradition. But why is it crucial? We are about to do a
sum-up of the violence question around civil disobedience theories. Did the
Indignados fall within the context of a proper civil disobedience with that nonviolence?
Were their actions really non-violent? Before discussing, let us remind
ourselves the definition of violence according to Brian Smart (Smart in Bedau 1991:
203) “Violence is a considerable or destroying use of force against persons or their
property, a use of force which violates their human rights.

a. Facing the traditionnal non-­‐violence and its theorization
The ideal of civil disobedience must contain a non-violent feature. Refused by
Gandhi or King, the violence symbolizes the repression force the disobedient rise
against and contains also a repulsive nature when the job is to convince the
population. Linked to Bedau reflexion, “all that can be required is that the protester be
sincerely committed to some moral principle whose importance in his eyes overrides
the claim on him made by law”. (Bedau 1991: 9) This non-violence is the reflection of
a kind of purity of moral principles. According to Rawls, this non-violence makes the
civil disobedience a noncoercive material. This nonviolent aspect “gives bond of
one’s sincerity, for it is not easy to convince another that’s one’s act are
conscientious, or even to be sure of this before oneself”. (Rawls in Bedau, 1991: 107)
Martin Luther King, Jr, in his Letter from Birmingham City Jail, divides the non-violent
campaign in four basic steps (King in Bedau, 1991: 69):

- Collection of facts to determine whether injustice are alive
- Negotiation
- Self-Purification
- Direct action

Note, however that, according to Storing in The case against civil disobedience, that
a distinction must be done between nonviolent resistance and civil disobedience.
The first does not always involve the second. Indeed, this resistance could be legal,
even if in most cases, it concerns disobedience to a law. (Storing in Bedau, 1991:
86).

The non-violence is the perfect tool for convincing the population. In fact, the
demonstrator “turns his enemy into a friend,” integrating itself into an absurd
situation, ones of beating a lover and representing itself as a monster. (Storing in
Bedau, 1991: 88). If violence appears in the debate, it comes generally from the
police forces, forced to move and dissipate the protestors. This use of violence, in
our mediatised society can sometimes be terrible in term of soft-power. The example
of the “Pepper-Spray cop” during the Occupy Wall Street movement is particularly
evocating.

The classic use of sit-in by the Indignados, according to an old civil disobedience
practice (during the Indian Independence movement, or the Civil Rights movement)
is a non-violent form, harming no one, just occupying a public space (here, the
Puerta del Sol square in Madrid or Placa Catalunya in Barcelona for example).
Rawls defines the non-violence as crucial in his theory of justice, the civil
disobedience, as non violent “is not itself a threat”. (Rawls 1971: 366). However, we
must precise that Rawls, strangely, exclude the damage to property in his own
defintion of violence.

The classical critic about the possibility of increasing violence after action of noncooperation
(like in Gandhian civil disobedience), had been rendered moot by King in
his Birmingham City Jail Letter. For him, the civil disobedience only “bring to the
surface the hidden tension that is already alive” (King in Bedau 1991: 76). Protected
by unjust laws, those tensions are generally spread out decades or centuries before
the irruption of civil disobedience about those laws.

Using a sketch and comparing Rawls, Honderich and Morreal, Smart put on the idea
of a civil disobedience that may involve sometimes coercion of force, sometimes not
any kind of threat, a multiple of non-violence in civil disobedience. The force, used as
a last resort for extreme is also defended by King who said that he can’t blame
morally exhausted manifestants from using violence, which idea will lead us to our
division of this part of work about violence.

b. A critic of non violence (Morreall and other Works)
Authors like Morreall have been trying to give another tone to the civil disobedience
way of protesting. The justifiability of violence in civil disobedience had also been
discussed in political theory.

He refuses first the definition of Rawls, excluding property damage, and discredits
violence as only physical (Morreall in Bedau, 1991 132). For him, the violence is
intrinsically linked to the notion of prima facie, the innate and inalienable right, a right
to dispose of one body but also of freedom of choice, reasoning, way of life… The
definition of violence is linked to the idea that it “get at a person” (Morreall in Bedau
1991: 133). Lastly, Morreall appeals to the concept of gradation and degrees in acts
of violence, from a pinch to a painful punch.

