Claim: Major policy decisions should always be left to politicians and other government experts.
Reason: Politicians and other government experts are more informed and thus have better judgment and perspective than do members of the general public.
Based on the assumption that government is vastly more knowledgeable and better accoutered at decision making than the laity, the author avers that policy formulation should be the prerogative of the government. I believe that the problem does not require an either or solution and after weighing in the pros and cons as detailed below, it would be clear that collaborative decision making would be the ideal way forward.
While it is true that the government has expert opinion and resources at its disposal, an important aspect that the author overlooks is the vested interest of these groups and other beneficiary groups, which the government might be beholden to. The politicians might have their own gain concatenated with the interests of large donors or unions. To avert such decision-making which would be beneficial only to the powerful, participative decision-making or citizen involvement is imperative. For instance, any major policy on environmental protection and reducing carbon emissions would be detrimental to the corporate community and they would exert significant influence on the government officials to filibuster. However when the denizens are involved, a more balanced policy can be ensured. The TATA Nano project in Singur, West Bengal is an example of the government subverting the interest of the citizens and allocating large pieces of land, displacing the common farmer, in order to earn favors with a large corporate house. The resulting agitation eventually lead to the project being shifted to another state, causing significant loss to the West Bengal government. However, had a more consensus based approach being adopted, a policy to the betterment of all involved would have likely ensued.
Participative decision making is propitious for both the society and the government. While the nation benefits from adoption of a policy which has its foundation etched in the ‘larger benefit’, the government too benefits as it would face less resistance and more support from the people in implementation of the policy. The dialectical process that participative decision-making entails would serve to sensitize both parties to each others’ views; the government to what the people want and the general citizens to various problems or hurdles in policy making. It would act as an impetus for the citizens to be involved not just in the strategic process but also at the grassroots level with the actual implementation in their own local communities. This idea is best highlighted in the book ‘The Wisdom of the crowds’ where in the author purports that decision making based on aggregation of information in groups often exceed individual wisdom and this is true in myriad scenarios from economics, to business and national good. The four main criteria diversity of opinion, decentralization, independence and aggregation each resulting in incremental benefits towards most effective decision making.
While it has been seen that democratic decision making is an effective way to diffuse excessive power in the hands of a few, it does come with certain disadvantages and delays. There is significant cost involved in ensuring a wide cross section of people to ensure significant representation and to avoid any skew. Additionally, the citizens might not have the policy makers are required to possess which could severely limit practical applicability. Trying to diffuse opposing stances and arrive at a consensus could be a painfully slow process and in situations where an immediate decision needs to be taken, it might have effects to the contrary.
However the value derived from involved citizens actively debating and deliberating over an issue cannot be tangibly measured against objective parameters such as time and cost. Any policy would finder higher acceptance if the voice of the people has been taken into account and time and cost objections are offset by the likelihood of the policy being far more enriched and comprehensive, serving the larger needs of the society. Hence it can be concluded that bilateral decision making is far more advantageous than the government unilaterally deciding.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 716, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...the government officials to filibuster. However when the denizens are involved, a more ...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
... might have effects to the contrary. However the value derived from involved citizen...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 432, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Hence,
...erving the larger needs of the society. Hence it can be concluded that bilateral deci...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, hence, however, if, look, so, while, for instance, such as, it is true
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 31.0 19.5258426966 159% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 20.0 12.4196629213 161% => OK
Conjunction : 28.0 14.8657303371 188% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 11.3162921348 150% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 33.0505617978 82% => OK
Preposition: 78.0 58.6224719101 133% => OK
Nominalization: 32.0 12.9106741573 248% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3525.0 2235.4752809 158% => OK
No of words: 650.0 442.535393258 147% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.42307692308 5.05705443957 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.04926703274 4.55969084622 111% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.09137720406 2.79657885939 111% => OK
Unique words: 322.0 215.323595506 150% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.495384615385 0.4932671777 100% => OK
syllable_count: 1131.3 704.065955056 161% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Article: 13.0 4.99550561798 260% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 20.2370786517 114% => OK
Sentence length: 28.0 23.0359550562 122% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 57.2338089305 60.3974514979 95% => OK
Chars per sentence: 153.260869565 118.986275619 129% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.2608695652 23.4991977007 120% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.52173913043 5.21951772744 67% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 16.0 10.2758426966 156% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.230838462766 0.243740707755 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0689580536282 0.0831039109588 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0520428949053 0.0758088955206 69% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.132678474922 0.150359130593 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0491478600437 0.0667264976115 74% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.2 14.1392134831 129% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 34.6 48.8420337079 71% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 12.1743820225 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.45 12.1639044944 119% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.67 8.38706741573 115% => OK
difficult_words: 191.0 100.480337079 190% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 19.0 11.8971910112 160% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 11.2143820225 118% => OK
text_standard: 19.0 11.7820224719 161% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.