In: Economics
If you were fighting for democracy in your country, would you be a radical or a moderate? What are the advantages and disadvantages of each strategy?
minimum of 250 words
Introduction
For economic progress across all countries, different ones have chosen a different strategy when it comes to how they want to govern their country. This is an important economic consideration, since through this strategies people decide who will govern them who in turn take a crucial call on how the nations resources can best be utilized in a manner that the lives of people can be made easier, their access to facilities such as education and healthcare can be increased, and the overall interests of all people can be realized.
Over the years, for management of a country democracy has turned out to be one of the best mediums. This happens because it gives each man an equal right to participate in the decision making process of who will govern their country and therefore empowers them in correct decision making as per their understanding of the country, state or local bodies respectively.
Democracies today are the most popular form of governance and have gained much importance over other forms such as military based rules or dictatorship since it realizes that common public needs to be taken care off if one has to sustain ruling the country.
Case Specifics:-
If you were fighting for democracy in your country, would you be a radical or a moderate?
Considering the fact, that alternatives available to democracy are limited to policies such as military rule or dictatorship, a radical approach is needed to be followed to allow for democracy to function.
It is a well-known fact that dictatorship and other military forms have failed in countries such as North Korea and Pakistan and have been unable to give people a correct form of livelihood and the economic progress of such countries has been in the hands of selfish rulers which have failed numerous times due to their self-interests.
On the other hand, democracies across the globe have rapidly thrived and have been able to allocate resources within the economy in a better manner. Therefore, a radical approach towards democracy is required for better governance of the country.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of each strategy?
The basic advantage of following a radical approach towards implementation of democracy in an economy is that it allows people to directly choose those who decide on how resources are to be utilized and has been a major success across the globe. Countries which have radically followed democracy without considering other forms have been more successful than their counterparts having different strategies respectively.
The disadvantages however of having a radical approach is that we do not realize how democracy is being used by politicians across the globe, to manipulate voters for self-interests. For example in countries such as India where democracy is considered as a radical approach, the problem of corrupt politicians is really effecting the entire economy.
Having a moderate stance on the other hand, gives the advantage that one is open for clear dialogue and would adopt a practice which could be superior to democracy as well. The disadvantage again being that it would be open for bias or partiality.
Please feel free to ask your doubts in the comments section if any.