ELEPHANT-DONKEY.com

Miral150 said 06/23, 04:24 PM
This debate refers to no specific government, only a democratic one. The will of the people is one which should not be ignored, but what if these people are misinformed. How, for example, can an average American understand the complex issues behind immigration and the economy; even the experts cannot fully agree on the effects of immigrants.

This is not a complete bypass of democracy. Sometimes governments have to make decisions that are unpopular in the short-term, but reap benefits in the long-term or vice versa. The American withdrawal from Vietnam was popular but resulted in the deaths of million of South Vietnamese. The British Strategic defence review resulted in unpopular decisions, but in the short term it saved money that resulted in NHS cuts.

Whilst a democratic government needs to take account of it's peoples needs, it must also look at what's best for them. Sometimes toes have to be stepped on.

Miral150 said 06/25, 05:51 PM
I do see what you mean, the headline should have been better named. The word's necessary could be read as for the well being of the people; whether it be security, economic prosperity and so on. I'm not saying that a government should be given a carte blanche mandate, it should be still held accountable for any of it's actions. Martial Law will never be popular but can be necessary.

The main problem with my argument seems to be over the issue of necessity. Well somethings are inherently necessary such as taxation, whilst others are necessary for a party to fulfill their manifesto commitments. In France President Chirac was elected after promising to reduce taxes but had to cut back the budget, which was even more unpopular than high taxes. Tony Blair faced criticism over his introduction of the University top-up fees. However universities have flourished and opened their doors to those who would never have got in previously.

The constituent cannot always be relied upon to make a rational decision. Sometimes they are misinformed, other times they cannot make their minds up. I would go on but I'm running out of characters. I hope I addressed your argument properly Fry.

Miral150 said 07/06, 05:17 PM
When I said toes needed to be stepped on I didn't mean the entire population. What I did mean is that sometimes a government will create policy that will be good for the long-term, but voters will generally prefer short term solutions. This isn't good for the country if politicians are just creating 'short term fixes' to deep rooted problems. A focus of the argument is whether or not the People can be considered well informed to make a rational judgement. Issues range from crime to foreign policy.

My example of vietnam is not laughable as I was not referring to the American troops, more of the South Koreans who were killed. In fact it backs up the point of an informed decision. Widespread dislike of the Vietnam war occurred after the Thet offensive, which was a widespread victory for the Americans but the American Embassy was attacked which created the illusion that America wasy losing the war. The public's views on a given subject are affected by a biased media.

Ultimately a government is given a mandate to govern for a set time period. It cannot hope to create policy that is nationally popular. A government should be able to ensure the well being of it's people,