JSher

Thanks in advance for your opinion! See the question and my response below: Some people believe it is often necessary, even desirable, for political leaders to withhold information from the public. Others believe that the public has a right to be fully informed.Write a response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns with your own position and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should address both of the views presented.' RESPONSE: In evaluating whether it is necessary or perhaps even preferable for information to be withheld from the public by the leaders who influence and determine the political landscape of a community or a nation, it is first necessary to establish that each point of view can be supported by relevant facts and arguments, ultimately lending its way to a happy medium, or a balance between the two arguments. If an argument is bounded either by extreme belief that policy making should be an open forum for all to participate in, or even the opposite view that nobody should ever be entitled to information regarding policy making by their very own elected officials, the argument is likely to be excluding very valuable pieces of information. That being said, the view that allows for the most rational and viable form of communication and discussion bounded by democratic principles is certainly the latter view that the public has the right to be fully informed on political issues. Before rationalizing one's support this view, it is important to clarify that a few assumptions must be made: perhaps it is common knowledge that this society is a democratic one that freely elected the political decision makers who are expected to perform their duties in good faith and in the best interest of the people they were chosen by to make certain decisions. In support of allowing for an open forum of communication in the area of policial decision making, it is clear that one of the most important aspects of running a successful democratic government is being open with the community, promoting healthy discussion of issues, sharing opinions with each other, and allowing multiple stakeholders to express their interests in the issue at hand. For example, if there is a plan to change the infrastructure in the city, it will have major implications on many stakeholders, and it is important for effective political leaders to understand the concerns of many if not all of them before making a brash decision. To clarify, say the infrastructure manipulation plan is meant to improve the quality of life for everyone in a particular town. The goals are to rebuild housing and public transportation systems. While political decision makers see the ultimate outcome of "improved quality of life and opportunity for increased tourism and economic growth in the long run," other stakeholders, such as commuters to work, mother's of young children, and teachers and school board directors respectively might think of shorter term consequences of this plan: increased commute times to work due to construction and thus lost productivity due to frustration on the road and less time to sleep; loud construction throughout the day that disturbs and perhaps upsets young children; and similarly, a combination of increased traffic for school buses and loud noise that might inhibit the learning of students in the schools of these communities. If mulitple stakeholders cannot express their concerns on these matters because all information is being withheld from them, it creates a scenario in which the long term health of the community will deteriorate, even if the goals had much better intentions initially. Of course it is important to recognize the merits of the other side of the argument: most people don't have as good of an understanding of the economic implications of certain plans than, say, an economic chairperson hand selected by political officials. These are people who have successfully implemented such plans before and would only suffer in an enviroment in which multiple and, perhaps, uninformed stakeholders are showering them with their opinions and viewpoints that might not lead to the best solution in the long run. That being said, there just are not many more viable arguments to support withholding absolutely all information from the public. In conclusion, under the assumption that we are operating in a democratic society, the view that the public has the right to be fully informed trumps the alternative that they should not have access to any information.