Historical analysis of systems of government often shows that government reforms, often undertaken by the political leader of a nation alone, can create conflicts of interest. A bill promoted by a manager may not actually meet the needs of society as a whole or of a particular socio-economic class. As a result, a favorable environment is created for the development of disputes and discussions about the effectiveness and legitimacy of the ideas. This reflective mini-essay seeks to discuss the source and potential consequences of reforms that initiate conflicts of opinion.
It is paramount to recognize that political leaders or factions with power seek to embody their ideology in the life of the nation. Which political, philosophical, and ethical views a leader belongs to determines the course of a state’s development. In addition, like-minded people often unite around a single idea, forming a confident layer of strong power. Meanwhile, the slogan, the central thought or core of such ideological communities, is always related to the perception of objective reality, and therefore reflects pressing social problems. Consequently, it is appropriate to conclude that the sources of reform for a political leader or power group is its own vision of state development.
In turn, while some ideas may be strategically sound, others, on the contrary, place a specific social class in a vulnerable position. Thus, there is no doubt that the ideological constructs of the power group are often one-sided and thus either fail to take into account or deliberately ignore the interests of minorities. For example, racist communities with the power to govern may suppress the will and freedoms of citizens of color. Alternatively, an abundance of men in parliament may negatively affect the civil security of women in a patriarchal society. Finally, a militarized government that makes military objectives the highest priority of governance may ignore the needs of a secular community. The above examples are only a fraction of the political injustices that have been and continue to be present in all, even the most humanized states.
The history of the world is full of illustrative examples demonstrating the potentialities of unbalanced reforms or their ideas. One need only think of the Temperance Movement to see how lopsided the views of entire communities can be (Britannica). In particular, the temperance movement opposed the consumption of alcoholic beverages, and these slogans were put into practice by banning the sale of alcohol and the closing of bars. Obviously, for people suffering from violence at the hands of drunken citizens, this reform was salvation. On the contrary, the prohibition of the sale of alcohol was not in the interests of drinkers and drinkers, and therefore this reform encroached on the vital interests of a rather sizeable social stratum.
At the same time, the ideology of colonization, which encouraged the political and economic superiority of one people over another, obviously raised critical social issues of inequality. In this context, the example of the American colonization community, which used the deportation of blacks as a tool to exterminate slavery, is relevant (Robinson). Obviously, such ideas did not suit either the white adherents of the theory of slavery or the blacks who chose to settle in the land.
Moreover, even during the colonial period, there was a serious debate in the United States about abolishing capital punishment. It is essential to understand that the very fact of execution as punishment is unacceptable because it gives the authorities the right to take a person’s life, which is the inviolable freedom of every individual. In this sense, the abolitionist movement is a positive idea that satisfies the interests of the majority. It must be recognized, however, that such a decision could lead to prison overcrowding and to keeping dangerous criminals who have committed inhumane atrocities on the taxpayers’ dime. Abolition then was contrary to the interests of prison administrators, politicians interested in reducing crime, and people who favored the death penalty as punishment.
The above examples lead to the natural conclusion that the political life of any community is not unambiguous. The reforms and bills that emerge can never satisfy all citizens or common interest groups. In this sense, there will always be a marked infringement of social freedoms caused by the ideological vector of the vision of a political leader or power group.
Works Cited
Britannica. ” Temperance Movement.” Britannica, 2021, Web.
Robinson, Morgan. ” The American Colonization Society.” The White House, 2020, Web.