Citizens are expressing their interests in
the problems surrounding them and what’s happening in the government much more
than before. The writer of the article said that the citizens could solve these
problems if they really wanted to. It makes some sense. It’s true that the
flexibility of the Constitution, and the power of the people to change the game,
all of these things have a connection to each other. However, in the current
situation where the thoughts and assessments of one event vary widely from
person to person, it’s difficult to bring about a change in any situation. In
the last paragraph of the article, the writer said that the people didn’t have
a determination for change, but I think people are already somewhat determined
about it. However, I think that because opinions about the direction of the
change are extremely divergent, it’s clearly just that one cannot choose
between them. It’s good for our democracy the citizens to have more power, but
I think if they expand their authority
to control the country too much, people are more likely to ruin themselves in
bitter conflicts with each other. I think the system itself, which allows
citizens to greatly influence the way the country is headed, but allows the
government to interfere in its decision-making power to some extent, is related
to this. Let's consider the electoral college the writer mentioned as an
example. It is true that electoral votes can lead to decisions that are
contrary to citizens' votes and arguments. With recent events, we will be able
to empathize with this more than anyone else. But if the government gives
people too much power in deciding, the conflict over political issues among
citizens will be greater than ever. In the present time of strong and various
assertions for a single event, these conflicts will be greater than ever, and
fair sharing of ideas may not be smooth. And this situation will soon make the
country self-destruct. Because there are some systems that ignore people's
voices, it will take a long time for people to face change directly, even
though they are determined to make their own decisions. However, such those
systems are hard to break and inevitably exists in the country because it is
necessary for the country. Therefore, I do not agree with the writer's argument
to hold citizens accountable for the existence or absence of change in the
country.
No comments:
Post a Comment