‘some Decisions Are Too Important To Leave To Public Opinion’. Do You Agree?

Some decisions are too important to leave to public opinion . Do

you agree?

To give the people what they want is to make the people happy. This was the reason

behind much political policy made by former US president Abraham Lincoln. His

logic was simple- public sentiment is everything . While the desires of the people

have changed since 1865, it is this idea which has served as an axiom for the

creation of democracies universally& the supremacy of the will of the public often

dictates our decisions as individuals, as well of those of our wider society. However,

though our freethinking and autonomous nature provides a means for decision-

making, it is, ironically, this very virtue that often restricts our ability to do so.

In fact, views on the role of public opinion can be as diverse as the opinions themselves.

Therefore, whilst idealistic, it is impossible for public opinion to be the only source

from which decisions are derived, it will be argued that it is the ever changing and

conflicting direction of society s moral compass which renders the views of the

majority a futile foundation on which all decisions should be based.

Regardless of such disagreement, the consideration of public opinion is keystone to

a democracy. Indeed, under Athenian democracy the first democratic state

established in 508 BC the random selection of citizens to form a government was

fundamental to the establishment of liberties in accordance with its direct democracy,

as opposed to being subjects themselves to the rule of another. Arguably the most

important decision politically, the onus to elect a presiding government is still today

placed upon the public. In fact, the integrity of such opinion is rendered only yet more

apparent in its role in criminal law: the jury are not only seen as the arbiters of truth

but also bestowed with the central role of deriving one s guilt and, in some cases,

passing sentence. It is thus this consideration of public opinion which separates our

democracy from a dictatorship: government does not dictate policy but, rather,

presents that which represents our values and beliefs. Without such representation

in key political decisions, our egalitarian means of decision-making would, ultimately,

regress to totalitarian rule.

However, this all-or-nothing approach to public involvement is not realistic& it

undermines an essential characteristic of a functional democratic state

pragmatism. The magnitude of political policy is so great that they necessitate

objectivity, rationality and expertise, all of which is often lacking from public opinion.

Echoing the words of Douglas Hurd, its fickle nature renders it unsuitable to make

such decisions. Unlike that of experienced legislators, the role of the press is more

profound in forming public opinion. Sensational headlines and the rise of fake news

reveal that there are many areas where public understanding differs to the proven

realities. The ease with which public opinion can be influenced raises skepticism

towards its validity as a true representation of public belief. As illustrated through the

infamous Brexit claim of £350 million available to the NHS a week , public opinion is

often based not on facts but on false premises and lurid broadsheets. The exclusion

of public opinion from some decisions, in turn, upholds our democratic ideals: the

preclusion of the headlines from influencing political policy prevents its domination by

wealthy media moguls.

Thus, whilst it may be argued that the rejection of a mandate based on public opinion

falls outside the bounds of democracy, the job of the politician is as much to lead as

to reflect such opinion. However, given the volatility and intricacy of public belief,

how exactly would one ascertain the opinion of the majority? Likewise, given that

most political and economic events affect people unevenly, would it not also be

necessary to consider one s socioeconomic status to truly reflect public opinion, as

well as contrast public values and attitudes? While a simple yes-no plebiscite may

suffice in simple decisions, democracy necessitates that the multi-faceted nature of

public opinion be reflected in decisions of a greater magnitude. If not, do we not run

the risk of promoting the simplicity over the integrity of our democracy?

Essentially, it is our representative democracy which aim to solve these issues. The

officials whom we elected reflect the opinion of their constituents whilst retaining their

own personal autonomy. Though by no means a flawless form of decision-making,

the spirit of democracy still prevails. As opposed to a system in which the majority

dictates leaving the minorities often marginalised - the elected body can take an

objective view of the people s opinion whilst maintaining that which often lacks from

public belief a consideration for the well-being of the country on a whole. In 1935,

US senator Louis Ludlow presented the Ludlow Amendment which called a national

referendum on any declaration of war. To him, the ramifications of such a decision

required a clear mandate provided by the public. However, rather than upholding

democracy, Congress would have relinquished its right to debate and declare war to

an inexpert elective body, whose focus is on short-term personal gains and needs. Is

this truly indicative of the rational and democratic values by which we abide?

Notwithstanding these limitations of public opinion, democracy is ultimately facilitated

by public consultation. Although political policy is decided by the legislative, it is the

mandate on which they were elected that shapes their endeavor to do so. The

thrust of the question is hence incompatible with a democracy: it would require a

dictator-style body to judge the importance of an issue in relation to its probable

decision-makers. Otherwise, the process of electing said-body becomes paradoxical

the people would make a decision to elect a person to decide whether the people

could thus make a decision.

Stemming from this idea, the role of public opinion becomes clear: all decisions

should consider the consensus of the majority but do not require direct public

involvement. Not only would the basis on which the opinion is formed render it

problematic, but it would also greatly reduce our ability to pass legislation. Above all,

democracy does not intend to establish equality but rather attempts to reach

decisions by reflecting the society it represents. Though politicians will never fully

represent public opinion, one thing will always be reflected the desire to do what is

best.