Discussion Of Whether A Good Government Always Does What Its People Want

Everyone desires to have a government that listens to their wants and acts accordingly to fulfill them. This makes the government appear responsive and genuinely invested in its people. However, does a government that always does what its people want, necessarily equate it being good? A good government is responsive to present and future needs, exercises long term planning in policy-setting, and ensures that the best interests of all its people are taken into account. I disagree that a good government should always do what its people want. Doing so puts a strain on limited resources available, and what the people want may not be in the best interest of all groups in society. Even though a good government has a responsibility to listen to its people’s wants and respond accordingly, it should not do so unconditionally as what the people want may not be for the best as they lack a complete understanding of certain policies.

A government that always does what its people want puts a strain on resources available, leading to unsustainability. In a society where people of different social classes exist, wants will naturally differ, making it impractical for the government to meet all demands unconditionally. If governments fulfill people’s every want, unsustainability would follow as the budget and resources that the country has currently would be spent on that endeavor. The Goods and Services Tax (GST) in Malaysia is a value-added tax which was unpopular with the public as it caused the prices of goods and services to spike, and their call for it to be removed was heeded by the government. However, financial services company Moody’s Investors Service has determined the removal of the GST to be credit negative, as the Malaysian government would now become more dependent on the country’s oil-related avenue, straining fiscal strength. Governments that relent to the people’s requests will thus result in irresponsible and ineffective long term planning, creating burdens that will be felt in the future.

What the people want may not necessarily be in the best interest of all groups in society either. A government who always does what its people want indirectly gives the majority in society the final say. This is because the minorities, who are often the ones that need their wants to be met the most, do not have the strength in numbers to make their wants popular. This “power” that is placed in the hands of the majority can result in them using it for their personal interests. In Indonesia, the Blasphemy Act was an act that many Islamic Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) used as a way to constrain unorthodox Islamic sects. When progressive activists petitioned for it to be removed in 2011, 18 Islamic NGOs challenged the petition and showed support for the Act. Ultimately, the petition was rejected and the Act continued to lead to outbreaks of violence against the Christian and Buddhist population. Thus, a government that always does what its people want can cause a social divide, as minorities would be marginalized or even worse, targeted by the wants of the majority. On the other hand, a good government has a responsibility to listen to its people’s needs and wants and respond accordingly. The idea of a government, especially in a democracy, is “of the people, by the people, and for the people”. The people will feel the direct impacts of any policies implemented, thus good governments should take public opinion into account when making decisions. The 2019 Hong Kong anti-extradition bill protest is an example of what could happen if the wants of unhappy citizens are not met. The highly controversial extradition bill, which will allow the extradition of those convicted of crimes to mainland China and Taiwan, was met with strong opposition and dissent from the people. This resulted in widespread protests and demonstrations throughout Hong Kong, causing its economy to stagnate with an increase of just 0.6% over 3 months. Unhappy citizens may thus lead to unrest and instability in the country and put a halt to economic development, showing how a good government should do what its people want.

However, what the people want to be done may not be for the best as they may lack a complete understanding of certain policies. The people may not be fully aware of current affairs, nor fully understand the considerations that go behind governmental policies. Their wants may be based on short-term gratification, rather than what will benefit the country in the long run. Issues regarding taxation have always been debated, with many wanting low taxes as they see it as a way to get the economy going and help out families. However, the case of Malaysia above shows that the benefits of low taxes will only be felt for a short time before the negative implications overshadow them. On the other hand, the Swedish government mandates that citizens pay up to 60% of taxes. Though it seems like a large amount, the taxes paid eventually go into providing the people with free education, healthcare and generous personal bonuses, increasing their quality of life. Thus, a good government should not always do what its people want as they may not completely understand the positive and negative implications that their wants might bring. Roy T, Bennett once said, “Do what is right, not what is easy nor popular”. A good government should do what its people want, but should not allow popular public opinion to hinder their ability to make the right decisions that will benefit the country. A government’s inability to do so may mean that important decisions and actions that should be taken by a good government will be neglected as time, and resources will be put into always doing what the people want. Though this makes the government seem responsive, the faults of this manner of governance will be exposed in the long run when the people’s wants are being prioritized over the country’s needs.