By Ute Finckh-Krämer

The term "civil disobedience" is historically associated with world-famous actions such as Mahatma Gandhi's "Salt March" or the bus action of the US civil rights movement in Montgomery (and the name Rosa Parks). In Germany, place names such as Wyhl, Wackersdorf, Großengstingen, Mutlangen, Gorleben, Büchel and the Kyritz-Ruppiner Heide come to mind. Or the "Ende Gelände" campaigns in lignite mining areas. The key characteristics of civil disobedience are non-violence and the limited and justified violation of laws or regulations. Participants in civil disobedience actions take into account that they may be arrested or have their personal details taken and subsequently be prosecuted for a criminal or administrative offense.

Not every politically motivated violation of the law is therefore "civil disobedience". In particular, attacks on people and damage to property with the sole aim of destroying something are not acts of civil disobedience. However, actions such as those of Berlin resident Irmela Mensah-Schramm, who creatively redesigns or sprays over right-wing extremist graffiti where she cannot remove it, which is sometimes considered "damage to property" by the law enforcement authorities, are. Damaging a fence in order to gain access to a cordoned-off military area for a protest action, for example, is also covered by the term "civil disobedience".

The youth action network ZUGABe (Ziviler Ungehorsam, Gewaltfreie Aktion, Bewegung) formulates its principles as follows:
"For us, non-violent actions of civil disobedience are not just the result of a pragmatic decision for a media-effective spectacle. In the action, all those involved make it clear that in the conflict at hand - after other, less drastic options have been exhausted - they are prepared to take personal risks and break the law in order to avert dire consequences. They stand up for their actions and justify them to the media, fellow campaigners and "opponents", often also in court." [1]

"Non-violence" is usually perceived as a renunciation of violence and thus as a restriction in the choice of means in a political dispute. This regularly leads to the question of whether violence may or even must be used as a last resort in certain cases. Sometimes it is argued that burning cars or smashed windows attract more attention, sometimes violence is justified as "counter-violence".

However, this often sets off escalating spirals of violence and counter-violence that are difficult to break. This applies not only to confrontations between police and protesters, but also between opposing political or social groups. Those who justify violent actions from their own spectrum find it difficult to explain why the violent actions of other actors should be rejected. At the latest when bystanders are harmed, there are calls for stricter laws and more police force, which restricts rather than expands political and social scope. And anyone who supports the cause of those who have used violence quickly exposes themselves to the accusation of advocating violence as a means of politics.

To a lesser extent, this also applies to actions of civil disobedience: those who carry them out are accused of not taking state laws and rules very seriously. Where would we end up if everyone decided for themselves which laws they would comply with and which they would not? Anyone taking part in an action of civil disobedience must therefore be able to explain very precisely what injustice or danger the action is intended to combat and what legal means have already been used but have not been successful. It only makes sense to resort to means of civil disobedience if it is possible to convincingly demonstrate the actual concern and how the violation of the rules relates to this concern.

The use of violence usually discredits the political goal pursued, but the reverse is not true: if a goal is pursued by non-violent means, it is not automatically legitimate.

[1] www.netzwerk-zugabe.de/selbst.html