Protection of Rights and Liberties by Democratic Government - Coursework Example

GOVERNMENTS’ PROTECTION vs. PEOPLE’S FREEDOM Student’s Name Institutional Affiliation Introduction There has been a widespread notion that government’s policies in protecting their citizens limit the freedom of people (Amy, 2011). This is true in a dictatorial kind of government. However, in any democratic government, this belief is far fetched. The reality is that the rights of people to security, in a democratic government, increases their freedom to carry out their daily activities without any harassment. However, this premise is true where an individual does not breach any laws. It means that as people are given freedom to go on with their activities, they are also expected to do that within established country’s laws (Groves, 2005). It is only after people go against such laws, that government intervenes to protect those who are affected by such actions. Therefore, it is clear that more democratic government means more freedom to citizens. Protection of Rights and Liberties by Democratic Government It should however be noted that democratic governments can sometimes cross over the line and enact laws that infringe the rights and liberties of people or institutions (Janda, 2000). This can be observed where those in power misuse the democratic space of a country. It is evident that even in some countries where there seem to be democracy; people have been made to suffer due to deliberate laws which have been passed by these governments (Sawer et al, 2009). A good example is the on-going fight against terrorism in the world. In most instances, people are kept in remand for years without their cases being heard. In this particular time, there are no evidences that they could have done anything wrong. However , one point must be made clear that a democratic government’s interest is to protect its people and ensure that they go a long with their activities peacefully. The argument that democratic governments are there to take freedom away from citizens is mostly elevated by those who have anti-government agendas (Hall, 2005). These forces have been observed in different parts of the world ,where they go to an extent of being sponsored to carry out such campaigns. Further, it is evident that in most cases governments seem to be carrying out their activities alone (Sawer et al, 2009). If there is any infringement of human rights when protecting its citizens, the same government institutions are used to ensure that actions are taken. A good example is the case where people run to courts to ensure that their rights are not taken for granted. These institutions have been formed through governments’ law or constitutions. Citizens still depend on tools established by democratic space to protect their rights. However, the freedom to do this or oppose any government’s move entirely depends on the freedom that citizens have been allowed by their respective governments. It is therefore correct to state that dictatorial and totalitarian governments are enemies of freedom but democratic governments have established institutions and constitutions that protect the rights of their people. In addition, people make mistakes of believing that their rights and civil liberties depend on the degree of governments’ absence. This means that if governments’ presence was not felt, then rights and freedoms are assured. This argument is not true since peoples’ rights and freedoms depend on how active a government is on positive matters. In the first place, the existing of these rights that people fight for, is as a result of governments’ initiatives, since they are enshrined on constitutions and laws. Government: A Primary Protector of Rights of Freedom As mentioned above rights and freedom of citizens are enshrined in laws and constitutions. Government does not only form these rights but also their implementation depends on the same governments (Bodenhamer et al, 2007). A good example is the rights that different anti-governments institutions such as some non-governmental organizations exercise in forcing governments to follow certain procedures in serving people. If the same government was to remove such rights of freedom of speech, then such rooms of expressions could not exist. It is crystal clear that without the existence of courts in a given country, rights and liberties could be meaningless. Courts play a great role in determining whether governments, institutions, organizations or individuals have gone against the established laws such as constitutions. Individuals, who run to courts to find an interpretation and determinations, forget that the same government funds these institutions! It is therefore hypocritical to suggest that governments, which are democratic, are there to limit the freedoms of citizens. The argument that personal liberties can only be realized when governments limit or does not interfere with the freedom of association or action , to some extent , is ill informed . Human rights are firmly defined based on existing laws. This means that there is no any right that is beyond the laws already established. Therefore, governments have the right to ensure that people (Samples, 2002) do not abuse these rights. It is incredible that people could imagine going along with their activities without a ‘watchdog’ somewhere watching how this is being done. At the same time, if there is no any interference or interventions, then what will be the work of governments in the world. If this could be the case, then governments’ responsibilities and accountabilities could be paralyzed. Furthermore, the process of protecting and enforcing rights of millions of people in a country is not a simple exercise. There are so many rights in one single country that interpreting, understanding and implementing them