People should question the rules of authority as opposed to accepting them passively. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing an

The subject of the relationship between the governed and the government in a functioning nation-state is as old as government itself. Across different civilizations and within the same civilization, multiple answers have arisen to this question. For example, in the early history of the Islamic civilization political considerations surrounding the relationship of the ruler to the ruled lead to several sectarian splits. Whilst it could be justifiably argued that people should passively accept the rule of their government to protect social harmony and national unity, this is not a position I can reasonably agree with. Thus, in this essay, I argue that it is important for the populace of any nation-state to question the ruling authority. This, however, must be founded upon a common epistemological commitment to reason and civil discourse.

Recent history showcases the disastrous results of populations, willingly or unwillingly, not holding their rulers' to account. When rulers are not held to account, the selfish and misguided part of human nature flourishes due to the fact there is no opposition to their desires. This results in oppressive dictatorships such as that of North Korea, or Nazi Germany. Whilst, the DPRK has, arguably, an impressive sense of national unity, the unquestioned authority of the Kim dynasty has led to economic ruin, famine, and rampant malnutrition, in addition to a populace that is highly misinformed about world affairs. Their unquestioning nature has meant that the ruling dynasty has acquired more and more power at the expense of the population.

If we move beyond dictatorships and focus on democratic societies, it is clear that for a democratic society to function the people must question the ruling dispensation. The better informed the populace, the better a democracy can function. A populace can only become better informed through dialogue and discussion which comes about as a result of questioning current laws and institutions. A poorly informed society results in voters who vote only on the basis of state-provided propaganda and personal emotions. This can have two major effects. First, a society which functions solely on the basis of state propaganda and personal emotion can consequently become a deeply unjust society. One need only to think of the treatment of homosexuals in Vladimir Putin's Russia, or the rising anti-Semitism in Viktor Orban's Hungary to see the result of this.

A second, major effect of an uninformed populace is social and institutional stagnancy. In a democratic society, often a government is more a reflection of the population than vice-versa. If a population does not question the effectiveness or relevance of institutions or legislation then there can be no path for the society to progress. Unjust and outdated laws will continue to exist, such as the recently repealed Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. Furthermore, institutions without questioning and renewal will naturally be subject to entropy and will decay until they are no longer fit for purpose. Educational attainment will decrease, health outcomes will decrease unless an enquiring populace exists.

Whilst I believe that an inquisitive populace is important, it must rest upon a common epistemological commitment to reason and finding objective truths. Otherwise, the result is that questioning arises without any logical foundations, and is anchored to personal emotion and basic motivations. This inevitably results in increased partisanship and the existence of a deeply divided society, as seen in the USA. Thus, the encouragement of inquiry in a population must be complemented by a development of critical thinking skills and the growth of a common pursuit of objective truths. In this manner, concerns about national disunity and social disharmony can also be dispelled.

As I have outlined above, a curious and questioning population is essential to ensure social progress, welfare, and justice. The absence of such a population can quickly result in dictatorship, economic ruin, famine, and oppression. However, curiosity must be based upon certain common commitments to truth and reason, which will ensure civil discourse. This is essential if a society is to avoid the ills of anarchy and social disharmony. Progress can only start from the enacted freedom to inquire.