|
Introduction
The origin of term 'public opinion' is shrouded in obscurity. The Greeks
and the Romans used parallel expressions. The Romans, however, treated
consensus populi in juridical sense as distinguish from present
political context. Also, the proverb "Vox populi, vox dei" had gained
currency during the middle Ages. In the Discourses Machiavelli, too,
compared the voice of the people to the voice of God. The phrase public
opinion in its present meaning as the agency for the conditioning of
public policy was introduced later into the vocabulary of the European
politics through France. Jean Jacques Rousseau was perhaps first to use
it on the eve of French Revolution. Today, the literature of democracy
symbolizes in fact the rationalization of political behavior in terms of
public opinion. To quote MacIver, "This incessant activity of popular
opinion is the dynamic of democracy."
Nature Of
Public Opinion
In the field of political theory the concept of public opinion has been
subjected to a through analysis in recent years. Still, there is no
general agreement as to its meaning or function and in the absence of
analytical clarity, the discussion on its nature, to quote Sait, have
"often introduce confusion rather than enlightment."
The concept of public opinion came
to limelight in the wake of democracy. The governmental policies
gradually became the function of opinion rather than of force, and the
means for the expressions of opinion like constitutionally guaranteed
liberties, elections, political parties etc., were at hand, the role of
public opinion in the government came to be generally recognized. The
theory of public opinion is thus a derivative from democracy as a form
of government.
The broad assumption on which the
theory is built are:
1. that the public is interested in government;
2. that the public knows what it wants;
3. that the public has the ability to express what it wants;
4. that the public's will would be enacted into law.
Granting those conditions how should public opinion be defined? To
follow Finer, most definitions of public opinion are intended to mean
one of the three things:
1. A Record Of Facts. As a
record of fact, opinion means such a simple statement as ' the Soviet
Union has exploded a super-bomb'.
2. A Belief. As a belief,
opinion implies not only a record of facts but also their valuation. It
also involves a prophecy about the future course of events. The
sentence, 'There shall not be a war on the Berlin issue', illustrate the
point.
3. A Will. As a will, opinion
is not is not merely a record and valuation of facts; it also asserts a
course of action. For example, when we inquire, 'India should go to war
with Pakistan over the question of the azad Kashmir-yes or no?' we mean
that it is worthwhile to pursue a course of action. In the field of
political dynamics, public opinion is intended to produce a concrete
governmental policy. Hence, as Finer observes "Politics is most concrete
with public opinion as will which, typically eventuates in a statue and
in administration."
Meaning Of
Public Opinion
The role of opinion in government is generally agreed. As Bryce puts it,
"Opinion has really been the chief and ultimate power in nearly all
time… Governments have always rested and, special cases apart, must
rest, if not on the affection, then on the silent acquiescence, of the
numerical majority." In non-democratic governments, the people acquiesce
in or give passive consent to authority out of respect, habit of
obedience or fear of repression. But the distinguishing feature of
democracy is that governmental authority is built, controlled and
conditioned by the force of an active public opinion.
On the nature of public opinion,
however, writers in their opinion. Even if the theory of democracy is
accepted and the role of opinion in the determination of public policy
is taken for granted, the debatable points are: "What public?" and
"Whose opinion?" A political "public" may mean anything ranging from an
undisciplined mob to an articulated minority. Again, "opinion" may be
rationally or irrationally formed, or expressed. These are similar other
problems relating to the concept of public opinion have produced an
important controversies.
Traditional
Concept Of Public Opinion
In the latter part of the 19th century and early 20th centuries the
traditional concept of public opinion come to be widely accepted. It was
built on the easy generalization that some million individuals could
achieve a consensus and form a public opinion on various issues such as
taxation, labour legislation, and foreign policy etc. the power of
public opinion, as Lieber defined it, is "the sense and sentiments of
the community, necessarily irresistible showing its power everywhere,"
which "gives sense to the letter and life of law; without the written
law is a mere husk." Thus conceived, public opinion assumes in the
background the existence of the solidity unified, homogenous public.
Such was Rousseau's idea; he assumed a society of men, generally
enlightened on honest, active in their own political interests and free
from fractional associations. Obviously, he considered popular opinion
as one and indivisible. Somewhat similar conceptions are found in the
writings of number of modern writers. Thus, E.M. Sait observed, "there
should be no question about what we mean by calling opinion 'public'; we
mean, in the light long established usage, that it is the opinion of the
community, the opinion of the people."
