how can a citizen change a law that is fundamentally flawed?
<p>Supposedly governments exist to serve their people; to enhance the well-being of their communities; to make things better - not worse.</p>
<p>If it becomes apparent to an ordinary, upstanding citizen that certain actions or policies of a government are in fact unethical, making something worse, doing a wrong, or infringing on rights or freedoms, etc. whether intentionally, accidentally, negligent, corrupt, malicious, or even in good faith..</p>
<p>And that citizen feels it's his duty (to himself, to others, or both) to do something about it; to change some law or policy (whether big or small, old or new) for the betterment of his society, or simply because he feels it's fundamentally the good and right thing to do..</p>
<p>What can he do to instigate this kind of change?</p>

<p><strong>What can he do to instigate this kind of change?</strong></p>
<p>One option is to become a Member of Parliament, either for an existing political party or by creating your own. That way, it may be possible to debate the <em>fundamentally flawed</em> law to propose it be repealled and replaced by more appropriate legislation.  Here's how in Australia:
<a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/Practice7/HTML/Chapter5/Qualifications_and_disqualifications#:%7E:text=In%20order%20to%20be%20eligible,a%20House%20of%20Representatives%20election" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/House_of_Representatives/Powers_practice_and_procedure/Practice7/HTML/Chapter5/Qualifications_and_disqualifications#:~:text=In%20order%20to%20be%20eligible,a%20House%20of%20Representatives%20election</a>.</p>
<p>In a similar vein, he could create a pressure group that can lobby the relevant legislature for change.</p>

<ul>
<li>In a democracy, through the political process. Raise public awareness and build the necessary majority in parliament.</li>
<li>If there is a rule of law, possibly through challenges in court. The problem with that is who has <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)" rel="nofollow noreferrer">legal standing</a> to sue over such things. The law might be unjust, but just feeling that way doesn't allow an individual to take the state to court. So it might come to a variation of the first bullet point, convince a group with sufficient standing -- opposition members of parliament might be able to sue where normal citizens cannot.</li>
<li>If the government is susceptible to public opinion, publicly break the law and suffer the legal consequences. The government might dislike the adverse publicity and either repeal the law or quietly stop enforcing it. The problem is that the government make you suffer first.
<ul>
<li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Mandela" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Nelson Mandela</a> stood up for what he thought right, after more than twenty years in prison he got out and later became president of South Africa.</li>
<li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Mahatma Gandhi</a> was in and out of prison for several decades before Indian independence.</li>
<li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietrich_Bonhoeffer" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Dietrich Bonhoeffer</a> objected to the Nazi policies. He was presecuted, imprisoned, and executed.</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>

<blockquote>
<p>how can a citizen change a law that is fundamentally flawed?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In most countries it primarily consists of exerting enough pressure on legislators. They are precisely the ones whose job is to enact statutes. That pressure typically ranges from lobbying to mass protests. Violence is a more radical, volatile approach that also has triggered changes of the laws. Two of the most renown examples are the French Revolution and U.S. Independence War.</p>
<p>Violence aside, a law which violates the constitution of that country might --in theory-- be stricken by suing the government. This approach is limited to actual unconstitutionality of the statute and is also constrained by the &quot;practicalities&quot; (to put it very subtly) and other interests running amok in the judiciary.</p>
<p>Moral duty oftentimes is legislatively <em>acknowledged</em> in the form of concepts such as <em>conscientious objection</em>. That does not mean that moral duty <em>depends</em> on legislative acknowledgment. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antigone_(Sophocles_play)" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Antigone</a> by Sophocles epitomizes the superiority that moral duty can have over decrees &amp; official laws, particularly where the latter's basis is markedly disagreeable.</p>

moral-duty