Democracy In Queensland Essay

Democracy is a form of presidency wherein the regime that would be formed or was formed in a certain nation is establish on vox populi (voice of the raft) and or the rule of the legal age. Furthermore, in this type of organisation, the coincide of the governed is still based on the legal age with an assumption of a free and blank option conducted, on the goal or objective of protecting for the political minorities, fair and just treatment or execution of the law and basic gentleman rights, and political pluralism (Camp, 1841).We can order that the people or individuals electing the authorities and its governing officials, has the ability to alter, accept or reject some decisions made by the elected rulers. In the modern-day world of political views, beliefs and principles, the definition of commonwealth passms vague and for others, it is ambiguous having different meanings depending on the nation having this type of politics (Dunn, 2005).The article published Last Feb ruary 1, 2007 in the editorial section of The upstart Zealand Herald, which was entitled Sometimes, democracy can stink, talks about Queensland regarding public consultations, political sympathies rule and in general, democracy. It was state that Queensland is chthonic a critical particular of having the worst condition when it comes to water shortage during the summer. So the government of Queensland asked the prospect of the majority about a proposed mathematical function of recycled water.Since Queensland is a nation under a representative government, as much we could say that Australians (in Queensland) live in democracy, having a political system wherein they obtain the power to vote for or choose by means of their ballots their government and government representatives, therefore, it was a proper achievement for them to consult the majority first. The problem was that the state premiere announced the cancellation of the said referendum.The people of Queensland or the majority would make believe to drink or exercising the recycled water whether they like it or not. Democracy in this aspect was bypassed, just now if you would look at the problem or the crisis which Queensland would have to suffer in the future, the decision of the state was just and necessary. The author of the article carefully looks at some instances wherein democracy in a nation sometimes becomes a problem.The author may not be a government official, exactly it seems that he or she has good political and social background and knowledge. He or she is able to show that with or without democracy, the people of Queensland and its government officials would have to do their own parts and that they have the responsibility in taking steps for the development or progress of their nation. The author sees the action interpreted by the state or the government officials regarding the materialization was just and shows that the popular opinion class has the capacity for good governan ce.The action which they took might not have been a democratic one, barely it was a lesson regarding a good government. Democracy, manufacture on the principles such as the sovereignty of the people, government based upon consent of the governed, majority rule, minority rights, guarantee of basic human rights, and the others, lies on a divine fact that within its hearts, is freedom (Thayer, 1919). This freedom is possessed by the individuals, either the rulers or the individuals ruled.This freedom, that they posses should be enough to create ways or slayings that would benefit the majority. I think that democracy is not truly bypassed plane without the consent of the majority as long as the rule or law enforceed benefits the majority most, and does not ca utilise vilify of any form or in any way. In the case of the implementation of the use of recycled water in Queensland, it was a right decision, and that it does not harm the majority just now rather help them survive longer .Individuals who are precise attached to the definition of democracy or those who are lovers of democracy would see this act of the state of Queensland as preposterous. They would argue that the majority was neglected and that callable process was not done. But this is not the case. The government and the government officials of Queenslands decided or implemented the use of recycled water because they considered and thought of the majority and it was just a fair decision. It does not matter whether the referendum results was a yes or a no from the majority.Through public consultations or the referendum, the government could vex a majority of no or a majority disagreeing with the use of recycled water, but later on as the water crisis worsens, the state would implement it, thus, leading to an inconsistency in the government, decreasing the hope or organized religion given to the state by its people. Thus, the cancellation of the referendum was justified. If the government of Quee nsland did not implement the use of recycled water, then Queensland would be approaching its end.It is a situation wherein the people of Queensland do not have a choice. They have the option of drinking or not drinking the recycled water because of certain reasons such as unpalatability, but ultimately, they have to or else, they would die of thirst. The problem was addressed by the government as to command the needs and the safety of the majority living in Queensland. The referendum, through the questionnaires, public polls, public interviews and other statistical measures may not be enough to ensure a firm or the go around decision that has the most benefit.The government of Queensland, more specifically its officials, had taken spectacular depth in studying the best solution to address two the problems being undertaken and the inhabitants of Queensland. Furthermore, in their government website, the recycled water which was to be given to the majority is wastewater which highl y purified and treated to an extent that it reaches the highest quality or standard. They even so promote safe, environmentally sustainable, cheap source and enough water supplies through purified recycled water.The recycled water also passes a strict series of processing and guidelines to ensure the safety of the majority and for the progress of the society. The article regarding the democracy in Queensland, ethically shows that sometimes, democracy may not be fulfilled or followed purely or thoroughly. Socially speaking, the government of Queensland performs its duties under due process for the protection of the political minorities and for the benefit or sake of the majority.A good government has a central role of performing plays or actions that would ensure a progress or development of the country or nation, economically or socially (Slinn, 2004). Furthermore, the referendum might have been cancelled or what the majority has to say might not have been legally considered in t he actions that the state has taken, but it does not mean that democracy in Queensland is dead and the majority no longer has the power.It only means that the actions taken shows that the majority was in power and that the action taken was for their benefit, and not for the benefit of the ruling body. In amplification to this, the government or the state was also at risk regarding the cancellation of the referendum, because they could be perceived to violate the democracy in Queensland, when in fact, they do not. The democratic law of giving benefit to the majority is the sovereign entity in this issue (Oswald, 1986).The author does not mislead people in stating that democracy sometimes stink. He or she does not generalize democracy to be a burden and he or she does not imply that democracy is a weak type of government. From the title of the article, he or she initially states sometimes, implying that it democracy is not always that bad, but in this case regarding the crisis in Que ensland, it was.