(...) Democracy (...) lives from the struggle between differing opinions. For democracy to prevail a social climate has to exist which encourages open discussion and exchange of opinions and which stretches across society from families to schools and from interest groups to businesses. The right to hold a certain opinion should be respected and encouraged in the same way as the right to search for reasons and to ask why. Sensible argument should determine action to be taken rather than un-discussed and unexplained orders passed down from above, and such argument should always be subject to criticism (...).

It almost goes without saying that intellectual discussion and debate of this nature has to be carried out in public. It would be of little help to the opposition, if their counter-arguments and criticism of the government were to be voiced behind closed doors. Was this the case, their arguments would be ineffective. The opposition is only able to put pressure on the government when their arguments are heard by the public - the voters. Only when the government's position is threatened by an upcoming election are the opposition's arguments taken seriously and this is where the electorate can perform its role as adjudicator between the government and opposition. Indeed, political argument between the parties is actually aimed at the public and it is for this reason that the communication lines to the public are intact. Effective opposition means being able to represent one's own position freely in public. Conversely, the government and ruling party-(ies) must also enter the struggle for the public's favor in order to defend their own convictions, policies and beliefs.

If the opposition has the job of controlling, criticizing and offering alternatives to the government, so too does everyone in society where, after all, public opinion is created. Firstly, public opinion means that everyone should have the right to participate in the shaping of opinion and that it should not be carried out secretly in hidden conventions. Everyone should have the opportunity to collect information and make his/her contribution to the debate. And, secondly, public opinion also means that the things up for debate must concern the public as a whole and not be private affairs. In the broadest sense, then, public opinion is concerned with the "res publica". All citizens or unions of citizens that spend time thinking about society and who express and represent in public these thoughts in the form of criticism, rejection, suggestion and agreement and in so doing attempt to influence public opinion are all a part of this public. They shape public opinion. Yet because pluralistic society is usually awash with many opposing opinions on the best way to deal with issues affecting the public, there is never just one public opinion, but many public opinions.

[Back to top of page]

The democratic nature of society is expressed especially well by this independent opposition to the state apparatus which is open to everyone. All those living in a democracy have a right to form their own political opinion. Here it should be emphasized again that this does not simply mean that the individual is entitled to his/her own personal opinion. A personal opinion should be regarded as the basis and foundation of active political participation in society (...).

It should also be pointed out that the right to form an opinion and to express it is connected closely with the rights to assembly and association as well as with freedom of the press. The political importance of these rights is clear, for without them the right of individuals to participate in shaping public opinion would be practically impossible. After all, it is very difficult to imagine a situation in which an individual would be able to influence the shaping of public opinion by expressing his/her opinion using word of mouth only. An individual's opinion can only become politically effective if it is amplified by leaflets, newspapers, radio and television. Public debate in modern cities is impossible without mass-communication. Therefore it follows that an individual's right to participate in shaping public opinion has to be backed up by the requirement that mass-communication means are independent of the state. A democratic government is forbidden from interfering with the editorial freedom of newspapers and the rest of the media. Of course, the government is entitled to present its position to the people using the mass media, but this should take place in partnership alongside others equally involved in the opinion-shaping process and governments should not try to use their position to gain priority status. The opposition should always be given the opportunity to reply to all statements made by the government.

Government moderation and a ban on censorship, however, fall well short of securing press freedom. State authorities are also responsible for ensuring that monopolies of opinion do not develop within society. Indeed, the dangers posed by these new forms of mass communication is evident. Modern media is capable of reaching great numbers of listens and readers, but not everyone has equal access to these forms of communication. Very few people have the necessary capital to publish their own magazine or newspaper. Development in technology has led to a concentration of newspaper publishers and as a consequence the range of opinions, which would otherwise be present at the differing publishing companies, is being limited.

It is hard to see how this process might be reversed. Good publishing houses require a certain size. It is the legislator's task to make sure that monopolies do not arise; and to control them where they exist. It is the state's responsibility to ensure that editorial freedom is protected by statute or regulation. (...). The development of printing and copying technology, on the other hand, can be regarded as a positive development and has led to a sharp increase in regional and local publications. To this end, the possibilities open to individuals and groups to spread more diverse political information have improved substantially. Indeed, the spread of photocopiers can be seen as being an excellent development for the democratic political system.

[Back to top of page]

One of the most difficult tasks for politics is preventing TV and radio monopolies from developing. Radio and TV demand substantial financial investment and the mastery of difficult technology. This means that that air time is not an option for all groups - chances of getting a hearing are greater using the print media. The existence of these hurdles has resulted in a great deal of government legislation and regulation aimed at creating a more level playing field on which all opinions present in society are represented fairly on radio and TV. As far as radio and TV are concerned, it is essential that the political will is formed according to pluralistic principles and it is for this reason that society must be on its guard against manipulation from wherever it may come (...).

