While challenging the law in a democracy undermines stability, civil disobedience can be justified when it exposes corruption and protects human rights, as it corrects democratic deficits and amplifies engagement with systematic injustice.

 

What is Government Corruption?

​

         To preface, corruption in the public and private sectors in any country, irrespective of its economic and political system or level of development, poses a critical threat to the concept of human rights. Corruption erodes trust, weakens democracy and institutions, delays economic development, and further amplifies inequality, poverty and social division. Notably, it erodes public trust in government and hinders countries' ability to fulfill their human rights obligations. It typically diverts funding from countries that should be dedicated to advancing human rights, in this case, democratic countries. While Governments hold the moral obligation to advocate for their citizens' human rights, there are many cases in which corruption has infringed on individuals' human rights. Moreover, the rule of law is ironic in cases of government corruption, as it promises equal accountability, yet corrupt officials often evade consequences, exposing the gap between legal ideals and political reality. Through case studies, it becomes evident that civil disobedience often arises in response to corruption.

 

What is Civil Disobedience?

 

         Civil disobedience can be defined as the deliberate violation of the law for a social purpose. Similarly, it is also defined as refusal to obey the demands or commands of a government or occupying power without resorting to violence or active measures of opposition. According to the large majority of individuals, justification for civil disobedience in a democracy depends on the existence of considerations, such as authority and fundamental human rights. Although civil disobedience has been traditionally justified as an appeal to majority considerations, civil disobedience can also be justified as a corrective measure when democracies break down.

 

         Moreover, philosophers such as King and Thoreau both argue that individuals have a moral duty to resist unjust laws, and that civil disobedience is justified when the laws directly violate human rights and justice. In particular, King's theory supports the argument that in the face of government corruption, using nonviolent resistance to challenge unjust law and expose systemic injustice, civil disobedience becomes a moral duty.

 

III. Institutional Corruption in the United States

 

         For the large majority of institutions, they have an institutional purpose — the purpose for which they conduct institutional activities to avoid harming individuals. Since legislators compel people through their laws, their activities can harm people unless they act in accordance with people’s interests; thus, a lawmaking institution, like the government, holds a moral obligation to act for the people's purpose. While the U.S Congress was originally designed to be dependent on the people, over time it developed an improper dependence on wealthy funders, a small percentage of the population. Therefore, this reliance incentivizes lawmakers to prioritize the interests of the wealthy population over average citizens, creating a democratic deficit. Acknowledging how the top 0.01% elites in America are heavily involved in decision-making, they often lack understanding of the lived realities and struggles faced by the remaining 99.9% of the population, leading to policies that fail to address the needs of the majority of citizens. This is problematic as it allows corruption to thrive, where they create policies that favour the economic elite, undermining the integrity and accountability of democratic institutions; thus eroding public trust. Hence, this institutional corruption justifies the means of civil disobedience for citizens to challenge the corrupt system and engage meaningfully in their own country's public policy decisions.

​

Results/Case studies Case study: Occupy Wall Street

​

         In 2011, thousands of activists occupied Zuccotti Park, peacefully protesting injustices they believed caused the Great Recession from 2007 - 2009. Roughly 2.6 million Americans lost their jobs, facing unemployment and dire economic straits. As a result, they campaigned with anti-capitalist rage that built nationwide consensus through the rhetoric “We are 99%”. While they centred their focus on economic inequality, they were also focusing on the underlying cause of this inequality, which is the lawmakers' dependence on the economic elite, as explained in part III.

 

         During this movement, Occupiers engaged in acts of civil disobedience, such as trespassing, blocking traffic, and setting up tents and barricades, to intensify their message.

​

         However, despite the unwavering dedication of the Occupiers during this protest, critics dismissed the movement after, claiming that the movement was unjustified, ineffective, and had achieved no immediate policy changes. Nonetheless, Occupy Wall Street never demanded policy changes; the main focus was to engage citizens and lawmakers in conversations on an issue affected by a democratic deficit and inequality. In that respect, almost 13 years later, it is evident that Occupy Wall Street was justified and successful. Specifically, the movement was effective in the engagement of citizens and lawmakers on recognizing economic inequality and the corrupt dependence of lawmakers on the economic elite, the top 0.01%, in contrast to the rest of the “We are 99%”. Although the Occupy movement has elapsed, it has had a lasting effect on American politics. Remarkably, in 2016, Democratic Senator Bernie Sanders was running a campaign that had values deeply embedded in the Occupy movement. His campaign facilitated the institutional corruption of the U.S Congress, where they referred to the political system as “corrupt”, his number one issue: economic inequality. Having a Senator speak out not only about economic inequality but also about the root causes of the inequality emphasizes the profound impact Occupy Wall Street has had.