According to the author, the violence don’t justification because its definition is
arbitrary. He considers that putting out physical violence seems to be nothing,
considering the fact that the possible psychological violence is way more harmful,
long term talking. Refusing violence by violating the prima facie rights such as
freedom of moving (in the case of the Indignados, the occupation and the
perturbation of the urban traffic by blocking main streets, camping), clearly face a
paradox with the orthodox definition of civil disobedience, famous for its (now
relative) nonviolence. The nonviolence tactic using blocking of roads is, according to
Morreall, more a military strategy than a moral theory. (Morreall in Bedau 1991: 135).
Those well-prepared tactics had been and still are a problem for the police,
representants of the law (so considered as “evil” by the civil disobedients) and not of
the men. Those police operation are even more violent and troubling for the society
as J.L. LeGrande said, “unwittingly, by reacting in a traditional manner, the police
contribute more to the problem than to its solution. Although acts of non-violent civil
disobedience may appear to be spontaneous or poorly organized, quite often they
have been developed with the same care and skill a military general utilizes in
planning and executing a major manoeuvre.” (LeGrande 1967: 404)

Respecting prima facie of all makes impossible any kind of civil disobedience. If you
consider the violence as coercion and you condemn it, it is the same with civil
disobedience. The violence is so on obligatory to make civil disobedience. You have
to shake people, and to disturb in order to reveal the immorality of the law you are
discussing. If this violence is clearly justified, it will not only appear as an end but
more as a mean. “If I have the only well in my town that has not gone dry, and my
neighbours will die if they don’t get drinking water, my right to exclusive use of that
well has been supersede by their need of my water to stay alive” (Morreall in Bedau,
1991: 138). The use of force for moral responsibility is so justified in these terms.
The civil disobedience is peaceful because it has the goal to solve moral injustice
and tend to equilibrium of justice in society, but it isn’t non-violent because it has to
use psychological, property or sometimes-physical violence to achieve its goal.

The violence can also appear as self-defence, legitimated since a long time in society
such as occidental ones. But, according to classical definition of civil disobedience,
the acceptance of the punishment will not tolerates any self-defence. We’ll discuss
that in part II.

The clear organization of the civil disobedience act and the clearness of its goals
which will serve the entire community must be held by well set-out act of violence,
organize, appearing to be justified in the public sphere. The Indignados sit-in and
social blocus of the Puerta del Sol was accepted because of their good organization
of social violence: they were justified by an impossible situation, made of
unemployment, youth and global crisis.

2. Public sphere and New technology

"An idea of the public sphere as a network of forums within which citizens engage in 
deliberation about issues of common concern. Civil disobedience is defended as a mechanism 
for publicising issues that, because of the stifling effects of prevailing orthodoxies,
receive insufficient attention in the public sphere." William Smith

a. General assembly and goals

«Democracy belongs to the people (demos = people, krátos = government) which means that
government is made of every one of us. However, in Spain most of the political class does not even
listen to us. Politicians should be bringing our voice to the institutions, facilitating the political
participation of citizens through direct channels that provide the greatest benefit to the wider society,
not to get rich and prosper at our expense, attending only to the dictatorship of major economic
powers and holding them in power through a bipartidism headed by the immovable acronym PP &
PSOE.» Indignados Manifesto

The Indignados movement had been carried out by a main feature, the general
assembly. What is a general assembly? Is it related to civil disobedience theories?
During a social mobilization, either in infrastructure or in a group of individuals
associated in a joint action, a general assembly has a participation in the ballot for all
for each decision. That the Indignados have called "one person = one vote". Such
assemblies have enabled the development of many and varied commissions, both for
cleaning and organization of the camp, and for public announcements and writing of
clear and consistent manifesto, leaflet or pamphlet linked to the claims of the civil
disobedience activists, in order to decide a line of communication. Once these
commissions are established, they propose actions that the general meeting vote or
not. On small-scale organization of the general assembly operation is a reflection of
the will to change the approach to democracy in Spain. So it's not a challenge to
democracy but more of the means of accessing it. Such meeting incorporates some
of the codes and uses now well known in the operation of democracies such as the
translation into sign language.

Inscribed in the logic of a "real democracia", the general assembly encourages a
counting of votes in the manner of an ongoing negotiation between the different
opinions. Each proposal is voted yes or no, and everyone becomes part of decision
making.

All along the movement of "Indignados," the idea of highly participatory and
deliberative democracy without election of representatives (but only for bearing
designer spokespersons), paid off even though it already showed small-scale such
obstacles as the creation of group of pressure enabling the implementation of veto
and checks and balances. Each person is equal to one vote, so it was crucial to take
decisions unanimously voted and / or to such special arrangements for when several
parties were unable to agree (as when closing the camp on June 9 ).