become a big concern. It therefore needs a well trained administrative workforce to ensure that everything is followed to the letter (Verpeaux et al, 2010). These personnel are found in courts, civil rights agencies, attorney as well as other institutions and individuals who assist governments in this exercise. Again, it means that for rights of citizens to be realized, and then a government must be well funded. If this is not the case, then the rights and liberties of people become largely non-existent or unenforceable. It is true that as people think of their rights of freedom from governments, the reality is that citizens rely on democratic governments to maintain, exercise and establish their rights. Therefore, the call by anti-government organizations to push for slashing of taxes in democratic governments which ensures that every coin is spent wisely in protecting citizens is not encouraging. Such ideologies actually contradict their claims of valuing peoples’ liberties (Sawer et al, 2009). Most of such bodies believe that it is not possible for one to be for rights and for governments at the same time.  Coercion by Governments Can be Good It is evident that most people feel that governments sometimes apply too much force to ensure that rights are not abused. However, majority fail to see the other side of such efforts. One clear point to be noted is that there is no trade-offs between freedom and government (Horrigan et al, 1998). This is mostly true where democracy is real. The opposite is true where dictatorship and totalitarianism exists.. At the same time, extension of government programs cannot be said to go against freedom of its citizen’s in a democratic society. However, it is also true that some government operations inhibit peoples’ freedom. In a democratic government, much of this scenario can be observed through readily established laws as well as regulations. Such regulations prevent persons from doing what they want to do freely. Further, some agencies ,however ,see governments’ coercion as bad. This is far from the truth. Most of such observations are mentioned when governments try to stop some behaviors, taking an example of drug abuse which results into many immoral behaviors in the society. Therefore, by restricting such voices, governments actually protect their citizens (Sakulin, 2011). It is a fact that there is no any single citizen who would enjoy burglars entering into his house or having shady business people who are there to exploit people in the society. It is therefore clear that if people want to be protected from such dubious activities, there is need for governments’ intervention to ensure that people are not allowed to just do what they feel like. Restricting freedom to some people is a democratic government’s national interest (Napolitano, 2011). It should become a matter of concern if such rules are wrongly applied even to innocent people. It is not easy for public to unanimously agree when such coercive measures are put in place. The fact is that in any case, that concerns the public, there must be interested groups who support their own views. At the same time, some people are related to offenders. Such issues make it difficult when it comes to the implementation of regulations. Despite such challenges, what is agreeable is that the government has the responsibility to flex its muscles for the public interest. This ensures that majority of its citizens are safer and well protected. Conclusion The above discussion makes it clear that governments have an enormous mandate of protecting their people and ensuring that the public interest is always considered. However, one clear boundary must be made between democratic and dictatorial kind of leadership or governance .In a dictatorial government, it is true that protection of people could have limitations in terms of exercising their rights. On the contrary, in democratic governments, protection is part of giving freedom to those who are following the established regulations. At the same time, coercion is a welcome move by the government, provided this is applied correctly. Finally, it is prudent to understand that there are those bodies that are against government’s initiatives and their aim is to paint a bad picture in any governments programs. References Amy, D. J. (2011). Government is good .Indianapolis, IN: Dog Ear Pub. Bodenhamer, D. J., Annenberg Foundation Trust at Sunnylands., & Annenberg Public Policy Center. (2007). Our rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Daft, R. (2005). The Leadership Experience. (3rd ed.). Mason, Ohio: Thomson South-Western Groves, M. (2005). Law and government in Australia. Sydney: Federation Press. Hall, S. (2005). Peace and freedom: The civil rights and antiwar movements in the 1960s. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Horrigan, B., Queensland University of Technology., & Queensland University of Technology. (1998). Government law and policy: Commercial aspects. Leichhardt, NSW: Federation Press. Janda, . (2000). The Challenge of democracy. Napolitano, A. P. (2011). It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong: The case for personal freedom. Nashville: Thomas Nelson. Sakulin, W. (2011). Trademark protection and freedom of expression: An inquiry into the conflict between trademark rights and freedom of expression under European law. Alphen aan den Rijn, The Netherlands: Kluwer Law International. Samples, J. C. (2002). James Madison and the future of limited government. Washington, DC: Cato Institute. Sawer, M., Abjorensen, N., & Larkin, P. (2009). Australia: The state of democracy. Annandale, N.S.W: Federation Press. Verpeaux, M., & Council of Europe. (2010). Freedom of expression: In constitutional and international case law. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Pub. Read More