Government officials should rely on their own judgment rather than unquestioningly carry out the will of the people they serve

There is an ongoing controversy among scholars and practitioners about the extent of public officials’ power and discretion. Those who advocate public officers’ strict accordance with the will of the electorate warn that over-extending the roles of government officials might result in an unjustified exercise of power. Moreover, public officials—bureaucrats and elected politicians, in particular—might be unrepresentative of the will of the general populace, distorting a nation’s public opinion. Although I would concede that such concerns are legitimate, government officials should avoid making decisions entirely following the directions favored by the people they work for. In particular, in areas in which highly sophisticated knowledge and expertise are required to make an informed judgment, government officials could render a rational decision. Additionally, in areas in which humanitarian values and involved, government officials should pursue a policy that breeds morality, for the quest of fairness and equity.

Firstly, some might warn that public officials would make a wrongheaded decision if they have their own quirky notions about public agenda. Additionally, as public officials—especially elected politicians—are subject to influence-peddling by lobbyists who do not have the best interests of a nation’s people, the decisions made by few legislators and policy-makers might tend to exacerbate pressing social problems. Thus, it is inconscionable to relegate major issues to the hands of few public officials, while ignoring the welfare of general society. Consider an example of public officials who have reached an unfair and uninformed decision under the influence of major pharmaceutical companies. Since the 1960s, the U.S. pharmaceutical companies have wielded major influence on the public official’s decision of the endorsement of new drugs. History is replete with examples that these officials working for the FDA eventually gave way to the influence of major companies at the expense of public health and safety.

Nevertheless, in a fields where highly sophisticated knowledge and expertise is required, the decisions are best left to public officials who have acquired such skills. The vast majority of people who public officials serve for lack a sort of theoretical or practical-thinking skills to render a fair and informed decision when it comes to technicality and sophistication. Thus, people of a nation should follow their knowledgeable and experienced public officials, for a failure to so can result in a costly mistake. Consider the past advances in medicine technology, as an example. Professional bureaucrats and chief executives have used their knowledge and skills in medical science to break new ground, largely through funding research grants and assigning resources to the most promising and pressing issues—such as inventing effective treatment for a lethal disease, detecting birth defects, or allowing for a less invasive, dangerous treatment.

Additionally, when it comes to a field in which humanitarian needs—such as equality or fairness—are involved, public officials should pursue a policy that breeds ethical values. History shows that, in modern society, the mass have been easily lured into antisocial values, such as hatred or violent. On the contrary, public officials should search for a venue that enhances and protect society’s minorities. Public officials, with their conscience and morality, should strive to soothe the restive mass. For instance, in Continental European countries, public educators have designed and adopted policy that imbues a sense of equity and tolerance among students. Admittedly, such decisions have faced challenges from those who oppose with their preference for ideal education. Nonetheless, statistics show that educators from countries like Sweden and Germany have succeeded in making students who have more tolerance for the viewpoints of others than any other countries.

All in all, I would concede danger of allowing public officials to have discretion on public policy. Sometimes, they would not reflect the true needs of the public, while seeking their own interests. However, the benefits of giving public officials some freedom in decision-making is clear in two fields; a field which requires highly technical knowledge and moral judgment. Giving public officials a certain degree of autonomy might be necessary for enhancing society’s welfare, or even preserving the society itself.