The general assembly is entirely devoted to the concept of deliberative democracy.
Habermas and Cohen agree to say that the deliberative democracy is concerning the
people who need to give reason to each other. Habermas is making a scheme of
norms in deliberative democracy:

- Procedural norms where everyone are allowed to speak.
- Substantial norms, which are the results of the procedures.
- The impossibility to reject the norms. In order to discuss the norms you have to
accept at least some of them.

As William Smith taught, all citizens must be allowed to participate in processes of
public deliberation and have some kind of voting rights within the democratic
community, in the deliberative system. Also, focusing on (public) deliberation, the
democratic process is invested with stronger normative connotations than would be
the case if it were conceived as a process of mere bargaining or preference
aggregation. And last, the debate must be imperatively informed, thanks to a
widespread and critic public. Due to that, the assembly can benefit criticized and
widely approved information and ideas to discuss. (Smith, 2004: 356-362). By
including a large public, the deliberative democracy makes itself legitimate and so on,
powerful. As an example of this inclusion, the Indignados had been practicing, asking
the neighbors of the Puerta del Sol meeting them in vote and public assemblies.

b.Democracia 4.0
Through the movement of Indignados in Spain and more generally through the
social movements that took place worldwide in 2011 (Arab Spring, Occupy Wall
Street), there is a clear trend in the occupation of what may be called the new
media, i.e. Internet and innovative forms of communication (going beyond
the tract, the traditional peaceful march or sit-in). Can we call this new form of
activism "cyber-activism"?

According to the work of Karatzogianni grouping numerous researchers, we can
first look to the concept of cyber activism. Thus, the Internet and the global
network are closely related to new practices of militancy. Through social networks
such as Twitter or Facebook, Web is a political tool that facilitates new political
relationships relevant to global security, according to Dartnell. (Dartnell 2009:
61). These practices are based mostly on a facilitation of logistics permitted by the
immediacy of the exchange of messages and information to the simultaneity in the
actions and also a much greater influence in terms of communication.

The notion of Democracia 4.0 refers to a text written during the movement of 15-M,
itself based on an intervention by Seville attorney, Juan Moreno Yague (requiring a
postal vote), which refers to a possible direct intervention in Congress by
citizens voting through the Internet. Thus, counting 100,000 votes would
allow a direct vote of the people, in order to "decide, anytime we want, our future."xviii
In terms of communication, the Internet is used for indignant through social
networking platforms such as Skype (for video conferencing with other cities). Free of
charge of these services easily accessible thus makes it possible the communication
between large groups of demonstrators. The visibility that emerges is then huge.
Similarly the dissemination of footage have allowed almost daily on the mass media
that is YouTube, the world of sharing the moments of the protesters and also to hear
more clearly the claims.

This ability to disseminate a wide finally shakes the sphere so-called "public" and
the concept of public life. Indeed, most of the time, the national television or the
mainstream press regulates information from the public sphere. Therefore, the use of
a media "free" messes such as the Internet hierarchy of information and provides
other sources. We are witnessing then a phenomenon of micro-journalism where
everyone has the opportunity to spread its images, reports and its feelings almost
instantaneiously, knowing that it will be read and shared by a lot of people. Also, we
see flourishing short messages on Twitter or Facebook. It's more a media broadcast
than a media action. One broadcasts the action in the movement of "Indignados"
more than action is taken online. Thus it is difficult to speak of hacktivism (see box
below), but of communication activism.

Despite this, the aim of making public civil disobedience is in turn reached and that
even though not only in a simply national or regional level but on a global scale.
Thus, one can easily see that the action of civil disobedience that occurred in Spain
in the summer of 2011 had a major impact on civil actions occurred first in New York
and in numerous cities of the United States during the movement "Occupy Wall
Street." Despite the various claims, we can easily establish bonds of brotherhood
between these two actions as it can be read in the article by Ishan Tharoor, on Times
Magazine online blog, October 5, 2011. Also, according to the sampling of the
population, there has been support for "Indignados" up to 80% from the entire
Spanish population as it is mentioned in the article by Aron Lamm for The Epoch
Times, October 24, 2011.

Nevertheless, this conception of activism through the Internet seems to have some
high-level of shortcomings. With hollow debates on forums where anonymity makes
complicated the real involvement of the individual, virtual and non-implementation of
actions promised online and versatility and problem of representation of activists
However, during movement of the 15M, the Internet has not been used for the
purpose of hacktivism. This concept is defined by Graham Meikle as a transfer of
shares in the civil disobedience from a real environment in an electronic environment
more virtual, but equally important (Karatzogianni 2009: 185). Hacking is the disruption
or destruction of properties and flow of information on the internet. Drawn into political
demands and / or legal, it becomes a power of action for the protesters. Thus, one can
also speak of "virtual sit-ins" as it is mentioned in Meikles article. The existence of
virtual sit-ins permits disrupting access to a website (by using flooding and overflowing
the server). According to Castells it’s “ the capacity by social actors to challenge and
eventually change the power relations institutionalized in society”.

