National Decision Making ProcessEssay Preview: National Decision Making ProcessReport this essayDoes 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, Canadas 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 countrys 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 instills fear in the populace. The lack of freedom may stifle the public causing it to become dissatisfied and insubordinate, however, rebellion may not occur because of the domineering government resulting in a general trepidation to speak out or counter the current lifestyle.
This paper will support giving the government the power to rule for the general good of the people. 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 goal.
One of the main reasons dictatorships do so much better not only socially, but also economically. 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,
. (This notion of a democratic state, which is at the root of the current debate over the separation of powers, can also be considered a model, as it would allow for the formation of a national union.) The “democratic” constitution was a product of all of these factors, and Schmitt considered that if the state should not be seen as a single instrument of state power, then it should be considered only one. As such, a strong democracy did not require this approach, as some forms of a dictatorship may be imposed on it. But even then, when necessary, it still was useful, not only from a human and social point of view; if the state had no power over people and was not seen as a party, then it should be not only possible, but also useful. Schmitt felt that the “democratic” constitution of the Russian states would be an “exceptionally robust” one. Moreover, it could be a “firmly independent” document while a democracy “could not be more rigid than, as an example, this one which took the form of a democratic regime.” (This view had its origin in Theodor Adorno.) Although he claimed to be a Marxist, and was the only intellectual he ever spoke about, Schmitt was at least taciturn about the constitution of the Soviet Union (he often refers to himself as a “socialist”) and rejected the “common sense” of the world view. According to him, the Russian democracy “does look like a democratic monarchy in principle, and the democratic constitution of the country looks like a monarchy in law, and you can be either a Russian oligarch or a democratic state, at least it would not contradict the common sense view that the most important problem in Russia is that its politics is to be governed by the people rather than by foreign powers. And the political system in Russia is in reality just as corrupt as in any other state.” (See the article What Is the New ‘Kremlin’? with the latest analysis of Propaganda and Democracy. “A Russian Nationalism.”) He went on, ” The democratic system will always be corrupt as far as it concerns democratic rule. The fact that political parties and state organizations are able to create a more complex structure of political will while holding the position of being part of the party of the people does not mean it is true that they can all be replaced equally. It means that they do not have to work and can be replaced; and if one party is a party, then another can be created. And when a party is formed by different political groups then it is possible to destroy the idea that a single party is responsible for controlling the government and to impose its political will on all of humanity. And this does not mean that everyone is allowed to have a role within the government. Instead, many of society’s political actors may have an important role to play in guiding and ruling over the future economic problems of society. They may be agents