Citizens Influence The Decision-Making Process

Does majority rule take precedence over general will, or does general will take priority over majority rule? Should citizens be allowed to influence the decision-making processes of a nation? Which political system is best suited for the people of a nation? This paper examines the importance of decision making, as the process impacts all that live within its boundaries.

If citizens were allowed to partake in the decision-making processes, the nation would follow along the footsteps of the political systems of the United States, Canada, Sweden, etc. The philosophers Locke and Rousseau would support it, and it would be called either a direct or a representative democracy. Within this nation, the people would be allowed to vote, create and
support different political parties as well as lobby groups, and create petitions. The people would have to be given freedom of the press, of assembly, of and speech. This nation would have many advantages such as keeping the government in check with the confidence that the legislation will be in the best interests of the people, minority rights will be guaranteed, and there will be many political freedoms. In Canada, these political freedoms are guaranteed by our multi-party system in which its citizens are given different political views. In addition, these ‘other parties,' that consist of the opposition keeps the government in check, in conjunction with our bicameral system, which consists of the Senate and House of Commons (or House of Representatives in the United States). However, as with many things in this world, there would also be many disadvantages to a democratic nation such as slow decision-making processes. There are also expensive periodic elections of which the money could instead be used instead to help fund national programs, or other very important issues. The majority may not respect the minority, creating a tyranny of the majority, and thus undermining one of the key arguments of democracy. The Senate, which is supposed to act as a check on the government is often given no power and therefore is neither a true regional representation nor a check on the government. Amongst all the above disadvantages, the most prominent may be voter apathy. These expensive elections are being held throughout the country, province, or city, the decision making is being postponed and still little more than half the country ever shows up for voting. By refusing to vote, Canada's citizens could be trying to demonstrate their preference of a dictatorship in which they would not actually have to make any choice at all.

If, however, citizens were not allowed to partake in the decision-making, the nation would instead be following in the footsteps of Nazi Germany, or the USSR. In both countries, the dictatorial rule allowed the nation to improve itself immensely in a very short period of time. Many great and famous historical people supported this system such as Nietzsche, Hobbes, Carlyle, Schmitt, Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon, etc. There are countless advantages to dictatorships as well, for example, decision-making is faster, the country's decisions are made by only those who are most capable, the decisions are made in the best interests of the country and not, for the selfish wills of individuals. There is a lack of pluralism or opposition, which allows the country to operate smoother and thus a unity of the governmental point of view. Moreover, the goals of the country are accomplished at a faster pace, as all efforts are coordinated to a common goal. However, the ruling elite may also abuse the power they are given and they may not rule for the good of the people. The government has no checks or balances and is free to operate out of control. The citizens also have a limited perspective because there is no opposition. The lack of pluralism or opposition frequently causes a loss of individualism as well. Freedoms in dictatorships are often suppressed and its oppressive nature instills fear in the populace. The lack of freedom may stifle the public causing it to become dissatisfied and insubordinate, however, rebellion may not occur because of the domineering government resulting in a general trepidation to speak out or counter the current lifestyle.

This paper will support giving the government the power to rule for the general good of the people.
By giving the ruling elite the power to make the decisions for the whole of the people, decisions are made more rapidly. For example, during the conservative government of Joe Clark of 1979, the multiparty system in Canada created unruly competition amongst political parties resulting in an unstable coalition government. Furthermore, this minority government collapsed in 1980, when it was defeated in a vote of non-confidence resulting in another absurd election. The government again funded this re-election and the nation was forced to expend drastic amounts of money that could be better used to repair the large budget deficits, high inflation, and high unemployment raging throughout the country. If Canada had only been a dictatorship, the government would not have had to fund two elections in two years, or put its citizens through this turbulent time of uncertainty. Instead, the government would have been stronger, and had greater control of the decisions and society. There would not have been such high unemployment rates as all efforts would have been coordinated toward a common
goal.

One of the main reasons dictatorships do so much better not only socially, but also economically.
The lack of pluralism allows the country to operate efficiently, and the unity behind the government gives way for all to strive towards improvement versus merely new ways to insult or counter the arguments of the opposition parties. For example, Schmitt, a political theorist and professor of law, believed a strong dictatorship could embody the will of the people more effectively than any legislative body. This was because it could be decisive, whereas parliaments unavoidably involve discussion and compromise. Schmitt said, "If the constitution of a state is democratic, then every exceptional negation of democratic principles, every exercise of state power independent of the approval of the majority, can be called dictatorship." This alone tells us that a society cannot function without the intervention of the government. This alone tells us that a dictatorship will forever be present in all societies. This alone should be enough for us to embrace dictatorships. Nonetheless, for many accustomed to democracies and unwilling to move forward and create a worldwide dictatorship, they need only look at the economic success reached by Stalin in the U.S.S.R with the creation of the 5-year plans. It is said that the 5-year plans were aimed at creating socialism in one country unlike the plans of internationalism of Lenin and Trotsky. However, as an era that considers itself
intellectually advanced, we can correct the errors of Stalin, and create a worldwide dictatorship. This dictatorship would manage all existing enterprises and undertake a severe program of industrialization, which would result in a high power, high efficiency society. This would eliminate poverty, pollution and even global warming as all would strive toward the goal and all would cooperate in finding the solution to stop the murderous crime of causing the deterioration of the Earth. Again, with Hitler, the economic gains were enormous, he managed to achieve near full employment within a surprisingly short period of time. Hitler also administered one of the largest infrastructure expansion campaigns in German history, with the construction of dozens of dams, autobahns, railroads, and other civil work. In addition, he raised the standards of living for many labourers and farmers despite a 25% increase in the cost of living a result of the wage reductions in post-World War II years. All this Hitler managed to achieve in no more than three years, yet all we remember of him is the holocaust. The holocaust was a sad time as many were brutally murdered because of their race or religious views, yet we declare perfection is impossible. Hitler was a cruel man, executing millions of people, yet he was also very intelligent and extremely skilful. In this day, we must follow Hitler and Stalin's example and improve our economically sluggish societies. We must correct Hitler's racism and instead have all men and all women endeavour towards a common goal.

When a country is ruled by those who are best capable of governing, no one who has any potential of even winning anything even remotely similar to a Darwin Award will not get any chance of voting. Can there be any negative effects of this? By allowing only the best to rule, we can avoid giving the choice to those who are either apathetic or less intelligent and thus improve ourselves. We would eliminate all probability of getting a government such as the current American government George Bush. Our government would know not only how to exit a stage, but also, which conventions he or she is at [APEC vs. OPEC]. Moreover, instead of spending hundreds of millions waging a war across the ocean, it would collectivise and eliminate the ever-present unemployment in the mother country. For example, the Superman theory specifies that the ruler will not be governed by polls or other factors and will be self-directed, ensuring the good of the nation always be upheld. The leader will not be selfish or careless, for the simple reason that only those who are best capable govern. The governing body will be someone who fits Nietzsche's theory, someone above and beyond good and evil. Someone who has the will power to ignore the "short pain" and look forward to the "long gain" as said by Joe Clark. Someone who will strive towards a goal, and convince all to follow and work with him or her towards that goal. Someone who can help those who need help. Someone to motivate the rest of the nation's citizens to strive towards a common goal.

In conclusion, a dictatorship will benefit our nations not only socially but also economically. A dictatorship will solve the problems of our world not only because it is better, but also because it unifies all and gives way to a new and improved world.