Government officials should rely on their own judgment rather than unquestioningly carry out the will of the people they serve Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoni

The global perception of a nation in the eyes of the international diaspora is often judged by the stability of the ruling government and its ability to make prudent decisions that benefit its citizens as well as the global community. Consequently, it is the responsibility of the government officials in charge to guarantee the welfare of its people, even if this sometimes warrants taking a stand against the public opinion. The prompt recommends that government officials should trust their own instincts in matters of public policy rather than blindly follow the will of its citizens. In my opinion, I mostly agree with this statement for two reasons.

It is common knowledge that a citizen has a better understanding of the pressing issues that exclusively concern her than the local government officials, simply because she is faced with these challenges on a fairly regular basis. It can also be attributed to a possible lack of empathy and a general lackadaisical attitude among these officials regarding the people's concerns. For instance, corruption is a major issue that is faced in many countries around the world, when government officials are often found guilty of siphoning large sums of taxpayer money for their personal benefits. This shows that the people in power are susceptible to abusing their authority for personal greed, and there needs to be a system of accountability to prevent such incidents.

However, it must be noted that the general public does not possess the broad and impartial perspective that is essential to make executive decisions, often at the risk of personal loss. Consider, for instance, a country where severe droughts have caused water shortages in some states. In this case, a decision by the national government to direct essential water supplies to affected states from the other states might be met with dissent from the people in states with no water shortages because their water supplies have been stymied. However, this trade-off makes sense from a broader perspective and can be judged as a prudent decision from an impartial perspective.

Moreover, public sentiment is often fickle and prone to short-term, impassioned outbursts, which might prevent rational decision making. For instance, strong public outroar regarding cases of racial or communal violence have often been followed by riot outbreaks, where the people decide to abandon faith in the authorities and take matters in their own hands. However, such incidents have only contributed to greater anarchy and loss of life and property, instead of "doing the right thing" as probably intended by the perpetrators. In this case, the government must take a strong stand against such harbingers of violence irrespective of sides, and strive to ensure the restoration of normal order. On a related note, if a suspect is alleged of some heinous crime and the public wants her dead, should the government listen to the will of the people or at least give the accused a fair hearing? In my opinion, the latter is the more pragmatic approach, even though the public might feel otherwise.

In a nutshell, even though public demands are extensive and everchanging and the government might not be able to cater to all of these issues with the desired effect, it still remains poised to make more prudent decisions from a global viewpoint, one that aims to equitably benefit all parties concerned. Perhaps, a sincere effort to increase the efficacy of communication of public feedback would help to keep the executive members in check, and ensure that they do not ignore the masses' welfare in matters of concern.