Government officials should rely on their own judgment rather than unquestioningly carry out the will of the people they serve.
Democracy is the system of governance by the entire population where they exercise control through elected representatives. The proposition that bureaucrats must rely on personal judgement instead of unquestioningly following public desires amounts to undermine the very objective of a democratic system. However, government officials have the entrusted duty to lead the people with their experience and knowledge in the best interest of national welfare. Hence, while they must consider will of the people on matters directly related to them; they should also rely on personal or professional opinions when the public will is contrary to the overall interest of the country.
Any Government is a multidimensional complex functioning entity whose decisions have a direct bearing on public life and national welfare. When people vote a Government to power after, say, an economic crisis, corruption scandal of failure of state machinery; they have certain expectations regarding healthcare, sanitation, job opportunities, fuel prices, etc. The Government, then, has a responsibility entrusted on it by the democracy to meet these expectations. Many times, these issues may not seem as relevant or important to the bureaucracy as they are to the people. There may be instances when the officials are willing to invest on a space program in the face of high unemployment or to invest in building a fly over instead of a hospital when there is an endemic. Such situations may result in a discord between people and the authority, at times, manifesting in the form of protests, violent agitations or riots thus endangering the social fabric of the state. Therefore, Government officials must consider public opinion or will on issues directly affecting them.
However, on many instances, the will of the people may be contrary to the interest of the country. For example, when a curfew or restriction on free movement is imposed due to a terrorist attack or national emergency, people may want them removed regardless of the importance of the step for the security of the state. Or there may be certain tribes willing to settle in environmentally conserved area, thus, threatening the local flora and fauna. Moreover, people may not be well-informed or knowledgeable on some sensitive issues such as defence or foreign policy to form credible opinions. Thus, in these cases, for the security and well-being of the country, officials must certainly rely on their own judgment instead of unquestioningly following public demands.
Furthermore, depending upon the cultural background or education level, public will might be tainted by some unethical beliefs of the day. For example, during Lincoln’s reign, the whites believed that the blacks are psychologically inferior to them and that slavery was their natural state. Or in colonial India, child marriage was the norm of the day. Had the contemporary Governments unquestioningly followed the will of the people, the respective countries would have never evolved into civilized states as they boast today.
However, there may be certain areas such as education, allocation of reach funds, child and women rights, etc. where policy making requires domain expertise. And the Government officials may be as clueless on these areas as the ordinary multitude. On these areas, therefore, they must invoke professional consultation instead of relying either on personal judgment or on public will.
In conclusion, the binary recommendation for the bureaucrats to either depend upon own judgement or on public will is inappropriate. Excessive reliance of officials on personal judgment may foster autocratic decisions while unquestioningly following the public will might pave for ‘populism’. While on matters directly affecting the public life, their will must be considered; otherwise, on sensitive issues, Government officials must rely on personal or professional judgment for policy making for the overall welfare of the country.
Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
---|---|---|---|
2020-01-23 | __annabelle__ | 50 | view |
2019-11-06 | AAAA2222 | 66 | view |
2019-10-13 | Mohit Raghuvanshi | 83 | view |
2019-09-17 | shoeb_athar | 66 | view |
2019-09-15 | Raian Islam | 50 | view |
- Some people believe that society should try to save every plant and animal species despite the expense to humans in effort time and financial well being Others believe that society need not make extraordinary efforts especially at a great cost in money an 92
- It is primarily through our identification with social groups that we define ourselves. 66
- As we acquire more knowledge, things do not become more comprehensible, but more complex and mysterious. 83
- Although innovations such as video computers and the Internet seem to offer schools improved methods for instructing students these technologies all too often distract from real learning 89
- People should undertake risky action only after they have carefully considered its consequences 87
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ll on issues directly affecting them. However, on many instances, the will of ...
^^^^
Line 21, column 509, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...fessional judgment for policy making for the overall welfare of the country.
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, furthermore, hence, however, if, may, moreover, regarding, so, then, therefore, thus, well, while, for example, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.5258426966 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 31.0 12.4196629213 250% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 23.0 14.8657303371 155% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.3162921348 97% => OK
Pronoun: 24.0 33.0505617978 73% => OK
Preposition: 85.0 58.6224719101 145% => OK
Nominalization: 29.0 12.9106741573 225% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3399.0 2235.4752809 152% => OK
No of words: 614.0 442.535393258 139% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.53583061889 5.05705443957 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.977853291 4.55969084622 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.19287576396 2.79657885939 114% => OK
Unique words: 286.0 215.323595506 133% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.465798045603 0.4932671777 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 1073.7 704.065955056 152% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.38483146067 160% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 27.0 20.2370786517 133% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 49.042183908 60.3974514979 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 125.888888889 118.986275619 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.7407407407 23.4991977007 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.18518518519 5.21951772744 99% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 10.2758426966 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 5.13820224719 175% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.83258426966 166% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.268651252291 0.243740707755 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0746868460328 0.0831039109588 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0591989159444 0.0758088955206 78% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.155369896216 0.150359130593 103% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0500489589579 0.0667264976115 75% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.0 14.1392134831 113% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 40.69 48.8420337079 83% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.1 12.1743820225 108% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.15 12.1639044944 125% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.28 8.38706741573 111% => OK
difficult_words: 177.0 100.480337079 176% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 11.8971910112 122% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.2143820225 96% => OK
text_standard: 16.0 11.7820224719 136% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.