However, when one citizen among the people stands out, it can be a positive aspect towards public service. As stated in The History of Thucydides, "when a citizen is in any way distinguished, he is preferred to the public service, not as a matter of privilege, but as the reward of merit" (Benjamin Jowett). A citizen that is different from the rest should not be taken as beneficial towards public service, but as a gift of excellence. A democracy allows citizens to have this ability. In addition, a government under democratic rule consists of laws that create an equity among citizens.
Overall civic community and engagement in politics by the population is therefore part of a democracy. If a society doesn’t get politically involved, if society doesn’t care, a democracy will crumble, and won’t function, as it should be. If people unite, go to gatherings, or work as the community they are, according to Putnam, which is in my opinion the author that best explains, and gives the most detailed examples of how important is to have social capital; without this, democracies wouldn’t last, or wouldn’t work as they have.
However, this issue cannot be solved through emotional talk, rather logical explanations and accurate evidences are required for the best possible conclusion. Although, many argue that Pakistan is better off being ruled by a democratic government however, this is not the case because of, inefficient decision making in democratic govenments , high illiteracy rate in Pakistan, in transparent voting system and diversity of social fabric of Pakistan. Firstly, in a democratic government decisions are made slowly, on the basis of personal gains and satisfaction of voters and not for the prosperity of people and betterment of the country while on the other hand in a dictatorship decision making is efficient and fast. Decisions are made to promote progress in a country. In a democratic government decisions are usually made for political scoring and the main purpose behind making a decision is to attract the attention of people.
Second, democracies are the most likely to produce rational policies because it can count on pooled knowledge with which to make the decision. Third, democracies are long-lasting and more stable because their leaders are elected and answerable to voters. Fourth, democracy is considered to be the best government for economic growth and material well-being. Finally, democracy lets its citizens be free, which causes a state of mind allowing them to best develop their talents and skills. (Greenberg & Page, 2011, p.4).
However, if the citizens were uneducated, they will vote for the wrong candidate, law, etc. Hence, direct democracy would not be efficient or ideal for some countries. For educated societies and citizens, direct democracy would be the ideal government, allowing the citizens to equally interact with the government and laws relying on their
It is extreme oligarchy in its "distrust of the masses" and extreme democracy in its "hostility to the noteables" (Page 211). Aristotle says the best form is one based on merit. A combination between oligarchy and democracy is constitutional government. Although people can agree on what justice is, they often fail to reach it because they can not stop from pursuing their own goals and desires. A good government can moderate between what people think is just and what is best for the common good.
Lobby Groups In this comparison between David B. Truman and V.O. Key, Jr.’s views on lobby groups they have different interpretations on role and interaction of these groups in government. In a democratic system there is bound to be resentment and desire for change because it is impossible to satisfy everybody. Truman and Key describe how those individuals try to be recognized while forming groups for “strength in numbers”. In the comparison of interest and pressure groups it is apparent that although they created resentment in the inner layers of government, they were necessary to the development and progress of the political system.
The same idea goes to a democracy; if the people were not educated then the democracy would have trouble surviving because it would be un... ... middle of paper ... ...ernment realized that it is pointless to fight a majority of the nation because the democracy would not survive, since no one would be there to vote for the next leaders. People voicing their opinions is a large part to letting a democracy survive. A democracy could only survive if people voice their opinions, ask questions, and if the society is educated. Disobedience leads to some of the most unfortunate of things, such as death. People either believe that the above information is 100 % spot on, while others believe none of it is true.
Accordingly, there is danger in having an all-powerful state because personal freedoms are lost. More so, there is power in having knowledge that others do not possess because it is a gateway for the government to control the public if scientific and technological advances are been made. As mentioned before, governments prosper when there is stability and commodification is way of the government achieving that although it does alter human behavior. On the other hand, some would argue that modern society is based on democracy and a controlled state as depicted in Brave New World is impossible to occur but there are indicators in society today that serve as a resemblance. Brave New World emphasizes that the dangers of an all-powerful state, power of knowledge, and commodification are detrimental to modern society.
When looking at these facts it just shows why democracy is the best thought of. In most places ruled by one king or a dictator the people's voices are not heard. They don’t get to help make choices on who is going to rule or what laws get passed. With these freedom comes great power, such as being able to vote for the President that you think will make the right decisions. In this form of government you can criticize the leader and demand action if you don’t feel that he is doing his job.