Public Participation in Resource Allocation Policies - Essay Example

Vanness Barros 12/01 Public Participation in Resource Allocation Policies As a leader of a large advocacy organization, this isone of the policies that I would like to advocate for to be integrated within the public policies. In most cases, political elites usually formulate and implement public resource allocation policies without the participation of generation public. In as much as some of these policies have been associated with positive outcomes, certain aspects of these policies have been rejected by the general public owing to the fact that they do not meet the real needs of the public members. The participation of the general public in formulation of resource allocation policies will be undertaken through referendums, where the public vote for or against a certain public resource allocation policy. The major advantage of referendum emerges from the fact that before they are undertaken, the general public is usually provided with an opportunity to read and understand proposed policies and determine whether it meets their demands or not, thus determining their voting patterns. In other times, political elites formulate policies that basically harm the well-being of the general public i.e. laws that reduces the amount of social support given to the elderly populace, while at the same time increasing the amount of value added tax on basic commodities. The general public can be involved in formulating such policies by engaging them in referendum processes, where they either vote for or against these laws. In most cases, politicians tend to take advantage of the fact that the general public may not be interested in such matters or may be ignorant. In this regard, it is crucial for advocate for inclusion of public participation in all policy formulation through making it a policy. This can be undertaken through creating awareness among the general public on their importance in participating in formulating such policies by showing their opinions through referendums. The referendum can be undertaken in a manner that, after a policy has been proposed, it is exposed to the general public to read and understand, while also asking for clarification. This enables them to determine whether the proposed policies meet their demands or need, thus determining whether they will vote for or against it. Advocating for public participation in all public resource policy formulation processes is an imperative step for reducing instances of injustices that may occur when policies are formulated and implemented without taking into consideration the public’s perceptions or ideologies through participation. Taking such actions is a component of being democratic and liberal. The essence of implementing the participation of the general public into policy formulation as a rule of a legal pre-requisite for any government activity is a simple way of indicating how liberal or democratic a government is. That is, the participation of the general public in the processes of formulating resource allocation policies is not only an aspect of ensuring real public needs are met, but also an aspect of democracy. Additionally, public participation is crucial owing to the fact elected representatives may in some cases, be driven by personal desires or personal perspectives that do not meet the needs of the general public. In most cases, the participation of the general public in formulating policies ensures that ideas that may not meet the needs of the public are eliminated from proposed policies thus reducing conflicts that may occur when the new policy is presented to the general public. For instance; when a congress decides to allocate certain resources that are not needed by the public i.e. allocating more funds to purchase military weapons, while the public is in need of more schools, it may be rejected, a scenario that might be conflict between the government and the public. Such actions exhibit the ideas of liberalism, which is basically political philosophical perspective based on liberty, having been pioneered by John Locke, liberalism ideologies were founded on rejection of unjust leadership dimensions that did not benefit the general public Additionally, the involvement of the general public in the formulation of socio-economic development policies is a sure way of reducing injustices that may occur in relation to ownership of development processes or allocation of resources. When the public is involved, they tend to provide their opinions regarding how resources should be allocated or how ownership of development projects should be made, therefore leading to a reduced cases of conflict. However, an awareness concerning socio-economic policies such as safety nets and taxes, should be made among the general public in relation to how they function and their pertinence in maintain economic stability. It is the responsibility of the government and development stakeholders to create awareness regarding development projects and specify why some projects need more financial resources as compared to others. Thomas Hobbes and Seyla Benhabib According to Thomas Hobbes, the existence of an absolute sovereignty within a society, allows its government to fulfill its functions such as; policy formulation, maintaining law and order among others (Gaskin, 6). However, for a government to be considered absolutely sovereign, it must be in possess of adequate power to handle any other potential power that may exist within the Society or state (Gaskin, 7). On the other hand, Benhabib asserts that, the essence of sovereignty creates platform for existence of conflicts of either ideology or physical dimensions between sovereign political systems and the ideals of democratic states. That is, the essence of creating sovereignty in a governing system leads to potential conflicts between the government and the ideals of democratic citizens (Benhabib & Jeremy, 12). Taking Hobbes’ argument into perspective, which indicates the state of possessing adequate capacity to handle internal and external powers, one would want to questions the meaning of the word absolute, in which case, may be interpreted as the essence of being in total control. According to Hobbes, absolute sovereignty allows a government to handle and manage other powers within and outside its sovereign. However, Hobbes rejects limitation on the sovereignty of a government because it would simply indicate a weak government that is basically controlled by an external and more sovereign body. Hobbes also posits that if the sovereignty of the citizens was limited, it simply means that they cannot make all decisions for themselves, thus leaving the government in control of almost everything, a scenario that would lead to question the liberty and rights of the citizens. According to Hobbes, absolute sovereign citizens creates a scenario