A public opinion might be said to
have emerged, when any set of views was entertained by an apparent
majority of citizens. To quote Bryce, "the term (public opinion) is
commonly used to denote the aggregates of the views men hold regarding
matters that effect or interest the community. The opinion of a whole
nation as made up of different currents of sentiments, each embodying or
supporting a view or a doctrine or a practical proposal. Some currents
develop more strength than others, because they have behind them larger
numbers or more intensity of convections; and when one is evidently the
strongest, it began to be called public opinion par excellence, being
taken to embody the views supposed to be held by the bulk of people."
According to A. Lawrence Lowell, the
opinion of the community is never unanimous. It is normally much
divided. Opinion can be characterized as public, only when the majority
of citizens accept it. The majority view must be accepted by any
dissident minority voluntarily as a manner of convictions rather than
coercion. According to Lowell, if any minority withholds consent, or
gives it grudgingly or unwillingly, the prevailing opinion cannot be
called public.
Contemporary View
The criticisms leveled against the traditional idea of public opinion
have paved the way for a redefinition of the concept. Any collection of
individual opinions is now designated as public opinion. "such a public
need not represent a majority, need not coincide with the electrode, and
may not be well advised, depending upon observer's standards or point of
view" the modern analysis of public opinion is not concerned with the
hypothetical homogeneous public expressing a collective will on matters
of public policy. The term 'public' is now supposed to mean essentially
a segment of society. Obviously, therefore, there, may be different
kinds of public. A particular type of public may be distinguished by
referring to the interests shared in common by the group involved.
Accordingly, the labour unions, business organizations etc. fall in this
category. Again publics may be geographically identified on the basis of
village, city etc. as professor Kimball young observers. "as we see it,
the term public refers not to one great mass of persons living in a
community, a state, or a nation, but rather to various groups of
secondary contact ….. we use it to indicate various interest groups,
especially those marked by the secondary group characteristics.
Therefore we shall speak of publics rather than a public." Of these
publics some, like the political party members, are relatively
permanent. Others may be temporarily formed through short duration
contacts like the audience in a meeting. A public becomes politically
significant when its influence is brought to bear on matters of public
policy. Public opinion, as William Albig defines it, "is the expression
of all those members of a group who are giving attention in any way to a
given issue."
In demonstrate state public policy
is function of opinion. As 'hospitality to a plurality of ideas' is the
essence of democracy, a democratic state, in fact, lives by the free
organization of opposing opinions. To quote said, "under a democracy,
public opinion becomes an active, propelling factor. The people regard
the government as a mere agency to which they have delegated power
without releasing it from the obligation to obey orders."
The role of public opinion in a
democracy is of particular significance on two grounds. In the first
place, when free play of opinion is assured, the whole process acts as a
check on the overgrowth of power. A government, whatever be its
structure, is, after all, an organization of power. Democracy is
distinguished from other forms of government by the fact that it is
built on the assumption of diffusion of power rather than its
concentration in one centre. It functions best when, as Mannheim
expresses, a balance in the structure of the community is secured, by
allowing opinions to complete peacefully and freely, a democratic
structure strives, as it were, to set a thief to catch a thief. It
ensures an interlocking system in which no power group can seize an
opportunity to outbid others and exert undue pressure on the government.
Where through coercion or callousness, opinion becomes paralyzed, the
condition spells a danger for democracy. Here, 'eternal vigilance is the
price of liberty'; the watchful citizen would speak, following burke
'while I will obey punctually, I will censure freely.'
This brings us to the second
important function discharged by public opinion in a democracy. When law
becomes a reflection of public opinion, it offers an easy solution to
the problem of political obligation. The citizens obey the law, as it
rests on their will to obey. The whole process of lawmaking serves to
obliterate the distinction between the law-giver and the law- receiver.
To quote Macler, "when opinion is free to determine government, policy
is not of the acquiescence that submits to force, but of active consent.
The level of strength is thereby raised and other goals than those that
depend on force are given a higher valuation. To make opinion the basis
of government is to appeal to reason- whether you win or lose. It is to
assume a common good - whether or not your conception of it prevails."
