Thousands have not paid the TV licence. Is it civil disobedience or opportunism?

In the last five weeks almost 6,000 fewer TV licences were bought compared to the same period last year, a drop of more than 6.4%

Tue, 18 Jul, 2023 - 20:30

Vittorio Bufacchi

Bad governance has financial consequences. The people of Ireland are out to punish RTÉ for its errors of judgment, and the renewal of the TV licence is the perfect opportunity to hit RTÉ where it hurts most.

The message is clear: taxpayers may pay the TV licence but RTÉ does not have the licence to misspend taxpayers’ money.

In the last five weeks almost 6,000 fewer TV licences were bought compared to the same period last year, a drop of more than 6.4%. Not paying the TV licence is being heralded as an act of defiance, a cry against injustice, a statement of intent. This is what civil disobedience looks like in the digital age.

Or is it? Is not paying the TV licence an act of civil disobedience motivated by moral indignation, or is it a case of crass opportunism?

Civil disobedience is a concept that is notoriously ambiguous. In the philosophical literature on civil disobedience there is some disagreement whether an act of civil disobedience must be non-violent, or whether it allows for some acts of violence, within limits.

For example, the co-founder of Extinction Rebellion, Dr Gail Bradbrook, was taken to court this week for causing more than £27,000 (€31,431) worth of damage last October when she took a hammer to the window of a government building to protest against the environmental impacts of the new high-speed railway project HS2.

Thankfully, the ethics of violence is not relevant to the debacle at RTÉ, so this stone can be left unturned.

Right or duty?

There is also some disagreement whether civil disobedience is a right or a duty. In his essay On the Duty of Civil Disobedience, published in 1849, Henry David Thoreau famously argued we have a moral obligation to engage in acts of civil disobedience.

He incited his readers to break the law and not become complacent agents of injustice by respecting unjust laws. Perhaps Thoreau was right, but we can park this debate and allow for each TV licence holder to decide what to do, without passing judgment on the majority of law-abiding citizens.

Notwithstanding those areas of disagreement, all scholars of civil disobedience concur on two fundamental issues. First, that civil disobedience occurs when someone intentionally and publicly violates certain laws.

The law being violated may be the target of one’s protest, for example dodging conscription to the army during the Vietnam War, or alternatively the civil disobedient may have no objection to the law being violated.

Symbolic act

In the latter case, breaking the law is a symbolic act to draw attention to other laws that are deemed unjust, as in the case of sit-ins in public places. But whichever way one chooses to exercise one’s right to civil disobedience, it is imperative that they do so publicly. That’s because the act of civil disobedience is, above all, a political act, aimed at highlighting an injustice.

One can think of many ways to show one’s disapproval of the executive management at RTÉ, from taking to the streets to demonstrating outside RTÉ Donnybrook studios, but one wonders whether the decision not to pay the TV licence is more convenient than rebellious. Picture: Dan Linehan

Given that visibility and transparency are essential when engaging in civil disobedience, it remains unclear whether not paying for TV licence is a political act.

Exactly what law are non-TV licence payers protesting against, and to what extent are their actions public? One can think of many ways to show one’s disapproval of the executive management at RTÉ, from taking to the streets to demonstrating outside RTÉ Donnybrook studios, but one wonders whether the decision not to pay the TV licence is more convenient than rebellious.

This takes us to the next issue, arguably the most important one regarding civil disobedience: the motivational issue. The civil disobedient differs from a mere criminal primarily in terms of motivation, since in breaking the law the ordinary criminal acts out of self-interest, while the civil disobedient violates penal statuses in order to make a point about justice.

Element of self-interest

We need to ask ourselves what is the reason and aim behind the decision not to renew the TV licence? Is it to highlight a major injustice in society, or to save some money for oneself? The fact that there is an element of self-interest in not paying the TV licence muddies the waters.

Many would agree that the protesters in France in late June were right to take to the streets to highlight the unacceptable levels of racism within France’s police force after the killing of 17-year-old Nahel Merzouk, a French citizen of North African descent. But many would draw the line at looting shops: that seems driven by opportunistic self-interest rather than a sense of justice. Similarly, it is not clear whether not paying a TV licence is unprincipled or virtuous behaviour.

Of course there are many other issues regarding RTÉ that one needs to consider. Perhaps public service media should be paid entirely by the State, and funded exclusively by the tax intake and not a TV licence.

And, of course, people who fail to pay the TV licence should never be threatened with a jail sentence. But these are not the issues behind the decision of nearly 6000 people to withhold payment of the TV licence.

So, is breaking the law on the TV licence an act of civil disobedience inspired by the ideal of justice? This is at best a moot point, open for debate.