Nevertheless, this conception of activism through the Internet seems to have some
high-level of shortcomings. With hollow debates on forums where anonymity makes
complicated the real involvement of the individual, virtual and non-implementation of
actions promised online and versatility and problem of representation of activists
(with a risk of under-representation) during real actions, the practice of cyber activism
can sometimes reveal actions which attaches the reality are no firmly anchored. Also,
with its global nature, is there any risk of discharge of civil disobedience? Supposed
to focus on changing parts of society, we see a preference for movements entering
into a more revolutionary logic. That's what we will try to observe in our second part

II. Beyond Civil Disobedience. Indignados and revolutionary acts

“Nevertheless, so long as we recognize our responsibility
for our actions, and acknowledge the power of reason within us,
we must acknowledge as well the continuing obligation
to make ourselves the authors of such commands as we may obey"
Robert Paul Wolff, «In Defense of Anarchism»



In the initial question of this essay we asked ourselves if the subject of our analysis,
the Indignados movement, is involved or not in civil disobedience acts. It is clear that
15-M consists of a group of Spanish people protesting against the current state of
affairs. They were outraged and they wanted to show it publicly. Now, we want to find
out if their way of carrying out their protest fits in the civil disobedience concept. We
have already analyzed some aspects that suggest a positive answer to our
hypothesis. Nevertheless, we also want to study some other points of the Indignados
that might call into question the civil disobedience of their acts. Therefore we have
chosen to analyze two particular aspects: the goals and the acceptance of
punishment.

1. Goals: Changing law or changing the system?

Most definitions specify that civil disobedience must aim at changing a concrete
law or policy. Therefore, if someone carries out a “public, non-violent,
conscientious yet political act contrary to law” (Rawls in Bedau 1991: 104) with
the goal of changing the whole system instead of a mere law or policy, this would
not be civil disobedience but a revolutionary act.

Civil disobedience appeals to higher principles like Justice, Freedom or Equality,
perceived as superior to regular laws. These principles are usually embodied in
liberal democratic constitutions. In this kind of political systems (“nearly just
constitutional regimes” (Rawls in Bedau 1991: 104), as John Rawls would say),
some citizens might think that certain laws approved in the parliament or
particular policies implemented by the government are incompatible with the
higher values which inspire the constitutional text. Then, they could decide to
protest against this “unjust” law/policy through open illegal actions in order to
show the problem to the public opinion and, thus, force the government to repeal
it. Usually, those employing civil disobedience have tried before to use other
sorts of actions within the legal framework. The inefficiency of these lawful
actions would push the activists to go beyond legality and use civil disobedience.

Breaking law is only a tactic. Civil disobedience has a deep respect for
democratic principles. Martin Luther King Jr., one of the best known defenders of
civil disobedience, distinguished between just and unjust laws. Unjust laws are
those which are in disharmony with moral rules (his conception of morality is
quite religious, so for him morality and God’s law are almost synonymous). For
him, the proper reaction to an unjust law is disobedience. King states that the
one who conscientiously breaks an unjust law and voluntarily accepts the
punishment is in fact the person most respectful with the law. (King in Bedau
1991) Herbert S. Storing, in his critic to King would add that “civil disobedience is
to be distinguished from testing the constitutionality of the law” (Storing in Bedau
1991: 87). Besides, Hanna Arendt would say that civil disobedience is compatible
with the spirit of the law (Arendt 1972).

So, as we have seen, civil disobedience is far from being an attempt to
permanently break the rule of law. Although it can be considered a challenge to
legality, it is a mechanism used by society to improve the legal order and to
adequate it better to the citizen preferences; or, in Habermas words, it is an
attempt to bring closer legality to legitimacy (Habermas 1985). Also, civil
disobedience is an instrument for the minorities to ensure their rights that could
be damaged by the majorities. Despite the majority rule being one of the pillars of
liberal democracy, the majority in power never has the right to undermine the
rights of minorities (Dworkin 1985).

The problem comes when a group of people who apparently uses the same kind
of actions as civil disobedience, but which aims to change the whole system
instead of a single law. John Rawls makes a distinction between civil
disobedience and militant action. “The militant, for example, is much more deeply
opposed to the existing political system. He does not accept it as one which is
nearly just or reasonably so; he believes either that it departs widely from its
professed principles or that it pursues a mistaken conception of justice
altogether. While his action is conscientious in its own terms, he does not appeal
to the sense of justice of the majority” (Rawls in Bedau 1991: 107). Hence,
according to Rawls (as well as other important civil disobedience theorists like M.
L. King or Bedau), those whose goal is to completely change the political system
and replace it by a new one cannot be involved in civil disobedience acts. These
would be revolutionary or militant acts.