It the field of political dynamics,
the significance of public opinion lies in its ability to influence
government, here, as Maciver observes, "we are referring to the modes by
which variant opinions find political expression, to the systems under
which conflicting opinions are elicited, registered, channeled, and
brought to bear on government, and to the devices by which government is
made responsive to the trends and tides of opinion." The essential
problem is to translate popular thought into political action. As
democracy postulates free organization of opposing opinions, the
struggle of ideas and the conflict of opinions unravel important spheres
of disagreement, agreement and ignorance. These are of the utmost
important in a democracy under which government is constantly to adjust
itself, for the sake of stability, to the shifting "parallelogram of
forces."
Opinions may be reflected in an
election, a policy decision, or formal legislative enactment. Once it is
accepted that opinion determines political action, the opinion
conductors may be found in formal as well as informal agencies. The
formal role is played by the governmental agencies like the legislative,
executive, judicial and administrative machineries, while the latter may
be illustrated by the role of political parties and interest groups.
It is important to point out, in
this connection that the rule of public opinion in a democracy is built
on one significant assumption. The underlying idea is that opinions are
always directed towards the attainment of public interest as
distinguished from sectional advantages. This lead us to the problem of
propagation of opinion; and in view of the control exercised over the
media of opinion in modern times by select groups of interested
minorities, there is ample truth in Finer's remark that, "it is clear
that between ourselves and the facts occur a number of processes which
may distort our reception of them. Therefore, the process of distortion
may not solve the problem that we wish to see solved."
The role of public opinion in a
democracy is ultimately decided by the result of the struggle between
belief and fact. Owing to subtle manipulation of the opinion-forming
processes by interested groups, a fundamental distinction has taken
place in recent times between what is and what people believe to be.
Facts are misrepresented without scruple, and appeals are made
frequently to the blind emotions and prejudices of the people. The
process of corruption of facts becomes complete when exclusively a
powerful group or a capitalist controls the major opinion-forming
agencies like newspaper and radio. If government is to be really
responsible to the value- preferences of the governed, "MacIver
observes, that no opinion-group lacks reasonable opportunity to find
avenues through which it can without prejudice, reach the public ear."
Agencies
For The Formation Of Public Opinion
Opinions on political matters are slowly formed. The common people, as
Bryce pointed out, have hardly any interest in the affairs of the state.
Some agencies are needed to excite them. Of these agencies, the
following are of special importance;
1. Press
For the facts relevant to the formation of public opinion, almost
everyone has to depend on the newspaper. As the newspapers are available
at a very cheap price, their influence in moulding opinion, with the
spread of mass education, has increased by leaps and bounds. Most of the
newspapers publish the details of legislative debates, speeches of
eminent personalities, announcements of governments and parties and
various other news. Not all of them are political; but still political
facts are certainly the best for consumption. So, every newspaper takes
pains to collect political news and make delicious dishes out of them.
The representation of facts is not the only function; their
interpretation and systematization into a particular view point are also
undertaken by the newspapers. Almost every paper has 'a tendency and
dogma'. These are highlighted in the editorial columns. Even the manner
of news flashing in headlines or elsewhere on the columns betrays the
peculiar character of a newspaper. The readers avidly read the news and
come to align themselves with a particular paper. Grievances are
ventilated and views expressed by the public through the newspapers. For
this purpose most papers earmark a few columns for its general readers.
The news and views do not always go unheeded. The government takes note
of them and carefully studies pubic reaction against its measures
through the mirror of the newspapers play a vital part.
The press is, however, not immune
from defects. In fact, it is frequently observed that now-a-days the
newspapers have only one function. They are engaged in the ceaseless
task of holding a particular type of readers on whom they are dependent
for patronage. All possible ways and means are adopted to win the favour
of the readers. Thus, every newspaper creates its own devotes who
worship it on the supposed belief that it delivers the goods for them.
Another significant criticism leveled against the newspapers is that
their publishing has become big business; and they are mostly owned and
controlled by the 'capitalist class,' the manifestation of an 'uneasy
relation between big business and democracy itself. As finer points out,
"the amount of objectively true information and balanced opinion is, on
the whole, small, and the press has acquired an extraordinary dominance
over opinion, aggravating rather than correcting its defects".
