Maicie Jones

Afshin Beyzaee

2/9/98

Thinkpiece

Russett and Starr examine the effects of public opinion in open or democratic governments on foreign policy. They begin by pose the two viewpoints of Power Elites and Pluralism in government decision making. The Power Elite theory suggests that the governmental decisions are made by a small group of people called the elites. These people tend to make decisions based on their own interests and beliefs with little or no regard to the opinions of the masses. The pluralist model asserts that government officials make their decisions according to the influences of specialists in the particular areas in question. They suggest that decisions are made in this way because the citizens at large are relatively uninformed in the realm of foreign affairs. As such the decisions need to be handled by these well-informed elites or specialists.

It seems unlikely that public opinion has no bearing on the leaders' decisions. This is essentially due to the participatory element in democratic governments. The public has the ability to vote out officials who follow policies with which they do not agree. Because of this, the elected officials tend to try to please their constituents. Russett and Starr suggest that the public affects policy in essentially four ways:

* By limiting the options from which the officials can choose if they wish to be reelected.

* By instituting or failing to institute the decisions that the officials make.

* By filtering or distorting the information that reaches the officials.

* By creating the environment from which future leaders are drawn.

The final view they pose is that the chief of state is the ultimate source of policy. It is the character, personality, and experience that drives his decision-making process. He is essentially influenced by the public and the political elite. They must receive support from the public so that they or their party will be re-elected. As a result, they employ a variety of methods to increase public approval. One of these methods is directed at stemming the rally-'round-the-flag phenomenon. Citizens have a national pride that they hold above their feelings toward the governing party, and, as a result, they tend to support government decisions in times of national crisis, such as war. It these times public support for the chief of state rises, so theory suggests that the he is more likely to engage in policies that would create such situations in hopes that his popularity will rise. This strategy may backfire, as long wars or lost wars breed negative sediments within the society.

A major question that Russett and Starr pose is whether the public opinion is created by the people and controls those governing or elected officials influence the opinions of the masses so that the public's desires will coincide with those of the official. An example of the former would be a grassroots movement to shape government policy. While an Astroturf movement would characterize the latter.

A question that seems to arise is whether the elected official should comply with the wishes of the public or do what he thinks is best. Although the official is elected by his constituents, the publics view and those of the official sometimes diverge. When this occurs, some suggest that the official should alter his policies to please the voters. This is because democracy is essentially the will of the people. However, it seems that it is intended in the representative form of government for the elected official to act in the best interest of the country despite his constituents desires because the masses are not always well informed. In situations such as this, tough decisions are often made that weigh the will of the people against the state of affairs. Here, the official's personality and character determine which path he will follow.