Why dissent is important

A smuggled newspaper brought to King's attention , a letter by eight clergymen who criticized his methods of protest. Instead of being intimidated and staying silent, he penned a passionate letter that succinctly explained why protesting the current laws of his land was important. He brilliantly wrote the timeless words, "We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.

The citizens of Thailand, Ukraine, and Venezuela know this, and they are not sitting by politely and waiting for their demands to be heard. They are screaming from rooftops, and demanding change. They know the power of protest. Our freedom will never be guaranteed. Whether a government claims civil liberties are up for debate due to terrorism, or whether their disastrous economic policies are excused as a necessity to eliminate poverty and unemployment, our rights will always be in the crosshairs.

Barack Obama has executed Americans without due process ; he spies on his citizens as well as you and me. He signed a law that allows for the indefinite detention of an American without trial, or any communication with family or a lawyer. Obama is not a complete tyrant, but tyrannical laws are in the books, and the time could come for Americans to rise up. We, Canadians have it pretty good, but that could also change with a stroke of a pen and a bullet.

We must show solidarity with global citizens who want freedom from a government that has stolen all of the power. Dissent is the most important action in a functioning society. Without the threat of an uprising, an increasingly powerful and despotic government will slowly but swiftly erode the freedoms we hold dear. We must value our right to speak up, move where we please, and have security in our homes, and in our persons.

If we don't, tyranny will rain down on us swiftly, and harshly, leaving us with bodies, but no souls. News U. Politics Joe Biden Congress Extremism. Special Projects Highline. One has witnessed many troubling events like, to name a few, interviews of leading politicians being taken off air, rallies of opposition leaders being blacked out, the programs of anchors critical of government and establishment being shut down and censorship being imposed by media on itself.

The current political environment has become claustrophobic for independent thinking minds and dissent is being trampled upon in the most egregious manner. This article discusses why dissent is important for any society and why the celebrated right of freedom of speech must be protected. Firstly, freedom of speech is necessary to establish the marketplace of ideas. This rationale holds that truth will emerge from the competition of ideas in a free and transparent public discourse. The rationale is traced to the works of John Milton, an English poet and scholar, and has also been developed by John Stuart Mill in his philosophical treatise.

The idea is that there will be competing ideas and opinions in any pluralistic society. The only way for truth to emerge is if society allows these ideas to compete with each other.

Overtime, solid and research backed opinions will triumph over the ones which are shallow and superficial. Secondly, free speech is essential for a functioning democracy. The link between freedom of speech and democracy is clear from the fact that freedom of speech exists in advanced democracies like United States, Britain, Australia etc.

Though direction of causation is not clear, but one thing is true for sure that free speech and democracy cannot survive without each other. In a real and true democracy, free speech is guaranteed across the political spectrum.

All political parties and politicians should be able to express their views on anything and everything under the sun. If free speech is not allowed by the ruling government, citizens will not gain access to different points of view. As a result, citizens will not have a complete picture and would not be able to form an informed opinion.

The elections conducted in such an environment would be far from being fair. Recently, my brother Justice D. Chandrachud in his speech put the matter very succinctly. He said:. Rule of majority is an integral part of democracy but majoritarianism is the antithesis of democracy. In a democracy like ours where we have elections based on the first past the post principle, the government in most cases does not represent the majority of the population, and often not even the voting electorate.

Therefore, when those in power claim that they represent the will of all the people that is more often than not a totally baseless claim.

They may be the elected government voted on the first past the post system by a large number of voters, but it cannot be said that they represent the entire will of the people. The right to dissent is one of the most important rights guaranteed by our Constitution.

As long as a person does not break the law or encourage strife, he has a right to differ from every other citizen and those in power and propagate what he believes is his belief. I can do no better than to quote the following observations from the Shreya Singhal case:.

Such is the reach of the section and if it is to withstand the test of constitutionality, the chilling effect on free speech would be total. The very essence of democracy is that every citizen has a right to participate not only in the electoral process but also in the way in which our country is run.

This right becomes meaningless if that person cannot criticize the actions of the government. The citizen, is not only a participant in the democratic process, he is an integral part of the country and has a right express his views even if they be totally contrary to the views of those in power.

No doubt, these views must be expressed in a peaceful manner but citizens have a right to get together and protest when they feel that actions taken by the government are not proper. Their cause may not always be right. At the same time, the government may also not be right. Merely because certain groups oppose those in power cannot take away their right to oppose what is proposed by the government or to oppose any actions of the government as long as the protest is peaceful.

The government has no right to stifle or quell protest as long as the protests are peaceful. Protest also means expressing dissent which is part of the legacy left by the father of the country in the form of Civil Disobedience Movement, following the path of Ahimsa. Since a lot has been said on the importance of dissent in recent days, I do not want to add anything more to what has been said by brother Chandrachud, J.

Desai Memorial Lecture. Since that left me with some time in hand, I thought I would talk about the role of dissent in the decision-making process of the Judiciary.

This is the second part of my address. In the opening portion, I had referred to the Bar Association as an unholy place. That was in the context of the manner in which the Bar Associations are totally irreverent to many issues but the one concept which binds all of us in the legal fraternity is the Rule of Law.

In my opinion, the Bar Associations are shrines to the concept of Rule of Law. As a principle of governance, the rule of law, like democracy, and the separation of powers is an integral part of our body politic. It is the golden thread which runs through our Constitution.

Anywhere, anytime, when ordinary people are given the chance to choose, the choice is the same: freedom, not tyranny; democracy, not dictatorship; the rule of law not the rule of men. The bedrock of our democracy is the rule of law and this necessitates that we must have an independent fearless judiciary. There can be rule of law only when we have judges who can take decisions independent of political influence, totally uninfluenced by media or any other extraneous considerations.

A free country is one where there is freedom of expression and governance by the rule of law. When there is no sharing of power, no rule of law, no accountability, here is abuse, corruption, subjugation and indignation. When the rule of law disappears, we are ruled by the idiosyncrasies and whims of a few. The Supreme Court of India.

It is a well-settled principle of jurisprudence that law should be certain, but in this fast-changing world can laws remain stagnant? In my view the interpretation of the laws has to be dynamic and change with times and therefore it is not necessary that all of us agree with each other.

That is why dissent plays an important role in the decision-making process. Laws must be stable and certain. A litigant must have a reasonable expectation of the way which laws move. Frequent changes in views lead to many problems.

Judicial discipline is extremely important. Merely because I do not agree with another view does not mean that I must either refer the judgment to larger bench or find ways and means to somehow get over the judgment. That in my view causes more problems. However, when important issues arise merely because the majority of the brethren are taking different view one should not feel stifled or in any way hesitate to take contrary view even if one is the sole voice.

As Tagore said:. Dissent is a powerful tool in the hands of a judge and it must be used responsibly. Hence, where one does not agree with the majority view, a judge must be free to voice his dissent. A dissenting judgment sows the seed, which develops a new thought, which may at a later stage develop into a totally new approach to the law.

The issue in this case was whether there should be separate compartments for white persons and persons of coloured races in trains. The use of a compartment meant for another race could entail imposition of fine or punishment. There is no caste here.