National 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,