(Untitled)

We as a public who elect our country’s representative expect them to benefit us to a certain degree, and mostly if not surely not cause any damage to the public. So what course of action are we prompted to take If we would like the government to enact a certain policy / law for the benefit of the general public? One thing we can go on about doing is joining a pressure group and / or hiring a lobbyist. Arguably the best way to enact a change would be a pressure group hiring a lobbyist to do the talking. Lobbying is somewhat said to be controversial due to speculations of conflicts of interests between the lobbyists and current government officials. As always, there are two sides to the coin as is to lobbying. The advantages of lobbying / pressure groups is that it would easier to convey a certain party’s interest and have the government approve of it rather than having to do it solely . For example an environmental pressure group could hire a lobbyist to convince the government to stop cutting down trees in a certain area which contributes to the cause of saving the environment and therefore is an advantage. On the other hand, there are other disadvantages to lobbying such as lobbying to preserve the self-interest of a minority which then neglects the public’s self-interest, and lobbying to enact a certain policy that hinders many of the middle class. An example of the disadvantages of lobbying/ pressure groups was when the CCE ( a pressure group of wealthy ceo’s) formed to convince the public to elect Bryan Mulroney in order to achieve their NAFTA aspirations which only affected them and increased their wealth in contrast of what they promised to the public which was ‘prosperity for everyone’. Petitions can also be a great way of expressing the general public’s concern. The catch is that even if you achieve the required amount of signatures the government is required to read it, but it is not obligated to take action unless they deem it as fit which is an advantage. An example of a failed petition is when William Vander Zalm submitted a petition to rescind the HST and restore the PST under the Citizens Recall and Initiative Act. Later on the government took it upon itself to respond by sending out polls to voters under the referendum act. By doing so, the government technically did not listen to the petition, but proposed its own solution. An advantage of a petition is that the more signatures present the more effect it has of the public which means it is more likely for the government to actually enact the change. Another way to possibly change a law or rule is to break it. The process of breaking a law / rule that is causing more harm than good is called civil disobedience.it is a form of protest intended to draw attention to a wrong or injustice which the protestors believe is sufficient enough to morally justify the violation of the law . Advantages of civil disobedience can be that if a large mass of people are intentionally breaking a law then that will end up drawing publicity towards the unjust law and cause the lawmakers to heavily reconsider the removal of that certain unfair law. On the other hand, a disadvantage could be that if the law doesn’t seem to be affecting many others, lawmakers may not be provoked to consider change at all, another disadvantage can be that a person who participates in civil disobedience must accept the punishment for it. An example of civil disobedience is Gandhi’s salt march .He defied British control over the salt monopoly which in time resulted in India gaining independence, he also started a movement of civil disobedience to expel the salt tax across India. All 3 ways are valid ways to enact change, some better than others ,but all in all they are all effective.