Competition Is Desirable and Inevitable

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.

References:

Image: https://t3technologyhub.com/winners-and-losers-at-t3s-2019-advisor-tech-conference/

4 Comments

  1. Hey! Thank you for your response. I agree that competition is inevitable in many ways as it promotes a better establishment of a responsive government. Looking at a democratic society with a “zero-sum” perspective, however, do you think is contradictive in any way? For example, if a party just barely wins against the other parties, around half of the rest of the population would be unsatisfied with the results. Do you think the electoral competition that Brunell and Clarke describe better suits “democratic theory” or “zero-sum” perspective?

    Like

  2. Thank you for your comment. I personally think it is a combination of both democratic theory or zero-sum theory that the authors are trying to signify, however, the main focus is that zero-sum theory is needed to provide elected officials to enact policies in favour of the public. So I would say electoral competition better suits “zero-sum” perspective.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s