The politics of public opinion

In Pakistan we have seen the introduction of programmed reality in well received PTI jalsas. It is only a matter of time when other mainstream parties too will make their packaging more attractive

In 1916, with the popular slogan of ‘Peace without Victory’, President Wilson was elected as an ‘Anti-War President’. However, he intended to go to war and that required consensus. To achieve that, the Creel Commission was set up; a committee on Public Information to mobilize public opinion. Commission’s sole purpose was to propagandize masses into jingoist hysteria. Within a few months, the U.S. was able to go to war with the ‘popular’ support. Rest as they say is history.

Development of opinion is tremendously exciting. Egging it on actively is one thing but even if you are passive or dissident, the beauty of its development means you nonetheless contribute to achieve consensus. It does not matter if sanity is not statistical; polls are not meant to show that.

Our issues are not only framed but, in terms of scope, managed too.  For most of our inglorious history there has been a monopoly on agenda setting. Even our good politicians were not part of that exclusive club. It is now beginning to expand though. In Pakistan today, if I may break it down; we have the ruling party, civil-military bureaucracy, interest groups (including big corporations) and the media [both electronic and print] that are in a business of agenda setting and subsequently responsible for its development. At any rate, each stakeholder has its own institutional interests to protect. Therefore, what is developed, what isn't, the way it is slanted, reflects the interests of stakeholders in the power configuration. The people are only target market.  Their consent is manufactured accordingly.

Popularizing an issue is no different to marketing a product: to what extent will the publicity influence the behavior of the consumer? In Pakistan we have seen the introduction of programmed reality in well received PTI jalsas. It is only a matter of time when other mainstream parties too will make their packaging more attractive. The adverse impact of consumerism is that the quality of ideas in the political discourse become secondary to the marketing techniques. It has happened in the USA. Except that ours discourse was already quality starved, we are headed down the same road.

Apart from packaging, certain internal and external triggers are necessary. They are not sufficient. It must have more: the legitimacy that corresponds to dominant values of the societal mindset. The Malala episode is a case in point. Trigger: she was shot by yahoos. Legitimacy: Islamic abuse against women. A courageous female teenager is a fine illustration of crafty symbolism too.

Media are an important player.  Noam Chomsky calls them managers of one sort or another, as they are involved in organizing how people look at things. It is believed in the west that the elite media even though set agendas but do not influence the attitudes of the people considerably.  During the elections, in the swing state of Florida most of the papers opted for Romney. In another swing state of Ohio three papers endorsed Romney while two stuck with Obama. However, Obama took both these key states.

In Pakistan, the situation is different. The mainstream elite  media today are very much in the thick of supervising urban public opinion. Media are not only used for triggers and packaging, they certainly formulate issues in Pakistan. However, our matters of daily course of business need to be distinguished from election trends. Media influence the former but not the latter.

Consider:

The media have the power to determine what topics to discuss and therefore order what ‘public regards as important issues’. Consensus building is not difficult in ordinary course of business. People also are led to believe the more air time given to a particular issue, the more important it is. Specifically for elections though, apart from a few urban centers, media are not the primary influence. Voting patterns in contemporary Pakistan [in the absence of a radical alternative] are either driven by cast, religious affiliations or feudal pressures. Regardless, when we do turn up for vote, it is not our personal choice that we exercise. Therefore, there is no need for media to manufacture our opinions during elections.