Up to this point, we have read many articles defining competition as a necessary concept that arises within our society. The same narrative occurs in Brunell and Clarke’s article “Who Wants Electoral Competition and Who Wants to Win?” where the authors ultimately intend to explain why the competition is needed in the political sector through a form of the electoral system. This led me to believe that competition is inevitable as competition allows for merit, although it may not be allocated to everyone.
Drawing from Rubin’s idea of “Zero-sum Game,” where there is always a winner and a loser, we see a similar phenomenon occurring in politics. Running candidates of the election is a good example in which like we see in Brunell and Clarke’s article. In coherence with the democratic theory, citizens participate in politics and invoke competition between candidates in hopes of becoming elected for exchange of public’s favoured political policies. @tose1028 has argued for similar narrative as well in which he/she explicated that competition is inevitable as it triggers motivation (enact favoured policies) and gives an incentive (governmental power) to the politicians of the winning party (at the expense of losing party’s candidate).
Competition would also result in higher responsiveness of public officials. Per se, if there was no winner or loser with elections, there would be no incentive for elected officials to enact policies in favour of the public. Competition, therefore, could be said to help prevent the rise of a potential correction. This is why competition is desirable and inevitable. As long as there is merit with the competition, competition is inevitable.