It is common for some people who believe in democracy to try to persuade others to vote for a specific party during election times. Sometimes, they even resort to warning people who say do not vote that they will not have the right to complain if the candidate that wins does not satisfy the community. Since this view is an extreme point, the majority of the population will disagree with this view, and in fact, this is not a true definition of democracy.
From my perspective, a person has all the right to complain about what they consider is not going well in their community regardless of their voting history. Sometimes, people decide not to vote because they consider all the available options are of very low quality or all the politicians who took nominations are corrupt; or, what' s more, sometimes they decide not to vote because they do not believe in the legitimacy of the democratic process.
On the other have, proponents of the argument would say, that passive participation does not make the best selection of the candidates since these leaders left on their own will make decisions for only a selected group of supporters. Hence, in order to ensure the welfare of the community, a person mush use his/her democratic rights to vote for the least corrupt official and criticize them if they are not making proper decisions. It is only when people force the leaders to think transcendentally, that they will be scrutinized for their actions and make a wise decision.
In conclusion, in my opinion, any person has the right to complain concerning any unjust situation which affects their community, even if they have never participated in a democratic process, because regardless of this, if the person is a citizen, the person has a right to do so, and like everyone they will be affected by the same circumstances as the rest of the members.
It is common for
some
people
who believe in democracy to try to persuade others to
vote
for a specific party during election times.
Sometimes
, they even resort to warning
people
who say do not
vote
that they will not have the
right
to complain if the candidate that wins does not satisfy the
community
. Since this view is an extreme point, the majority of the population will disagree with this view, and in fact, this is not a true definition of democracy.
From my perspective, a
person
has all the
right
to complain about what they consider is not going well in their
community
regardless of their voting history.
Sometimes
,
people
decide not to
vote
because
they consider all the available options are of
very
low quality or all the politicians who took nominations are corrupt; or,
what&
#039; s more,
sometimes
they decide not to
vote
because
they do not believe in the legitimacy of the democratic process.
On the other have, proponents of the argument would say, that passive participation does not
make
the best selection of the candidates since these leaders
left
on their
own
will
make
decisions for
only
a selected group of supporters.
Hence
, in order to ensure the welfare of the
community
, a
person
mush
use
his/her democratic
rights
to
vote
for the least corrupt official and criticize them if they are not making proper decisions. It is
only
when
people
force the leaders to
think
transcendentally
, that they will
be scrutinized
for their actions and
make
a wise decision.
In conclusion
, in my opinion, any
person
has the
right
to complain concerning any unjust situation which affects their
community
, even if they have never participated in a democratic process,
because
regardless of this, if the
person
is a citizen, the
person
has a
right
to do
so
, and like everyone they will be
affected
by the same circumstances as the rest of the members.