[i习作temp] issue45 政治典型题二小时,自己改过一遍 [复制链接]

goasuplease
UID: 195799

荣誉版主

Rank: 9 Rank: 9 Rank: 9

声望: 14
寄托币: 16083
注册时间: 2005-2-15
精华: 14
帖子: 17

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2005-2-20 21:47:44 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

45"Government officials should rely on their own judgment rather than unquestioningly carrying out the will of the people whom they serve."
45: 政府官员应该有自己的判断力，而不应该被群众的愿望所左右
1.政府的权力是民众赋予的，应在精神上体现全民意志（卢梭、林肯...）；
2.任何有违上述原则的政府，在法理上，应被推翻（《独立宣言》）
3.然而，实际上，政府官员应有判断力处理事务，这也是让渡权力的原因
（1）否则效率低；（2）民众信息少，易受影响；(3) 《阿罗不可能原理》
4.官员的行为应接受监督

People in most countries sometimes are unable to find an expedient solution themselves and turn to their government to make the very decision, especially when some crises occur. On that basis, the statement seems somewhat plausible. However, it interprets the basic function and originality of a government in a misleading way. Under such a creed a government would eventually undermine its foundation itself.

The authorities of any governments come from the people they serve. As the mainstream of political thought in Western culture, Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s concept of “the social contract” indicate (and I paraphrase it) the originality of a government that human being in a country are willing to give up part of their freedom and be ruled by others only if their rights, happiness and property are better-protected rather than a society of chaos. A government’s responsibility therefore, first and foremost, should be carrying out the wills of the people they serve, unquestioningly if it is possible. That point of view can be further justified by Abraham Lincoln’s historical speech at Gettysburg, where he claimed profoundly, “a government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth”.

Any forms of governments, no matter how big differences between the political and law systems there might be, would lose their authorities if they abuse the power their people endowed, as one of the most fundamental principles in human beliefs. If it goes in the wrong direction far too much, namely, if it loses its original pursuit of its people’s benefits, the consequence would be nothing but terminating the government administration itself, that is “the People has the right to alter or to abolish it ”(according to “The Declaration of Independence”). Paragons as the French and American revolutions examined this political thought in reality.

On the basis on that, we admitted that government officials should have the ability to solve a variety of mundane affairs according to their own judgment insofar as the law permits in advance. And that is why the concept of government was invented as discussed above. An effective and efficient government is indispensable in several aspects. Firstly, to make a decision, it is impossible to gather enough opinions that can represent the will of the majority of people in most cases. An accessible, effective and democratic (at least ostensibly democratic) solution is a voting system, aiming to form a government that represents most people’s will. And that is what is going on in most democratic countries.

Secondly, common people are usually not as well-informed as government officials or government decision-makers even though they have the rights entitled by laws. Media, controlled by magnates (sometime the government itself, directly or indirectly), do not always play an impartial role to fulfill their missions.

Thirdly, it has been mathematically proved that, when dealing with specific events of more than two choices, to make a fair decision that a majority of people approves is impossible. The remarkable theory, which is called Arrow's impossibility theorem, rules out the possibility that a single election procedure could produce a consistent outcome while solving complicated social problems.

These three reasons, as well as others that have not been presented, point out the necessity that government officials make decisions in certain circumstances. However, even they are entitled to use their own judgment in solving specific, concrete affairs, a health political system necessitate a self-restraining mechanics that assure the system is running in favor of the benefits of the majority of people. Moreover, if the issues are really significant such as a war or a presidential election, which will influence public security, human rights or the fate of the country remarkably, decisions should be left to people rather than government officials even though the procedure is all-consuming and painstaking. Such a division between mundane, trifling affairs and influential issues should be fixed by laws in advance.

In the final analysis, a government, as well as its officials, could and should serve the people by making specific decisions for them insofar as laws permit and in the spirit of people’s will. Their judgments and the decisions they made should be supervised by a branch of people brought by a democratic, legal procedure. However, as referring to substantial problems, people themselves are the only choice-makers that could be legitimate and responsible.