The well-being of a society is enhanced when many of its people question authority.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and s

Leaders always desire to be above of all questions that are related with their potentence and authority. Although misbehaviors and illegitimate acts of governors should be criticized severely, continuation of these objections is not beneficial for anybody in the nation. Questioning the authority seems to a powerful tool that society should adopt to improve the level of its well-being. However, many people constantly question the authority, it would hurt the legitimacy of the authority; cause economic and political unrest. Hence, when many people question authority it does not improve the society’s well-being.

To begin with, questioning authority is beneficial in order to prevent corruptions and to eliminate the people who are apt to these kinds of illegal and immoral acts. However, being constanly exposure to criticisms hurts legitimacy of authority and leads to economic unstability. It is cardinal for a country to take investments from foreign businessmen. Economic stability is the most important criteria for a country to attract investments. Hypothetically, economic policies of a leader might motivate businessmen to build a factory in a country. However, in an environment where there are many questions about legitimacy of the authority, there is a huge possibility a new leader will be elected in a short time. In addition, when a new leader is elected, there is no guarantee these new leader would embrace the economic policy that was established by his predecessor. In this case, foreign investors would be in a dilemma and because of constant change of the economic policies they would not be willing to invest in that country. As a result, when many people question authority the economic well-being of the country would be hurt because of these criticisms.

In addition, constantly questioning authority would lead to political unstability as well as economic unstability. Criticisms about the governments might motivate people who hold the power to take extreme precautions to protect their position.Even though authority is questioned by many people, some radical supporters of the authority would remain. In addition, the disparity about the potence of governors would cause unrest among the public. In the extreme cases, these might lead to a civil war.For example, in Egypt the society experienced two civil wars in a short period of time. First, they wanted to overthrow the dictator. However, newly established government was not appraised by many people. Hence, the objections to legitimacy of new government motivated the army for a military coup. In this case, a new civil war was initiated due to the oppressions that were applied by the people who held the power. As in the case of example, objections to authority deteriorate the position of the populace.

Finally, some people claim that criticism about authority indicates the cultural level of a nation. Even though it has some merit, it cannot be considered as valid in many cases. For example,there is constant unstability as a result of quentions about the power of governors in Middle East countries and tribes in the Africa. However, their educational and cultural level cannot be considered better than European nations where people live in harmony. Consequently, questions about authorities are not indicators of cultural level of a population, it rather shows the problems related with democracy in that country.

To sum up, criticisms are essential to improve the current level. However, objections to all legistations that are prepared by the government cause economic and political unstability. Instead of questioning their power, a nation should prepare an environment where its leaders have to behave by taking the laws and benefit of their populace into consideration.