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 support different political parties as well as lobby groups, and create petitions. The people would have to be given freedom of the press, of assembly, of and speech. This nation would have many advantages such as keeping the government in check with the confidence that the legislation will be in the best interests of the people, minority rights will be guaranteed, and there will be many political freedoms. In Canada, these political freedoms are guaranteed by our multi-party system in which its citizens are given different political views. In addition, these other parties,' that consist of the opposition keeps the government in check, in conjunction with our bicameral system, which consists of the Senate and House of Commons (or House of Representatives in the United States). However, as with many things in this world, there would also be many disadvantages to a democratic nation such as slow decision-making processes. There are also expensive periodic elections of which the money could instead be used instead to help fund national programs, or other very important issues. The majority may not respect the minority, creating a tyranny of the majority, and thus undermining one of the key arguments of democracy. The Senate, which is supposed to act as a check on the government is often given no power and therefore is neither a true regional representation nor a check on the government. Amongst all the above disadvantages, the most prominent may be voter apathy. These expensive elections are being held throughout the country, province, or city, the decision making is being postponed and still little more than half the country ever shows up for voting. By refusing to vote, Canada's citizens could be trying to demonstrate their preference of a dictatorship in which they would not actually have to make any choice at all.
If, however, citizens were not allowed to partake in the decision-making, the nation would instead be following in the footsteps of Nazi Germany, or the USSR. In both countries, the dictatorial rule allowed the nation to improve itself immensely in a very short period of time. Many great and famous historical people supported this system such as Nietzsche, Hobbes, Carlyle, Schmitt, Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon, etc. There are countless advantages to dictatorships as well, for example, decision-making is faster, the country's decisions are made by only those who are most capable, the decisions are made in the best interests of the country and not, for the selfish wills of individuals. There is a lack of pluralism or opposition, which allows the country to operate smoother and thus a unity of the governmental point of view. Moreover, the goals of the country are accomplished at a faster pace, as all efforts are coordinated to a common goal. However, the ruling elite may also abuse the power they are given and they may not rule for the good of the people. The government has no checks or balances and is free to operate out of control. The citizens also have a limited perspective because there is no opposition. The lack of pluralism or opposition frequently causes a loss of individualism as well. Freedoms in dictatorships are often suppressed and its oppressive nature...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document