Should governments tolerate the actions of dissident groups?
Dissident groups challenge the authenticity of government. They break laws and cause riots. Think of the dissident groups of the 1960s that fought for Civil Rights and against the Vietnam War.
Absolutely, government should not only tolerate but heed the messages of dissident groups!
Read the words of two of our earliest dissidents.
(Broken Link Removed)
http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/civildisobedience/section1.html
Government does not easily tolerate it in my experience. What is allowed is only the result of fear on the governments part of what courts or the public will do in response. This is why many times the governments response is secret...thru the FBI, or police, or IRS, or social security administration, or else.
What is effective is a healthy press, independent, with backbone, and with courts that are not afraid to air dirty laundry, even in the face of retribution by the executive branch.
President Nixon set the mark for secrecy and criminal acts, and he was only stopped by independent agencies who demonstrated courage. There have been instances since then.
Evil lurks within the hearts of powerful men, and it is incumbent on citizens to stand against them. Often, these folks are called names, dissident being one of the nicer terms.
If you stop to think about it... the colonists were dissidents, protesting the unfair laws that England was imposing. Women's right to vote was not enacted until the 20th Century...and then only because women were "dissidents". The Civil Rights act was only enacted after dissidents made themselves impossible for the government to ignore. People who are willing to stand up and yell verrrrrry loudly....that is not right! are essential to progress in a democracy or for that matter in any government.
It often depends on what's at stake. Dissident voices are a lot easier to tolerate in times of peace than times of war. Also a secure government will tolerate dissent far more comfortably than will an insecure government.
The question of whether governments should tolerate the actions of dissident groups is a complex and subjective one that depends on various factors including the specific nature of the actions and their impact on the society.
To form an educated opinion on this matter, it is recommended to consider the following steps:
1. Research: Start by gathering information about dissident groups, their actions, and the reasons behind their dissent. Understand their ideology, goals, and any potential threats they may pose to public safety, stability, or national security.
2. Analyze democratic principles: Evaluate the core principles of democracy, such as freedom of speech, expression, and assembly. Assess whether the actions of the dissident groups align with these principles or if they undermine them.
3. Assess the legality: Determine whether the actions of the dissident groups are within the boundaries of the law. If the actions involve violence, terrorism, or other criminal activities, it may be reasonable for governments not to tolerate them.
4. Weigh the societal impact: Consider the potential consequences that tolerating or suppressing the actions of dissident groups may have on society. Evaluate the potential societal benefits or harms resulting from the group's activities.
5. Evaluate the government's role: Reflect on the responsibilities and obligations of the government to maintain law and order, protect the welfare of its citizens, and uphold democratic values. Consider how tolerating or suppressing dissident actions may affect these responsibilities.
6. Consider alternatives: Explore alternative approaches, such as negotiation, dialogue, or engagement, to address the concerns and grievances of the dissident groups. Evaluate the potential effectiveness of these approaches in promoting social harmony and resolving conflicts.
Ultimately, the question of whether governments should tolerate the actions of dissident groups requires a careful balance between safeguarding democratic principles, protecting public safety, and maintaining social cohesion. It often involves a nuanced and context-specific assessment that may vary from situation to situation.