I believe the government should be actively involved in protecting cultural diversity if the people want it. In my opinion, if a country has many different languages, cultures, and traditions practiced, the diversity adds to the cultural and overall value of the country. Along with the diversity, if the government passes legislation and funds different cultural practices, it shows that the country is accepting of all cultures and is willing to protect the many ones practiced within that country. If the people have the power to request funding or legislation and the government has the power to follow through, it creates a check and balance between the two parties. That way the government cannot regulate what culture is preserved and practiced and cannot create legislation without the citizens approval.
Ultimately, the government was be there to represent, serve, and govern the people of their country; so if they see a need for the preservation of different cultures and would like government funding or legislation to be passed, the government should be willing to meet that need. Many times the government will fund certain things, but on their terms and that is generally what could deter people from wanting the government to be involved. However, if the government agrees to a clause of “no strings attached”, then people would be more inclined to the idea. Although there would be no strings attached to the funding, it would be wise on both sides to have a budget or monthly reporting on how the funding was spent to ensure that the finances are being used solely for the cultural preservation.
An opposing argument might be that the government should not be financially or legislatively involved in cultural preservation, because that would entail an economic decline, financial limitations, and over involvement of the government. With the government mandating that cultures be preserved and practiced, they may be “overstepping” their boundaries because that would give the government another aspect of life to control. If the government legislates and funds cultural diversity solely based upon request, then that eliminates them from overstepping their boundaries and gives the citizens the final decision in the end. The financial setback perception is greatly flawed because there are many countries that are rich in culture and biodiversity that draw many foreigners and tourists to the country because they have something new and different from what is in their home land. With the protection of cultural diversity, tourism is likely to increase, yielding financial growth and a deeper appreciation of diversity.
Ultimately, the government was be there to represent, serve, and govern the people of their country; so if they see a need for the preservation of different cultures and would like government funding or legislation to be passed, the government should be willing to meet that need. Many times the government will fund certain things, but on their terms and that is generally what could deter people from wanting the government to be involved. However, if the government agrees to a clause of “no strings attached”, then people would be more inclined to the idea. Although there would be no strings attached to the funding, it would be wise on both sides to have a budget or monthly reporting on how the funding was spent to ensure that the finances are being used solely for the cultural preservation.
An opposing argument might be that the government should not be financially or legislatively involved in cultural preservation, because that would entail an economic decline, financial limitations, and over involvement of the government. With the government mandating that cultures be preserved and practiced, they may be “overstepping” their boundaries because that would give the government another aspect of life to control. If the government legislates and funds cultural diversity solely based upon request, then that eliminates them from overstepping their boundaries and gives the citizens the final decision in the end. The financial setback perception is greatly flawed because there are many countries that are rich in culture and biodiversity that draw many foreigners and tourists to the country because they have something new and different from what is in their home land. With the protection of cultural diversity, tourism is likely to increase, yielding financial growth and a deeper appreciation of diversity.
RSS Feed