▶ Your Answer :
Operating government in this modern society, political leaders should consider various aspects and concerns in order to make legitimate decisions. Some people say that the politicians need to compromise depending on pubic opinions. This might be true, however, I argue that political leaders should be more consistent in decisions for the sake of fulfilling a long term goals and reflections on the projects.
First of all, for some cases, politicians need to abandon principle in order to make a wiser compromise. This notion may be appropriate especially when unexpected circumstances occur. For example, the world encountered a sudden economic crisis due to the unhealthy mortgage loans in the US in 2008. When this melting down happened, a majority of government stop their investment for developing, rather they save more monetary resources for sustaining. In this case, the political leaders did make compromise by abandoning their pledges or objectives set earlier.
Despite that under the unexpected situation it is better for political leaders to alter their principles, for most cases political principles and objectives should be determined and implemented. Political goals and policies are long term projects that involve a huge amount of investment and manpower. Therefore, if a policy changes from time to time based on any external factors, the planned goals are not likely complete, which will not reward the investment. For instance, in 2014 Brazil holds the World cup, which means Brazil government may have assigned a certain amount of budget for the world event. If the political leaders in Brazil request adjusting the budget for any upcoming events (e.g., building a bridge in a local area in San-Paulo), the World cup might have been negatively influenced. In this context, being stubborn with the policies will be wiser decision than making a compromise.
In addition to the World cup example, I would like to bring up a trial-driven effects and reflective contribution. If a principle is abandoned, even though the policy is well designed by professional legislators, we may lose the chance to asses its effect. Recognizing that trial error and reflection can contribute to better consequences in the long term, I ague that political principles and projects should not be abandoned, but be supported, implemented, and assessed. The Obama care could be an example, which people raise abundant pros and cons on. Considering and discussing the topic itself is worthwhile because if Obama care is not implemented at all, this issue may not be on the table at all.
In sum, even though compromising may be necessary and better in certain circumstances, I argue that political leaders should be consistent in their principles and objectives. By doing so, long term goals can be achieved and reflection on the unforeseen trial errors can be made. | |