LNAT Practice Test Essay – Should politicians with controversial views be allowed to run for office?

In the LawMint LNAT Practice Test Series for 2024 and 2025, there are 30 full length tests, with 360 passages – 1260 MCQs and 90 essay prompts or essay questions.

The essay below is a sample that can be written for the prompt:

Should politicians with controversial views be allowed to run for office?

This LNAT essay question is included in LawMint LNAT Practice Test series.

While the model essays may include both sides of an argument, the question may require you to state your stance - either for or against; and support it with arguments.

Read our articles and watch the videos on our YouTube channel for guidance on how to structure and write the LNAT Essay.

Introduction

Politics has always been a platform for conflicting ideas and opinions, and it is not uncommon for certain politicians to hold controversial views. As society evolves, so do the parameters of what is considered controversial. The question of whether politicians with controversial views should be allowed to run for office is multifaceted and requires a careful examination of the implications for democratic principles, freedom of speech, and the overall well-being of society. This essay argues that while politicians with controversial views should be allowed to run for office, a balance must be struck between protecting democratic values and preventing the spread of harmful ideologies.

Democracy and the Right to Run for Office

A fundamental tenet of democracy is the notion that individuals have the right to participate in the political process, express their opinions, and run for public office. Restricting candidates based on their views would undermine the principles of democracy and could lead to a slippery slope where only those with certain opinions are allowed to participate in governance.

Moreover, democracy thrives on diversity of thought and the exchange of ideas. Allowing politicians with controversial views to run for office can lead to a more robust political debate, offering citizens a wider range of choices and encouraging them to engage with different perspectives. In this sense, controversial politicians can play a critical role in fostering a more dynamic and pluralistic political landscape.

Freedom of Speech and the Marketplace of Ideas

Closely related to the principles of democracy is the right to freedom of speech, which is enshrined in various national constitutions and international human rights instruments. Allowing politicians with controversial views to run for office upholds the principle of freedom of speech, which grants individuals the right to express their ideas, even if they are unpopular or contentious.

The marketplace of ideas theory posits that the truth can emerge from the competition of diverse opinions in free and transparent public discourse. By allowing controversial politicians to run for office, voters can hear various perspectives and make informed decisions based on their own values and beliefs. In this way, the marketplace of ideas can be preserved, and the overall quality of democratic decision-making can be enhanced.

Striking a Balance: Protecting Society from Harmful Ideologies

While it is important to uphold democratic values and freedom of speech, there is a need to strike a balance between these principles and the well-being of society. Politicians with controversial views that incite violence, promote hate speech, or undermine the fundamental rights of certain groups should not be given free rein to spread their ideologies unchecked.

To address this concern, legal frameworks should be in place to protect society from the detrimental effects of harmful ideologies, while still respecting the principles of democracy and freedom of speech. For example, laws that regulate hate speech or incitement to violence can help to strike this balance, ensuring that politicians are held accountable for the impact of their rhetoric on society.

It is also essential for civil society, media, and citizens to actively engage in the political process and challenge controversial views when they arise. By fostering a culture of critical thinking and open dialogue, societies can ensure that harmful ideologies are exposed and debated, allowing citizens to make informed decisions when voting for their representatives.

Conclusion

In conclusion, politicians with controversial views should be allowed to run for office, as this is a fundamental aspect of democratic principles and freedom of speech. However, it is crucial to strike a balance between protecting these values and ensuring the well-being of society. Legal frameworks that regulate hate speech and incitement to violence, coupled with an active and engaged citizenry, can help to achieve this delicate balance. Ultimately, the strength of a democratic society lies in its ability to accommodate a diversity of perspectives, while simultaneously holding politicians accountable for the impact of their views on the well-being of all citizens.