where the government cannot decisions on their behalf, this leads to a state of nature, a scenario characterized by social injustices; thus the government must always ensure that the sovereign nature of its citizens is limited. For Hobbes, a condition of state of nature basically means humanity without a government; according to Hobbes, in case humans were left to live without a government, life would become harsh, solitary and nasty: Hobbes claims that humans would kill each other; this basically means that humans are selfish and without an existing government, there would be well-being. However, Hobbes posits that due to human selfishness and the fear for their lives, they tend to be moral; entering into agreements that one would not hurt the other on the condition that the other would also not hurt them. At this point, Hobbes asserts that the existence of human righteousness is basically a pure myth; humans behave morally because they want to survive and because they recognize the existence of a government that would punish them in case they do not behave in a morally acceptable manner. On the other hand, Benhabib’s argument towards the existence of sovereignty and democratic ideals of a state indicate that there are probable tensions that would exist. Democracy is a dynamic ideology and is closely associated with liberty; democratic ideals in any state usually advocate for human rights that is those rights that are inherent to the entire human race i.e. right to sex, right to place of residence, right to live, right fair treatment among others, by basically making certain demands from the government and expecting less interference or rejection. The existence of such democratic ideals and a sovereign government is what creates tension; however this does not necessarily mean that the government’s power to implement its duties is limited. Meanwhile, sovereign governments means that they can make crucial decisions without being interfered with or rejected by their citizens, however, conflict may arise when such decisions are deemed not adequate or do not meet the needs of the citizens leading to conflicts. I such cases, the government may decide to apply force, leading a violation of human rights. For instance, when a population exhibits its discontent with a government’s action, they may decide to lead demonstration or strikes, but the government may take efforts such as us of police force to prevent them from demonstration. The use of such forces to limit humans from making public complains is an indication that indeed human rights exit, but in a limited manner, that, the government determines what should or should be done by human in some casesIn conclusion, it is evident that human rights exist, but its existence is limited. Various actions have been taken to ensure that Human rights are protected from violation for instance: Application of advocacy campaign and application of certain legal policies that govern the provision of human rights i.e. stipulations of the United States Human Rights policies: However, in most cases, legal policies are formulated in a manner that they do not interfere with the normal functioning of a government. Justice The corpus of justice is based on a variety of fields, however, the simplest description of justice is basically what is considered right, rational, moral or even just on the eyes of an interested party. That is, what a person considers right for him/her when interacting with another party. There is no universal standard meaning or measure of justice, because people are driven by diverse needs, thus what one considers right or wrong may be perceived differently by another party. The nature and concept of justice varies from one society to another and also changes from culture to culture. Additionally, the nature and description of justice is usually separated into three realms of philosophical worldview, social justice and theological. In theology, justice is basically associated with the essence of morality or as a gift given by God, while social thinkers argue that justice as an aspect of society emerge from platform of mutual agreement between two people while philosophers have argued that Justice stems from certain aspects of consequences of a man. From a personal perspective, I believe that justice occurs between two parties, when both make agreements in a win-win basis, meaning that the agreement do not harm any of them. Taking into consideration the fact that win-win situations are less common, justice may therefore be considered as a scenario of agreement between two parties, with none feeling aggrieved. This could conflict with the definition or the belief on justice as asserted by social contract thinkers, who believe that a person’s moral obligation depends on agreements made between them and other members of the society; this simply means that one of these parties has to surrender some of her/his freedom, a scenario that conflicts with justice. This therefore raises the question, should a person consider a scenario of surrendering some of his freedom as a means of showing justice? To begin with, the answer could be no, because justice is a win-win situation; meaning that both parties must be satisfied. On the other hand, the answer could be yes, in case the government or a third party determines what is considered just; meaning that the situation between two aggrieved parties would be reviewed through certain standards that determines who is wrong or right i.e. laws. Such situations would not involve considering who feels right or wrong but rather who complies with stipulated laws. In relation to the group’ conception of justice, it majorly focuses on philosophical view points of justice, focusing on acts of fairness, equity, morals, rational acts et cetera. This is quite different with my perspectives on justice. Personally as fore-mentioned, justice basically entails a scenario where two or more parties are in a mutual agreement with, characterized by a win-win scenario: In this way one would consider such a situation, moral, rational, fair and just. Justice should not be given a one direction sort of view, but rather given a two-direction view point, where the demands of all parties are given an equal sense of consideration. In the course of the semester, the concept of justice has not changed, but I believe the manner by, which students understand justice is what has changed. Work Cited Benhabib, Seyla, and Jeremy Waldron. Another Cosmopolitanism. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2006. Print. Top of Form Bottom of Form Gaskin, J. C. A. Leviathan and Absolutism Critic. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2008. Print. Top of Form Bottom of Form Larson, Calvin J., and Philo C. Wasburn. Power, Participation, and Ideology; Readings in the Sociology of American Political Life. New York: McKay, 2009. Print. Read More