Government officials should rely on their own judgment rather than unquestioningly carry out the will of the people they serve.
I believe in an open, transparent and democratic government, understood as a government that listens to the people it serves and put into service user needs as a tool of defining better public policies.
People that claim that government officials should rely on their own judgment rather than in the people they serve are implicitly claiming that government own judgment is better than the people judgment. However, this point of view is full of elitism and relies in non supported assumptions. In addition, this view is more in line with an autocratic or dictatorial government than with modern democracies. In fact, in modern democracies, listening to the public and collecting citizen needs and wills should be one of the first steps for every policy, especially social policy.
In this sense, government officials should listen to their people. In the public administration and public policy field, several studies had shown that policies that are designed with citizens participation tend to be more successful. The math behind is simple: how can government officials enclosured in a downtown building understand every aspect of what people need and want?
As an illustration of my argument, let’s think about offering a new digital service, for instance, a special ID for the elderly. The question behind is how can we include user needs - in this case, old people needs - in order to ensure that the new public service suits the target public correctly. In other words, how does the elderly feels about digital service? Maybe they prefer to go to an office and be helped by a public official. So, why spending money in this digital transformation if it is not what people want?
Moreover, the citizen participation in the decision-making process can empower citizens and, thus, instill a public feeling in the society. It helps developing a sense of responsibility, once that power is shared and also the consequences - whether positive or negatives - are shared as well. There are several experiences in which the people can decide where to spend a specific amount of public funding. For example, does a community prefer to invest money in a new park or in a new school? By doing this, people become more aware of public funding, public priorities and the limits of public budgeting.
Therefore, I argue that government officials should listen carefully to the people they serve in order to learn more and produce more representative public policies. In addition, by doing that, governments are sharing power with the people, empowering the society and preserving a sense of public good. This does not mean that governments should unquestioningly do everything that people want, especially because in general the problems are more complex and difficult to solve inside the government than people can actually see. However, this means that government officials cannot be distant from people’s needs, attitudes and wills. Conversely, keeping a proximity between government and the people can ensure more responsive and successful public policies.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...y policy, especially social policy. In this sense, government officials should...
^^
Line 5, column 68, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...fficials should listen to their people. In the public administration and public po...
^^
Line 9, column 150, Rule ID: ADVISE_VBG[5]
Message: The verb 'help' is used with infinitive: 'to develop' or 'develop'.
Suggestion: to develop; develop
...public feeling in the society. It helps developing a sense of responsibility, once that po...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 11, column 766, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ponsive and successful public policies.
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, conversely, first, however, if, may, moreover, so, still, therefore, thus, well, for example, for instance, in addition, in fact, in general, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 17.0 19.5258426966 87% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.4196629213 105% => OK
Conjunction : 20.0 14.8657303371 135% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 11.3162921348 133% => OK
Pronoun: 33.0 33.0505617978 100% => OK
Preposition: 61.0 58.6224719101 104% => OK
Nominalization: 24.0 12.9106741573 186% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2591.0 2235.4752809 116% => OK
No of words: 490.0 442.535393258 111% => OK
Chars per words: 5.28775510204 5.05705443957 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.70488508055 4.55969084622 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.91954559759 2.79657885939 104% => OK
Unique words: 243.0 215.323595506 113% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.495918367347 0.4932671777 101% => OK
syllable_count: 801.0 704.065955056 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.38483146067 205% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 20.2370786517 114% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.2227562903 60.3974514979 73% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.652173913 118.986275619 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.3043478261 23.4991977007 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.47826086957 5.21951772744 143% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 10.2758426966 107% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 3.0 5.13820224719 58% => More negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 9.0 4.83258426966 186% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.274449447354 0.243740707755 113% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.081155011491 0.0831039109588 98% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.118714410019 0.0758088955206 157% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.148490682295 0.150359130593 99% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.131111919969 0.0667264976115 196% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.1 14.1392134831 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.8420337079 103% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.1743820225 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.4 12.1639044944 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.35 8.38706741573 100% => OK
difficult_words: 114.0 100.480337079 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 11.8971910112 118% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.2143820225 93% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.7820224719 119% => 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.