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.
- Government officials should rely on their own judgment rather than unquestioningly carry out the will of the people they serve 80
- Learning is primarily a matter of personal discipline students cannot be motivated by school or college alone 75
- Scandals are useful because they focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could 80
- Salicylates are members of the same chemical family as aspirin a medicine used to treat headaches Although many foods are naturally rich in salicylates for the past several decades food processing companies have also been adding salicylates to foods as pr 70
- Society should identify those children who have special talents and provide training for them at an early age to develop their talents 80
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.5 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 27 15
No. of Words: 672 350
No. of Characters: 3747 1500
No. of Different Words: 316 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 5.091 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.576 4.6
Word Length SD: 3.009 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 321 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 230 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 184 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 128 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 24.889 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 8.386 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.556 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.324 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.5 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.103 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5