It is not easy to find out the goals of our case of study. The Indignados
movement is characterized by a great plurality both in proposals and goals.
However, we can pay special attention to their manifesto, to the communiqués
issued by their General Assembly and to the demands expressed in the media by
their spokesmen.

Looking carefully at the Indignados manifesto we can find some clues to their
purposes. “We are here because we desire a new society that puts lives above
political and economic interests”xxi, they say. Although this is quite a general
statement, the wide range of their goals becomes evidently clear. Creating “a
new society” is much more complicated than revoking a mere law or policy.
Subsequently, the manifesto finishes with the invocation “We want all of this, and
we want it now”xxii , which does not seem indicative of their respect to the timings
of the liberal democratic system.

On the other hand, on 25th May the General Assembly of the movement reached
consensus about its goals. Indignados were prepared to continue deepening
the debate about these concrete topics:

- “The electoral reform aimed at a more representative democracy and of real proportionality, with
the additional objective of developing effective mechanisms for citizen participation.”
- “The fight against corruption via regulations aimed at total political transparency.”
- “The effective separation of public authorities.”
- “The creation of citizen control mechanisms to effectively demand political responsibility.”

Apparently, these four objectives could be achieved without the need to go
outside of the legal framework. Then, these are not revolutionary goals. Its
implementation would not necessarily involve the breakup of the system. It is true
that if these four points are reached, the Spanish political system would radically
change. However, the achievement of the four aims would not mean more than
put in practice what Spanish Constitution actually saysxxv . So, attending to the
text of 25th May, the Indignados movement has goals that could be reached with
the modification and implementation of no more than five laws. Thus, this could
perfectly fit with a civil disobedience action, far from revolutionary acts.

The objectives mentioned above are not so focused on violation of individual
rights as on the lack of participation of the Spanish people in political affairs. In
this regard, if Indignados are engaged in civil disobedience acts, then their goals
would fit better with the political approach and the critical theory than with the
liberal approach. Scholars like Arendt (Arendt 1972) and Habermas are more
concerned about improving democratic capacities of the citizens than about the
mere protection of individual rights. The habermasian notion of civil disobedience
as an instrument to help on the ongoing process of improving democratic quality
is present in the Indignados movement (Habermas 1985).

Lately, 15-M members have focused all their efforts on the housing problem.
Indignados have fuelled a strong movement that tries to prevent planned
evictions. Nowadays, the struggle against evictions has become their priorityxxvi .
In this context, on 15th November 2011 the news channel Euronews interviewed
a spokesman of Indignadosxxvii . Asked for their demands, he enumerated five:

- “An immediate moratorium on evictions.”
- “A law that allows people to give back a property a reimbursement of the debt.
- “A subsidized rental housing resource that will guarantee shelter as a human right.”
- “A tax on unoccupied housing in Spain today.”
- “A move to a proportional representative electoral system.”

Here, the Indignados goal is the actual implementation of one of the rights
enshrined in the current Spanish Constitution. Its section 47 says: “All Spaniards
have the right to enjoy decent and adequate housing. The public authorities shall
promote the necessary conditions and establish appropriate standards in order to
make this right effective, regulating land use in accordance with the general
interest in order to prevent speculation.”xxix Thus, 15-M movement is forcing
Spanish government to change the housing policy with an invocation of a
constitutional right.

As in the previous case, the implementation of these proposals would mean a big
change in the day-to-day life of Spaniards. However, passing a few acts would
be enough to make those demands a reality. This would not mean going beyond
the boundaries of the system. These goals could be achieved using the
established legal mechanisms. Hence, it is not a revolutionary act.

Taking into account all the aforementioned, we infere that the goals of the
Indignados movement are not revolutionary. Despite the manifesto, where they
speak in quite general terms, we think that their goals could be reached inside
the current political system. Additionally, they invoke the Constitution as a higher
law which is not being fulfilled. But the approval of one single law would not be
enough to solve the problems that they are protesting against. So, although their
demands are not incompatible with the existing political system, the modification
or creation of at least a dozen of laws to reach all their goals would be
necessary. Apparently, this does not contravene the civil disobedience theory.