A free press is certainly an
indispensable agency fro the formulation of public opinion and
maintenance of democracy. But as it ceases to become an open forum fro
the ventilation of all shades of opinion and is transformed into a tool
of big business, it spells real danger. The remedy However, does not lie
in governmental interference. For, as sorry rightly observes, " to give
a government agency power to censor fact and opinion would draw all the
power hungry elements in the community into a struggle to get control of
the government. Democracy needs press, but it cannot be found through
governmental regulation of the press." That, is fact, would pave the way
for the rise of dictatorship. Hence, the solution, if any, can only be
found in the inculcation of sound education that will enable the people
to select the goods and reject the bad.
2. Cinema And
Radio
For communicating ideas the motion picture and the radio are important
agencies. Only educated people may be influenced by the newspapers. But,
owing to the audio-visual method the cinema and the radio can influence
even the illiterate. In the developing countries such as India where
illiteracy is widespread, these media are very helpful in spreading mass
education. Their potentialities are, however, not fully tapped. The
cinema, for instance, has remained almost exclusively a means of
entertainment. As it is privately owned, it usually serves commercial
rather than educational purposes. Still, however, with the production of
good documentaries and other educational films, the cinema may well be
used as a means of education and opinion-formation.
The radio, too, is primarily
concerned with the function of entertainment. Yet, it is a valuable aid
to dissemination of information and formulation of opinion. "some
observers have even gone so far as to suggest that radio has
re-established that direct contact between political leaders and
followers that characteristics Athenian democracy. In most countries as
India the radio is however, under government control. Hence, it has
frequently been criticized that the radio has served only the party in
power. But, as finer points out, "on the whole, no country - whether, as
in England, broadcasting by private enterprise, is really exploiting the
educative potentialities of radio on the grand scale which is possible."
3. Political
Parties.
The most important agency for opinion formation is the political
parties. To use Lowell's oft-quoted phrase, parties are brokers of
ideas. Day in and day out they feed the people with the facts and ideas.
Their sole purpose is to rally the people to their side. For, they want
to get the majority in the legislature and hold the reins of government.
Accordingly, parties 'arrange the issue upon which the people are to
vote.' Canvass their point of view, nurse the constituencies, and set up
candidates. The people farm the back bone of democracy. The valuable
service rendered by parties is that they organize the people and amble
them to choose between alternatives. Various indictments have been made
against political parties. Their honesty and utility have often been
questioned. Still, without them public opinion, which is the prime mover
representative democracy, can never be formulated and put to its proper
use.
4. Platform.
For educating people and formulating opinion platform speeches are very
useful means. Hence, every democratic government guarantees the right to
freedom of assembly. The speeches delivered in public gathering
sometimes leave indelible impression in the minds of the listeners. All
sorts of oratorical skills are employed to influence the public mind. A
Brututs may win temporary admiration, and an Antony, a durable fame.
Nevertheless, eminent political leaders do set in motion the process of
public thinking on important political issues.
5. Educational
Institutions.
In the creation of public opinion the educational institutions are of
considerable importance. The way in which students are trained up in
schools, collages and universities greatly influences the future course
of their life. The ideas developed in the early ages condition a
student's outlook. These educations are intended to stimulate and
increase curiosity. But a method of education that robs students of
their open mindedness and drugs them with the number of political
half-truths is certainly injurious.
Conclusion
This paper throws light on the concept of public opinion came to
limelight in the wake of democracy. The governmental policies gradually
became the function of opinion rather than of force, and the means for
the expressions of opinion like constitutionally guaranteed liberties,
elections, political parties etc., were at hand, the role of public
opinion in the government came to be generally recognized. The theory of
public opinion is thus a derivative from democracy as a form of
government. It the field of political dynamics, the significance of
public opinion lies in its ability to influence government.
The role of public opinion in a
democracy is ultimately decided by the result of the struggle between
belief and fact. Owing to subtle manipulation of the opinion-forming
processes by interested groups, a fundamental distinction has taken
place in recent times between what is and what people believe to be.
Facts are misrepresented without scruple, and appeals are made
frequently to the blind emotions and prejudices of the people. The
process of corruption of facts becomes complete when exclusively a
powerful group or a capitalist controls the major opinion-forming
agencies like newspaper and radio. Thus public opinion helps to make the
democracy and government to, for and by the people.
|
