Citizens Influence The Decision-Making Process
Does majority rule take precedence over general will, or does general will take priority over majority rule? Should citizens be allowed to influence the decision-making processes of a nation? Which political system is best suited for the people of a nation? This paper examines the importance of decision making, as the process impacts all that live within its boundaries.
If citizens were allowed to partake in the decision-making processes, the nation would follow along the footsteps of the political systems of the United States, Canada, Sweden, etc. The philosophers Locke and Rousseau would support it, and it would be called either a direct or a representative democracy. Within this nation, the people would be allowed to vote, create and …show more content…
By giving the ruling elite the power to make the decisions for the whole of the people, decisions are made more rapidly. For example, during the conservative government of Joe Clark of 1979, the multiparty system in Canada created unruly competition amongst political parties resulting in an unstable coalition government. Furthermore, this minority government collapsed in 1980, when it was defeated in a vote of non-confidence resulting in another absurd election. The government again funded this re-election and the nation was forced to expend drastic amounts of money that could be better used to repair the large budget deficits, high inflation, and high unemployment raging throughout the country. If Canada had only been a dictatorship, the government would not have had to fund two elections in two years, or put its citizens through this turbulent time of uncertainty. Instead, the government would have been stronger, and had greater control of the decisions and society. There would not have been such high unemployment rates as all efforts would have been coordinated toward a common …show more content…
The lack of pluralism allows the country to operate efficiently, and the unity behind the government gives way for all to strive towards improvement versus merely new ways to insult or counter the arguments of the opposition parties. For example, Schmitt, a political theorist and professor of law, believed a strong dictatorship could embody the will of the people more effectively than any legislative body. This was because it could be decisive, whereas parliaments unavoidably involve discussion and compromise. Schmitt said, "If the constitution of a state is democratic, then every exceptional negation of democratic principles, every exercise of state power independent of the approval of the majority, can be called dictatorship." This alone tells us that a society cannot function without the intervention of the government. This alone tells us that a dictatorship will forever be present in all societies. This alone should be enough for us to embrace dictatorships. Nonetheless, for many accustomed to democracies and unwilling to move forward and create a worldwide dictatorship, they need only look at the economic success reached by Stalin in the U.S.S.R with the creation of the 5-year plans. It is said that the 5-year plans were aimed at creating socialism in one country unlike the plans of internationalism of Lenin and Trotsky. However, as an era that considers itself
If citizens were allowed to partake in the decision-making processes, the nation would follow along the footsteps of the political systems of the United States, Canada, Sweden, etc. The philosophers Locke and Rousseau would support it, and it would be called either a direct or a representative democracy. Within this nation, the people would be allowed to vote, create and …show more content…
By giving the ruling elite the power to make the decisions for the whole of the people, decisions are made more rapidly. For example, during the conservative government of Joe Clark of 1979, the multiparty system in Canada created unruly competition amongst political parties resulting in an unstable coalition government. Furthermore, this minority government collapsed in 1980, when it was defeated in a vote of non-confidence resulting in another absurd election. The government again funded this re-election and the nation was forced to expend drastic amounts of money that could be better used to repair the large budget deficits, high inflation, and high unemployment raging throughout the country. If Canada had only been a dictatorship, the government would not have had to fund two elections in two years, or put its citizens through this turbulent time of uncertainty. Instead, the government would have been stronger, and had greater control of the decisions and society. There would not have been such high unemployment rates as all efforts would have been coordinated toward a common …show more content…
The lack of pluralism allows the country to operate efficiently, and the unity behind the government gives way for all to strive towards improvement versus merely new ways to insult or counter the arguments of the opposition parties. For example, Schmitt, a political theorist and professor of law, believed a strong dictatorship could embody the will of the people more effectively than any legislative body. This was because it could be decisive, whereas parliaments unavoidably involve discussion and compromise. Schmitt said, "If the constitution of a state is democratic, then every exceptional negation of democratic principles, every exercise of state power independent of the approval of the majority, can be called dictatorship." This alone tells us that a society cannot function without the intervention of the government. This alone tells us that a dictatorship will forever be present in all societies. This alone should be enough for us to embrace dictatorships. Nonetheless, for many accustomed to democracies and unwilling to move forward and create a worldwide dictatorship, they need only look at the economic success reached by Stalin in the U.S.S.R with the creation of the 5-year plans. It is said that the 5-year plans were aimed at creating socialism in one country unlike the plans of internationalism of Lenin and Trotsky. However, as an era that considers itself