2. Fidelity to law Accepting the Punishment

“The 'Enlightenment', which discovered the
liberties, also invented the disciplines.”
Michel Foucault, «Discipline and Punish»


The participation in a civil disobedience act involves some risks. As every citizen
who breaks the law, those who carry out civil disobedience actions are exposed
to receive the legal punishment. This punishment is the response of the
authorities to the challenge presented by the protesters. Their willingness to
accept the penalty is interpreted as indication of the fidelity to the rule of law
(Brownlee in Zalta 2010).

Although is not a unanimous view among theorists, the willingness to accept the
punishment by those who protest is widely accepted as a definitive characteristic
of civil disobedience acts (Brownlee in Zalta 2010). Rawls, Bedau, King and
Sidney Hook (Hook, 1964), all of them share this notion. This Bedau’s quote
summarizes well this point of view: “Principled law-breaking and respect for
majority rule is consistent only if the law breaker accepts his punishment” (Bedau
1991: 11).

Nonetheless, reflections on the acceptance of legal penalty have existed for
several centuries. In Ancient Greece some classic authors such as Sophocles or
Plato wrote on this issue. Sophocles' Antigone disobeyed the King’s order and
risked herself to be punished with death. She remained faithful to God’s law and
accepted death penalty as a result. Her unshakeable faith in the superiority of
moral law over civil law makes her accepting the painful punishment which that
entails (Sophocles 2003).

Plato's dialogue between Socrates and Crito gives us another lesson about the
willingness to accept punishment. Socrates, sentenced to death by the city of
Athens, refused to escape from prison although he had the possibility of doing
so. Socrates accepted to obey the decision of the majority of Athenian citizens
even though he had to pay with his life. He took the capital punishment because
he strongly believed in the duty of every citizen to obey the law (Plato in Bedau
1991).

Both Socrates and Antigone voluntarily accept the legal consequences of their
actions. Socrates accepts the penalty because he wants to set an example. He is
coherent with his conviction of respect to the law. He must obey because he
previously accepted the rule of law of Athens citizens. For her part, Antigone
accepts punishment because of a more individualistic reason. She is not as
concerned as Socrates about the city. She just cares about herself. Her reasons
are principled but not political (Castoriadis 1991).

During the 20th Century, once the concept of Civil Disobedience had been
coined, both political philosophers and activists continued arguing about the
issue of accepting legal punishment. As we said above, the central point around
which the debate revolves is the implied parallelism between the acceptance of
punishment and the fidelity to law. As civil disobedience acts are not a
revolutionary attempt, they have to be compatible with the constitutional order of
the societies in which they are carried out. As far as acceptance of punishment is
seen as an indication of respect to the rule of law, it becomes a main feature of
civil disobedience. John Rawls, maybe the most influential political philosopher of
the last century, states that the break of law in a democratic society can only be
justified if the disobedient has the willingness to accept the penalty (Rawls in
Bedau 1991).

However, this is not the only point of view. Peter Singer recognized that
“disobedience followed by acceptance of punishment may make the majority
realize that what is for it a matter of indifference is of great importance for other”.
But he criticized Rawls saying that “once it becomes apparent that the majority
are not willing to reconsider, however, this sort of disobedience must be
abandoned” (Singer in Bedau 1991 :122). So, for Singer, acceptance of
punishment is not an essential characteristic of civil disobedience. It would vary
depending on the context.

Bedau, in his classic definition of civil disobedience introduces a slight nuance.
For him, civil disobedience acts must be “within the framework of the rule of law
and thus with a willingness on the part of the disobedient to accept the legal
consequences of his act, save in the special case where his act is intended to
overthrow the government” (Bedau 1991: 51). Here, Bedau includes a possibility
of avoiding the acceptance of penalty, but only when the aim of protesters is
changing the government. Rawls does not include this option because he only
studies civil disobedience in nearly just constitutional regimes, where civil
disobedients would never be justified to overthrow a government elected by the
majority.

Talking about civil disobedience as a tactic, it is undoubted that the willingness to
accept the penalty plays in favor of the protesters. First, it makes a difference
between civil disobedience and ordinary crime (Brownlee in Zalta 2010).
Secondly, it endows the protesters with huge moral strength (Smith 2011).
Thirdly, it puts the government in quite a delicate situation because it calls into
question the proportionality of the punishment (Smith 2011). As a result of these
factors, the audience would raise their awareness about the problems that the
protesters are claiming against and the motives of the disobedients will gain
more support (Raz 1979).

