When an unilateral authority comes from one person, an office, to reject or block a decision made by others, and can override almost everyone's decision regardless of on the consequences, in a world where we preach voice for all as democracy, are we still practicing democracy or it has become a one-man control?
Veto power is everywhere amongst us, wherever we may want to look but we may have just only had our main focus on the government or the CEOs of companies.
Right from our communities that have kings, chiefs, elders, over the members of the community to the minimal places which is the family where we have the parents and at times the Veto power doesn't automatically stop on parents generally but the father as the man of the house over the rest of the family.
Saying NO when there are absolutely many YES to an opinion, proposal, ideas and the likes. Is it still an act protecting us or just a means of supporting the interest of whoever has the power?
Sometimes looking from the angle of people who actually want the sustainment of an idea or project because of their selfish interest who are always more than those who really want the progress that is about to happen, veto power becomes a saving grace to bring in progress and say No to bad rubbish. But in case where a leader is also a member of the "for myself advantage" veto power tends to be in the wrong hands, blocking the leverage to success for other people.
For me, I don't think veto power is really the problem because it gives a great avenue and advantage to the minorities in terms of decision making and also prevents rushed wrong decisions that may lead to the wrong path of facing bad consequences since every actions must have its own consequences but what I really think is the problem is who is holding this power.
There will always be good people and bad people and based on my personal stats on human acts, bad people still carry a larger share of the chart than the good so having someone who can stand in for the few goes a long way.
If this veto power is actually not in place, and everyone have to make their decisions final, there might be no orderliness either to the wrong or right side. Even when the veto power supports the wrong, the right party who is override with veto power have to succumb to that authority which puts a stop to whatever argument they may want to have and at least maintain order.
Let's say the countries in the world do not have bodies or a group of countries that can place decisions on behalf of all other countries with their veto power, there might have been cases of where every country have to decide to prove their powers and capacity with no one questioning them but then there is always a body to stop them.
I'll only say that the power has to be in the right place and with the right person, with limits in ensuring that the same people that are meant to be protected are not just only being controlled because of the availability of power that became a rule from one person. So there can't really be a perfect answer to if it's right for one person to have this power but only depends on the system in place for the country or places practicing it.
I'll be dropping my 🖊️ here on the Hive Learners community prompt
Thanks for reading through 🤗
All images are generated using AI
