OnlineBookClub.org

No I don't agree with this. There should have been one member from each faction in charge to keep things fair. That way you have different opinions and no laws could be made without the other groups approval. I don't think a love of knowledge necessarily leads to power. It's all a matter on what yo do with that knowledge. There are many people, like teachers for example, who care about giving their knowledge to their students and who actually care about their well being. Most teachers anyway. Nobody's perfect, but there are some people out there a lot of people out there who could do good with their knowledge. The same thing goes for the faction system in Divergent.

It's a good thing for a leader to be selfless but that is not all of the qualities that leaders in government should possess. Leaders need to be selfless, intelligent, be brave, and honest. leaders should be well rounded and be smart enough to make decisions that make the bigger picture better, not just small pieces.

Superficially it makes sense that abnegation would be the leaders since the idea would be that they are less corruptible being selfless. But since I'm a fan of the democratic system...I think it would make a lot more sense to have representation from the various factions. Which would, in turn, prevent the inevitable uprising of the Erudite. I don't really agree with her father's statement. I think that a lust for power leads to that dark space. And that desire can come from anyone regardless of their knowledge seeking tendencies.

I think on the surface it's something that can be construed as a good idea, exactly as Tris' father says. However, ultimately this is not a good idea. No government should be made up of people who are exactly the same or at least extremely similar. People who are too similar tend to argue and it can lead to corruption, having a varied group of people leads to a more dynamic and effective group or, in this case, government.

Obviously it didn't work in that case and I don't think it would ever work. There is a reason that Abnegation and the factions ultimately lead to disaster, just like in the Hunger Games, and it's because that style of governing simply just won't work. And it never will.

Having the government run by only members of Abnegation has its ups and downs like most things.

Pros: the government being selfless means that theoretically they would do whatever it takes to make the people happy. They will not be corrupt (I repeat, theoretically).

Cons: Not all people are willing to accept the views and decisions of the Abnegation. It is not fair to only have representation from one of the factions; it would be better if each faction was represented in the government. It takes bravery, honesty, intelligence, and selflessness to run a successful, prosperous government. Areas where the Abnegation were weaker, other faction leaders could be stronger. If the Abnegation believed what they were doing was for the "good of the people," they might make bad decisions that lead their people astray unintentionally.

As you can see, the cons outweigh the pros, so I believe that having only Abnegation rule over all the factions was not a good decision.

At first it sounds like it would be great to have a selfless government but then there are a lot of other important aspects and I think all the factions would be needed to balance it out.

I think why they chose abnegation to run, makes sense. However, I think the government should have been made up of one person from each faction.

I think that the qualities Abnegation posses are good in leadership, but the society isn't successful like that. A successful government needs everyone's input and support. In a society with such varying personalities a democracy is very necessary, or a huge argument will break out (like it does in the books). Their government needs the smart, brave, peaceful, selfless, and the honest to reach the full potential.

I think that it was a very good choice to have only members of Abnegation hold government positions. For one, people have the freedom to choose which faction they want to join, and therefore still have the choice to run for government positions regardless of what faction they are born into. Out of the five factions; Candor, Amity, Eurdite, Dauntless, and Abnegation, the latter is most certainly the best choice. Candor values honesty; a trait that is honorable, but would not work all the time in politics. It could be nice to live in a society where everybody is 100% honest, but it could lead to some problems. Honesty doesn't necessarily mean just not lying, it also means speaking your mind all the time; which could be a major issue. On to Amity. Amity is very much against war, which is sometimes necessary. Eurdite craves knowledge, which can lead to an overwhelming desire for power. Dauntless is fearless, and therefore would make very risky choices that would not benefit everybody. Abnegation, on the other hand, is all about selflessness, meaning they will do whatever they can to make everybody else happy. Isn't that exactly what we want in a leader?

I agree that maybe a majority of the government should be Abnegation because they are supposed to be selfless; however, I think that each faction should have had at least two or three members in the leading council along with maybe 5 abnegation so it would be a little more even.

gali wrote:I don't think it is a good idea. I think that all factions should have taken part in the government to balance the picture. The Abnegation were selfless, but it isn't enough for a stabilized and smart government.

I agree with gali. Having all factions in the government can lead to a better decision. You have all the views of all the factions so you can compare to find the best result. It may no be the best for the people, the smartest, the most honest, the kindest or even the most brave choice. However I think it will lead to an equal mixture of all these things. And that would please everyone. Though I can see why they have Abnegation as the government leader as other have said. They wouldn't do anything to further themselves because they are selfless. Therefore the government could never be corrupt. They would also do what is best for the people no matter what. Even if the government loses influence, money, or power.

I can understand that there would potentially be a lot of clashes if there was equal representation, given their difference in ideals. Would less then get done as a result? Probably. However, I'm pro-democracy. There are pros and cons to either one faction ruling or all of them together. In the end, well-roundedness is something to value, which their society doesn't and that's a shame.

The choice of leadership had good intentions in mind, but it did not allow the city to progress or thrive on diversity. It stuck everyone in a box, and gave everyone a place.

I agree with the idea that Abnegation should run their government, as those who are selfless are not likely to selfishly crave power for themselves, and therefore will put their people first.

I think in an ideal world a selfless body of leaders would make for a good government, so long as they could weigh the needs of others correctly and judge who is most in need and least and prioritise, etc. However, in the modern world a government of strong abnegation members could result in the country becoming a doormat to their more forceful neighbours and could result in unrest under the government, as we see in parts in the books, where the public feel entitled to more than they get. At that point, they start to distrust the true 'justness' of their government.