William Smith believes in the strategical value of acceptance of punishment. He
recalls that “the commission of civil disobedience enables citizens to instigate
and enter a moral dialogue in the public sphere by challenging authorities to
condemn their actions through punishment. The public recognition of a claim
against punishment would impede citizens from instigating such a moral
dialogue” (Smith 2011: 164). On the other hand Madden & Hare states that
“eagerness to escape punishment is compatible with that sort of civil
disobedience which aims to pressure public and the government” (Madden and
Hare in Parker 2010: 37)

Spanish Indignados are characterized by their non-violent attitude. They camped
illegally on the squares and risked themselves to be forcibly evicted. In this
regard, they had the willingness to accept the punishment exercised by the
police. However, if any of the protesters were arrested, their fellows rushed to
publish a communication in support claiming for the release. For instance, we
can once again look at the Indignados manifesto. There, we can read: “We send
our support to the friends that have been detained for participation in these
concentrations, and we demand their immediate release with no criminal
charges”. Thus, the willingness of accepting the penalty is refused here.
Indignados have issued similar releases each time that any protester was
detained. This demonstrates their reluctance to accept the legal
consequences of their acts.

As we have shown, there are different notions among the theorists about
including acceptance of punishment as a permanent feature of civil
disobedience. It seems clear that Indignados do not have the willingness to
accept the corresponding punishment of their illegal actions. This could mean
that they are not faithful to the rule of law. So, if we acknowledge that accepting
punishment is a crucial aspect of civil disobedience, then the Indignados
movement could not be considered being engaged in such a kind of actions.

Conclusion

The civil disobedience, necessary to the people is a way to obtain a fair negotiation
between the governement and the people. This way of doing things and using
democracy as its best permit, according to Tolstoy, to « stop oppression and useless
war, and to prevent any one from being indignant with those who seem to be the
cause of such oppression and war. ». (Tolstoy, a compilation of 1967 : 214).
The movement of the “Indignados” who was held in Spain during the summer period
of 2011 is not so clearly a civil disobedience movement.

A civil disobedience according to the classical theorists: It has been mixing definition
of public sphere, non-violence and violence, acceptation of punishment and a goal of
changing law not society. The movement has shown a respect of the constitution and
of the non-participative part of the population, interfering with respect in their life.

Of course, the Indignados has known all the typical problems of a civil disobedience
movement; a complex and tentacular organization based on a deliberative
democracy, rising power of groups of pressure led by people looking for a more
revolutionary movement (carrying differents ideology such as anticapitalism,
altermondialism, ecologism…), dealing with strong-arm negotiation of the police
forces and lacking vital resources…

Also, these problems had found solutions in new ways of practicing civil
disobedience. Various participants and individuals commentators of the movement
have been using new media such as Twitter, Youtube and Facebook… Same media
which had been used during the terrible riots which occurred in August in London and
other british cities. Those new are in effect terribly efficient to plan and orchestrate
big meetings, sometimes pacifists and morally justified, sometimes terribly violents
and with no legitimate justifications. The key of any act of civil disobedience is the
communication in the public sphere and these new media are clearly used such.
Maybe that aspect is giving a wider impact to the movement and that can be a
double-edged sword. On one hand, the movement benefits of a large support of the
population. On a second hand, that world support can mix causes, actions and
theories of why they rose.

Also, the refuse of the punishment by the Indignados is way too inappropriate,
according to classical thinkers of the civil disobedience to be a part of this kind of
political action. As it is said in the second part, this refusal is a proof of the broken
link between the constitution and the Indignados. This failure makes the movement
impossible to carry out a civil disobedience background.

Another important consideration, the crackdown and the defection of many of the
Indignados show in some aspect a defeat for their fight for their rights. They had
ceased the occupation of Puerta del Sol, of course communicated about new ways of
protesting but we can’t pretend not seeing the truth, the Indignados origin movement
no longer exist. The opposite wing is now in power in Spain, without any wish of
changing policies, the camps in Puerta del Sol are now replaced by people, queuing
for the national lottery. This participation nevertheless had been leaving a sustainable
mark in spanish and international political world, such debates that are now held in
spanish public sphere couldn't exist before this movement. This participation
nevertheless had been leaving a sustainable mark in spanish and international
political world, such debates that are now held in spanish public sphere couldn't exist
before this movement

With so much definitions, strict rules of being disobedient, theorists and
commentators, it seems that being disobedient is the most restrictive and obedient
political practice. We can’t figure out if the movement of the 15-M was civil
disobedient, according to a strict vision of this notion. But, discussing that subject had
permitted us to find new notions of political communication, a reflexion from the point
of view of a militant and of an external commentator, a discussion about punishment
and violence in political actions.

