Civil Disobedience in Open and Closed Societies and Legal-Political Systems(Review of John Rawls and Hannah Arendt's Theories)

Civil disobedience in open and closed political-legal systems and societies (review of John Rawls and Hannah Arendt's point of viewsTheoretical discourses on the concept, justifications and functions of civil disobedience are challenging. In this article two point of views by Hannah Arendt and John Rawls have been studies in order to assess their functional consequences in non-democratic countries. Rawls believes that civil disobedience is an apparent, political and intentional violation of law which has taken by predicting its criminal consequences in order to persuade the majority people to make a trend and change the unjust situation to justified one. This model of civil disobedience belongs to democratic countries but in non-democratic countries, these movements follow fundamental changes. The question is whether this theory which is originally belong to democratic countries, can be applied to non-democratic countries or not?Arendt’s point of view doesn’t have those conditions. The act of a group of people has violated law without any personal benefit can be categorized as civil disobedience even if they want to make a fundamental change. This interpretation has mostly evaluated with the situation in non-democratic countries. Finally, the civil disobedience will be indicated as a concept which has two criteria: firstly, it should be coordinated with political and legal diversity within the society and secondly it can consider real developments in its concept.