TOWARD A STATE OF PERMANENT CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE IN DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Much of the activity in the movement for full democracy in District of Columbia has centered around legislation, meetings, public events, and debate over what specific outcome is desirable or necessary. I submit equally as important is the attitude we bring to the issue.
As we are all aware, Congress exercises absolute control over the District’s affairs, yet we are not recognized on the floor by either the House or the Senate. No one with the power of a congressman or senator speaks or votes for us before the Government. This omnipotent body forbids our using local funds to fight the system, and the rest of the people in the country are beneficiaries monetarily and otherwise of our colonial status. This is the crux of the injustice perpetrated against us every day. Yet too often our elected leaders treat our inferior status as just one of many issues on the city’s agenda, and not necessarily the most important. There is too much compromise and too little outrage.
A variety of strategies and tactics will be necessary to move the struggle forward. But equally important is how we think and feel about our oppression. Many in Congress and our own local government try to sell us on the view that while things aren’t perfect, Congress is truly interested in our well-being, and if we are denied many of the rights that other Americans enjoy, this deprivation is for our own good; like feeble-minded children we must be patient and our all-wise fathers on Capitol Hill will do what’s best for us.
Such oppression, no matter how benign (and often not benign at all) runs counter to the ideals of liberty and democracy America purports to stand for. We are often described as a colony; but unlike true U.S. colonies – such as Puerto Rico and Guam – the District of Columbia was a part of the original territory of the United States, not a foreign nation or people conquered against its will. Rather, this land where we make our homes entered the United States with all the liberty of the 13 original states, only to have it subsequently snatched away and denied to future generations as well.
Therefore, as Congress sits in its great house in the middle of our city, making laws in our name but without our consent, I offer the following proposition: THAT THE GOVERNMENT AND CITIZENS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA REGARD ALL LAWS ENACTED BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT NULL AND VOID WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE DISTRICT.
By this I mean not only laws affecting only the District, such as our budgets and riders attached to them. No, I mean all federal law: taxation, war-making authority, spending bills, social policies, and all the rest. We had no more say in the making of these laws than of those made by Japanese Diet, and the Japanese people have as much say in the making of U.S. law we do – which is to say, none. Therefore, we should accord no legitimacy to any federal statute, regulation or implementing order, since they were adopted without our consent.
To adopt this attitude will require a shift in our thinking. As U.S. citizens, we reflexively respect the government, even if we do not always agree with its decisions. But why should we respect a government that does not respect us? Such an attitude I would call “permanent civil disobedience” – that we regard ourselves in permanent opposition to the laws and actions of the federal government, as opposed only to those specifically directed at the District.
Of course, sometimes the federal government enacts laws that benefit the public (rare as this has been over the past two years), including District residents. This, however, is no cause to grant these "good” laws any greater legitimacy that what some of us might consider “bad” ones. We can appreciate the effects of a good law, yet still condemn the way it was enacted. A dictator may sometimes treat his subjects with kindness, but benevolent tyranny is still tyranny. The illegitimacy of even “good” laws extends even to those that Congress may enact that have the effect of expanding democracy in the District. We must make our demands and seize victories where we can, but so long as we possess something short of the full democratic rights of other Americans, we must regard any rights we win as having been wrenched from a tyrannical regime – and continue to stand up and demand full citizenship.
Does this mean that we should immediately begin disobeying all federal laws? Not at all. Any program of provocative civil disobedience should involve a strategic discussion of risks vs. benefits. For an individual to immediately and unilaterally declare, for instance, that he or she will no longer file federal income tax returns, without weighing the consequences of whether doing so would advance the greater cause, would be foolhardy. We must acknowledge the reality that the government has the resources to do us harm if we step on its toes – just as the armed thief has the ability to harm his victim. Even if we must frequently yield to oppressive forces, we are under no obligation to accord them any respect.
I’m talking about how we think about our oppression – not as an occasional injury, such as when Congress overturns a D.C. law or initiative, but as an assault on our rights being carried out all day, every day by Congress – to most Americans an institution representing their interests (if imperfectly); to us, the equivalent of South Africa’s apartheid government as seen by non-whites. Nearly every law passed by Congress affects District residents in some way, and none is enacted with our consent – therefore all of these laws should be regarded as illegitimate in our eyes.
If all residents of the District adopted this attitude, it might instill in the movement for democracy a bit of militancy, a greater willingness to be confrontational. To think of someone as a “Member of Congress” automatically accords respect; to call that person an “occupier” engenders some appropriate resentment. When we see a particularly hostile member of Congress walking down the street, we may be less likely to act as deferential subjects and more likely to give them a piece of our minds.
To consider the District in a state of “permanent civil disobedience” could have other practical ramifications for the movement and for the city:
We should demand that the Metropolitan Police restrict itself to protecting D.C. citizens and neighborhoods, and let the federal government alone handle police demonstrations aimed at the federal reservation and international institutions such as the IMF and World Bank. Since Chief Ramsey is obviously more interested in impressing our federal overseers than protecting those who pay his salary (as evidenced by both the department’s outrageous civil rights violations during the September demonstrations and its increasingly shoddy record in solving crimes and protecting the public), he should be dismissed and replaced with a chief who is actually interested in performing the job he was chosen to do.
The firing, and rehiring, of D.C. teacher Tom Briggs was an example of a roundabout kind of civil disobedience. After he ran for D.C. Council and thereby violated the Hatch Act, the school system fired him – but later rehired him as a “new employee,” thereby complying with the letter of the law while violating its rotten spirit. The D.C. government should go beyond this by unilaterally declaring the Hatch Act no longer applicable to District employees. We had nothing to do with enacting this oppressive law; therefore we should feel no obligation to honor it.
D.C. residents should be active in the antiwar movement, EVEN IF THEY DON’T OPPOSE THE WAR. We had no say in this war; therefore, the government has no right to put our residents in harm’s way. D.C. residents have had one of the highest casualty rates in recent wars – it’s time to say that not one more District life will be lost at war until we enjoy first-class citizenship.
We should do a study of the services the District government provides to the federal government. Fire protection is one; the D.C. government also maintains roads serving government buildings. Once this inventory is completed, the District government should then declare it will provide NO more such services except to the extent they directly benefit District residents.
We should seek out, follow and harass those members of Congress who have made the District their whipping boy. We should visit them at home, in their favorite bars and restaurants, and wherever else they may be found – but especially OUTSIDE their offices, away from the protection of their gendarmes – and let them know the extent to which they have abused our hospitality.
I earlier made reference to the issue of federal taxes. In the past we have protested “taxation without representation” through rallies, press conferences and protest letters accompanying our 1040s. In spite of the federal government’s readiness to resort to coercion when money is involved, we should seriously explore a campaign to deny our tax dollars to the federal government. Such an exploration must include such considerations such as the potential penalties to protestors, legal assistance to those engaging in a protest, and the need to assemble a critical mass of protestors to provide safety in numbers. The prospect of the federal fist certainly frightens many prospective tax protestors, and so we must collect all the facts before moving ahead. But our fears should not prevent us from exploring the matter.
Creative minds could conceive numerous other ways an attitude of “permanent civil disobedience” could influence the movement for full democracy. But whatever the practical outcomes, we should always hold a healthy disregard for the actions of Congress until such time as the residents of the nation’s capital enjoy first-class citizenship.
|
Opinion 