The authorities in the world are generating their notions over the multiple sections such as education, safety, infrastructure, innovation, business, and health. To tackle these diverse fields effectively, governments have set restricted laws, controlling the voice of citizens based on their own political systems. In my point of view, these restrictions can bring both merits and demerits to the countries.
First and foremost, the significant dividend is that a peaceful and well-organized nation with reformed government can be built through compulsory voting, where people have responsibility to participate in voting legally. This mandatory voting is likely leading to make elections more democratic and legitimate as it could ensure higher voter turnout, which the elected government may reflect the will of the broader populations. Moreover, the restriction regarding immigrations and passing country border can mitigate some crimes, such as smuggling drugs or vulnerable children and adults. Therefore, unless there are laws in one country, it cannot have co-existence among the worldwide nations with hardships to handle rebelliousness.
However, on the other side of this concept, it has been seen as breaking human right, infringing on the freedom of public. To illustrate, banning abortion in America tends to bring several ongoing debates for there are acceptable reasons to abort, such as health conditions and being raped. Unless civilians hold their right and open their speech, the seniors who have power can commit corruption and exploitation on the naive public. In addition, it may end up social inequality between rich and poor.
To conclude, although the restriction on the people’s speech could impact positively on security and tranquility, it still hurt individuals’ right and freedom remaining manipulation and inequality. By emphasizing on cherishing and raising human right, some restrictions are still needed to make progress towards a country.