Those wanting use the freedom they have to speak out must be given the opportunity to get hold of the information necessary for this to happen. People are only able to form their own judgments on a given issue provided they are in possession of the relevant information. Those who regard as positive a society made up of responsible citizens active in the shaping of public opinion and who also accept them as the sovereign and rightful bearers of state power must also keep these citizens informed about decisions being taken on current political issues. This is flip side of individual freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Everything concerning the public; indeed all the things that the public has to know before it can form an informed political judgment must be allowed to be discussed in public.

Just what is in the public interest and what is not can never be defined exactly nor be subject to set opinions in advance. Here it is more down to the taste, style and self-discipline of journalists than to state regulation. Of course, some journalists will always abuse their position and, for instance, uncover all manner of personal details about politicians they have chosen to target. Legislation exists in some countries aimed at preventing this kind of journalistic abuse, but society has to be cautious all the same if this sort of regulation is not to lead to a muzzling of the press. Those valuing freedom of information will also be prepared to put up with abuse that might be sparked out of this freedom. Legislators should guard against introducing regulation aimed at censoring the press in their attempts to deal with press abuse, for the result of such legislation could shake the freedom of the press to its foundations. Because - according to Karl Jaspers - "while it may be doubtful as to whether truth can actually be realized in a state of freedom, it is certain that it will be twisted in a state of censorship".

(...) Only when conditions such as these exist can public opinion be formed freely, and criticism, control and suggestions be conveyed. For individuals to form their own informed judgments and for them to be able to bring their political weight to bear both during elections and in the periods in between, society must function openly. Democracy and free public debate are two sides of the same coin.

(...) Opinions are seldom formed in a spontaneous way anymore; indeed they are all too often made. Government, parties and interest groups are all involved in public relations work. A pluralistic society, then, is often awash with different public opinions that are often the subject of dispute. The public should be suspicious of those claiming to represent public opinion and wanting to push political policy making in a particular direction based on this claim, and should ensure that they are not using this claim in an attempt to add unjustified weight to their own interests. Something approaching a unanimous public opinion can only be formed during free and open dialogue between the different and disputed positions.

[Back to top of page]

Admittedly, the direction politics takes in a pluralistic society is determined less by public discussion and unanimous public opinion than it is by a series of compromises found between the different community-political powers.

Parliament is no longer a meeting place where individuals discuss issues and find fitting solutions for the public in an atmosphere of free debate as envisaged by civil theorists, bur rather the last instance and the place where compromises between society's powers and the needs of the community are determined (...). The public is no longer governed by contributions to the discussion from people interested in politics, but by semi-official statements from government, political parties and other interest groups. The real decisions, however, are not being made amidst this marketplace of public statement, but all too often behind closed doors with the public's role being limited to one of noting decisions. Nevertheless, individual politicians, (...) prominent publicists and political commentators often have a great deal of influence on public opinion and this should not be underestimated.

(...) Only those governments prepared to listen to the public can be regarded as taking the concept of the responsible citizen seriously. And because political parties and interest groups today can be regarded as being a part of state power, they should be forced into disclosure. Modern-day discussion and debate must take place both between and inside the parties, interest groups, civil-action groups and social movements and not just at a parliamentary and electoral level (...). A large number of current practices would surely change if the parties and interest groups were to be subject to the public gaze. Undeniably, introducing forced disclosure upon parties and interest groups would not be enough to secure modern democracy on its own.

(...) It is for this reason that democracy, parties and interest groups need the kind of freedom of information that is accessible for all so that a public opinion can be borne out through it. TV, radio and press perform a central function in democracy, a function that can only be performed properly when public disputes and the wide range of differing opinion circulating in society are given the opportunity to be expressed clearly. When information becomes truly free, citizens are able to take on the role of shaping the community, and democracy becomes cemented within society. Publicity represents an instrument which enables control for all political powers. A society that enjoys fundamental consensus on its open decision-making processes and public opinion has managed to find a kind of democratic basis from which free and continuous politics can be carried out.

[Taken and translated from: Waldemar Besson/Gotthard Jasper, Das Leitbild der modernen Demokratie. Bauelemente einer freiheitlichen Staatsordnung, BpB Bonn 1990]

[Back to top of page]

Subjects:  Human Rights  I  Democracy  I  Parties  I  Examples  I  Europe  I  Globalisation  I  United Nations  I  Sustainability

Methods:    Teaching Politics    II    Peace Education    II    Methods