​

         Moreover, according to the increase in Corruption Perception Index (CPI) from 2011 to 2015 in the United States, data reflect the impact of the movement and numerous campaigns held by activists and other senators. Without the intensity of the civil disobedience witnessed during Occupy Wall Street, it is unlikely that lawmakers and Senators would have engaged in conversation regarding issues of economic inequality and the corrupting effect of money in democratic politics. Thus, in this case, the civil disobedience of Occupy Wall Street was justified as a corrective measure to overcome a democratic deficit caused by institutional corruption.

 

Case study: US Capitol Attack

​

         The US Capitol ‘Attack’ occurred on January 6, 2021, when a mob of President Trump’s supporters stormed the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C. With Trump’s supporters discussing their plans for a violent overthrow, the attack was primarily motivated by false claims that the election had been stolen, which was encouraged by many elected officials. While the lawmakers and staff secured locations or barricaded doors behind doors, rioters were seen pushing past outnumbered Capitol Police officers, breaking windows and vandalizing offices, with violent intentions towards members of Congress for refusing to accept Trump’s attempts to overturn the election in his favour. Regardless of whether they acted upon their moral consciousness and beliefs, they still stormed the capital and impeded upon others' safety.

​

         During President Trump's occupancy, there were many concerns regarding government corruption, as reflected in the CPI, where there is a significant decline in the Corruption Perception Index (CPI) from 75 in 2017 to 67 in 2021. While there may have been corruption, there is no specific evidence or proof that there necessarily was corruption present at the time. According to a poll conducted by Yahoo! News, it found that 66% of Americans believed that this attack was unjustified, 11% said they could justify it in some way, 6% believed it was completely justified, while the remaining 17% said they were unsure. Thus, while motivated by perceived corruption and claims of a stolen election, this event was not an example of civil disobedience. Consequently, it is not justified even in the context of a democratic government perceived as corrupt, where ultimately, this case exceeds the extent to which it would need to be justified. While the attack reflects how perceptions of corruption can motivate individuals to act, perception alone does not legitimize violent actions. The attack illustrates the role of perceived corruption and how it motivates action. It demonstrates how people may respond to their beliefs about injustice, in this case, fraud in the election, even in the absence of proven fraud. Overall, civil disobedience can be justified in a democratic society perceived as corrupt only when it remains peaceful, respects human rights, and seeks to highlight injustice. On the contrary, violent attempts to disrupt democratic institutions exceed the limits of justification.

 

IV. Justifying Civil Disobedience in a Democracy

 

         Many acts of civil disobedience have taken down oppressive regimes, governments and delivered human rights to people across the world. The purpose of civil disobedience is not to break the law but to pursue breaking the law in pursuit of a social goal. Notably, civil disobedience advances a social goal by representing a more intense form of dissent than legal protest, expressing a level of urgency and commitment, as demonstrated in the Case Study on Occupy Wall Street. While civil disobedience is easier to justify under authoritarian regimes, in civil disobedience in a democratic society, it requires special justification. Acknowledging how citizens share collective responsibility for policies, we must look at the underlying factors, such as corruption and inequality. However, justification can arise in two main ways: First, through considerations, where disobedience is set to protect fundamental human rights against unjust majorities. Secondly, through democratic-deficit considerations, civil disobedience seeks to correct failures in democratic engagement on issues neglected by the system. Thus, while democracy enhancing civil disobedience cannot coerce an outcome, the disobedience may coerce engagement and discussion, which is crucial for the advancement of society.

 

Conclusion

 

         When corruption and inequality undermine the rule of law, restrict meaningful political participation, or violate human rights, civil disobedience may serve as a tool to expose injustice and correct democratic deficits. Movements such as Occupy Wall Street demonstrate how peaceful protests can amplify marginalized voices, without destabilizing democratic institutions. However, actions that rely on violence and misinformation to overturn democratic processes, such as the US Capitol attack, exceed the boundaries of civil disobedience and cannot be justified. Thus, through civil disobedience, to some extent, citizens can instigate engagement on an issue and call attention to inequalities surrounding democratic deficits and corruption.

​

Bibliography

 

Ethical Guidelines and the Institutional Review Board – An Introduction, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10885741/. Accessed 18 December 2025. Delmas, Candice, and Kimberley Brownlee. “Civil Disobedience (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 4 January 2007, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/civil-disobedience/. Accessed 18 December 2025. Duignan, Brian. “January 6 U.S. Capitol Attack | Background, Events, Criminal Charges, & Facts.” Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/event/January-6-U-S-Capitol-attack. Accessed 18 December 2025. Galaski, Jascha, and Una Glatz. “12 Examples Civil Disobedience Throughout History |liberties.eu | liberties.eu.” Civil Liberties Union for Europe (Liberties), 15 November 2022, https://www.liberties.eu/en/stories/civil-disobedience/44569. Accessed 18 December 2025.