Posted by Steffi Shaw on October 18, 19102 at 07:20:30:
This is my GRE issue. Please give some comments. Thank you very much!
Government¡¯s willingness to tolerate challenges does sometimes demonstrate the strength of a country, as people in that country enjoys freedom, however, in my opinion, hasty generalization shouldn¡¯t be made that all tolerance invariably shows strength but not ineptitude to control. Thus, different backgrounds and social contexts have to be taken into account to form a justifiable conclusion.
Government which offers relatively free social atmosphere for its citizens to challenge the established social orders is superior to those forbidding any dissenting voices from people, as long as it has the ability to keep the overall social system under control. For one thing, whether a country is powerful should be ultimately judged by its own citizens. Do they fell secure? Do they enjoy a rich material supply and a booming cultural resource? And, as the most important, do they fell free? In case they live in a coercive country, no matter how secure and rich their lives can be, they shall still feel a sense of regret, as they¡¯re deprived of the freedom to use their talent, to test their believes, and most of all, to fully explore themselves. If people are entitled and even encouraged to do all these, undoubtedly, some of their behaviors will contradict the norm of society. Thus, any government whick are willing to tolerate challenges will give people the chance to do whatever they consider right and, as a result, can further their personal fulfillment. People in those countries are much more likely to give a high opinion of their countries. For another thing, government which, if under the attack from its citizens can still remain under control reveals true strength. As it¡¯s often said that gold is not afraid and the loyalty of a friend is best demonstrated under adversity, challenging situation offers a better and more persuasive evaluation of the country¡¯s strength. This could be illustrated by the analogue of a person. Truly competent people are not satisfied with success they already get, as a contrary, they, from time to time, bring up new projects, even change jobs. Demanding situation offer them a good chance to demonstrate their ability and explore themselves more thoroughly. It¡¯s the same with a nation. It¡¯s not possible that every challenge from its citizens is in the interest of the country, often enough, some of the mare unpleasant and even damaging. Knowing this, if government still encourages challenge, nothing could be a more persuasive demonstration of the true strength of the nation, as it¡¯s confident that it has the power to keep the overall situation under control in case of chaos.
However, not willingness alone can demonstrate true strength. A government without the ability to judge and control can easily be toppled. Suppose a government happily tolerate every single challenge from its citizens, and quite possibly, as a result, laws are revised, norms of the society are broken down, and people all act in their own interest, what will become to the country? The answer is quite clear: an end. In that case, the government is of totally ineptitude. Of course, this could be explained from another angle: a country bears a majority of people who are educated, original, and are always in the interests of the nation is undoubtedly stronger than those do not.
In conclusion, willingness alone is not enough to demonstrate the true power of a country but is only a necessity. In order to show it¡¯s true strength, the country should bears the ability to control and lead the society to a right direction as well.