The 15th of October, the Spanish Indignados held demonstrations in the whole
country that brought to the streets to hundreds of thousands of citizensxxxv . They had
also convoked, some months before, a “world march for global change” for that same
dayxxxvi . Indignados of all over the world carried out demonstrations. Marches were
held in almost one thousand cities of 82 different countriesxxxvii . It seems that, after
all, Spanish Indignados movement achieved something: an overwhelming show of
support from the rest of the planet.



Bibliography

-Arendt, Hannah, Crises of the Republic, (HBC, 1972)
-Bedau, Hugo Adam, “Civil Disobedience and Personal Responsibility for
Injustice“, In Hugo Adam Bedau (ed.): Civil Disobedience in focus, (Routledge,
1991)
-Brownlee, Kimberley, "Civil Disobedience", In Edward N. Zalta (ed.): The
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2010).
-Castoriadis, Cornelius, Philosophy, politics, autonomy, essays in political
philosophy (Oxford University Press, 1991).
-Dartnell, Michael, “Web activism as an element of global security”, in Cyber
Conflict and Global Politics, edited by Athina Karatzogianni, Contemporary
security studies collection, (Routledge 2009)
-Dworkin, Ronald, A Matter of Principle, (Harvard University Press, 1985)
-Foucault, Michel, Discipline and Punish: the Birth of the Prison, (New York:
Random House, 1975).
-Fukyama, Francis. The End of History and the Last Man (Free Press, 1992).
-Habermas, Jürgen, “Civil disobedience: Limitus Test for the Democratic
Constitutional State", Berkeley Journal of Sociology, Vol. 30, (1985)
-Hook, Sidney, The Paradoxes of Freedom (University of California Press,
1964).
-King, Martin Luther, “Letter from Birmingham City Jail”, In Hugo Adam Bedau
(ed.): Civil Disobedience in focus (Routledge, 1991)
-LeGrande, J.L., “Nonviolent civil disobedience and Police enforcement policy”
in The journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science(1967),
Northwestern University School of Law
-Márquez, M.L. ; Ramírez, V. “The Spanish electoral system: Proportionality
and governability”, Annals of Operations Research, Vol.84 (1998)
-Meikle, Graham, “Electronic Civil Disobedience and symbolic power”, in Cyber
Conflict and Global Politics, edited by Athina Karatzogianni, Contemporary
security studies collection, (Routledge 2009)
- Morreall John, “The Justifiability of the violent civil disobedience”, in Hugo
Adam Bedau (ed.): Civil Disobedience in focus (Routledge, 1991).
- OECD, Divided We Stand: Why Inequality Keeps Rising (2011)
- Parker, Kelly A., “Takin’ It to the Streets: Hare and Madden on Civil
Disobedience”, Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, Vol. 46, No. 1
(2010).
-Plato, “Crito”, In Hugo Adam Bedau (ed.): Civil Disobedience in focus,
(Routledge, 1991)
- Rawls, John, “Definition and Justification of Civil Disobedience”, In Hugo
Adam Bedau (ed.): Civil Disobedience in focus (Routledge, 1991).
-Raz, Joseph, The Authority of Law, (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1979)
30
- Raz, Joseph, “Civil Disobedience”, in Hugo Adam Bedau (ed.): Civil
Disobedience in focus (Routledge, 1991).
- Singer, Peter, “Disobedience as a Plea for Reconsideration”, in Hugo Adam
Bedau (ed.): Civil Disobedience in focus (Routledge, 1991).
-Smart, Brian, “Defining Civil Disobedience”, in Hugo Adam Bedau (ed.): Civil
Disobedience in focus (Routledge, 1991).
- Smith, Paul, “Moral and Political Philosophy: Key Issues, Concepts and
Theories” (Palgrave MacMillan, 2008)
-Smith, William, “Civil Disobedience and the Public Sphere”, The Journal of
Political Philosophy, Vol. 19, No. 2, (2011)
- Smith, William, « Democracy, Deliberation and Disobedience »
(Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2004)
- Sophocles, Antigone (Oxford University Press, 2003).
- Storing, Herbert S., “The Case against Civil Disobedience”, In Hugo Adam
Bedau (ed.): Civil Disobedience in focus (Routledge, 1991).
- Tolstoy, Leo, “Thou Shall Not Kill”, 1900, in “Tolstoy’s Writings on Civil
Disobedience and Non-Violence” Peter Owen Ltd, London, 1968
- Wolff, Robert Paul, In Defense of Anarchism, (University of California Press,
1998)
- Woozley, A. D., “Civil Disobedience and Punishment” , Ethics, Vol. 86, No. 4
(Jul., 1976)