Blake Robertson: Breaking the Rules to Fix the Game: Civil Disobedience and Deliberative Democracy

Résumé

This paper examines Andrew Smith’s theory of “civil disobedience as deliberative contestation,” which justifies acts of disobedience that challenge failures in deliberative democracy. Smith contends that civil disobedience should adhere to the three principles: inclusivity, non-coercion, and informed dialogue—since it functions as a form of deliberation itself. However, I argue that many effective forms of civil disobedience, such as strikes and blockades, inherently involve coercion by imposing reputational, financial, or ethical costs on authorities. Rather than viewing deliberative principles as inviolable side-constraints, I propose they should be treated as maximizable goals. Specifically, I introduce the concept of "counter-coercion," where limited coercion in civil disobedience can disrupt systemic power imbalances and reduce overall coercion in deliberation. This approach ensures that acts of civil disobedience actively contribute to a more inclusive, less coercive, and better-informed political discourse. Ultimately, I modify Smith’s framework to account for the realities of non-ideal political conditions while preserving its core commitment to democratic legitimacy.