The significance of popular opinion for govt accountability

Media and other reports on government abuses of public power or resources are now followed almost immediately by a surge of responses from the general public, mostly condemnatory. Previously, it was hard to assess the impact of specific government decisions on public opinion. With the internet and a growing number of social networks, we now are able to make rough assessments of such impact within a relatively short period of time.

That the general public can pass judgment on government decisions as soon as they are made or revealed has not pleased everyone. I am talking here not of government functionaries, but fellow members of the public.

Some feel irritated by the upsurge of condemnation of government whenever it has made a controversial or seemingly ill-advised decision, arguing that expressions of disgust, frustration and condemnation are worthless. Often, the implied or express suggestion is that without concrete political action, expressions of opinions about government cannot yield anything or that if one cannot mobilise for political action, one cannot express himself or herself on matters of governance.

At stake here is the appreciation—or lack thereof—of the value of freedom of opinion and freedom of expression in a democracy. Both freedoms are entrenched in our Constitution, for good reasons.

At the core of colonialism was the belief that Africans were incapable of thinking for themselves or anybody else. Africans were ruled by their desires and passions; they had no capacity to reflect and deliberate. They had to be ruled for their own benefit.

The overthrow of colonialism enabled Africans to reclaim their self-determination, collective and individual. Africans could now rule themselves politically. They could also think for themselves individually.

The rise of the one-party democracy saw the elevation of collective self-determination above individual self-determination. In truth, this simply meant projecting Dr Kamuzu Banda’s will on all Malawians.

Human Rights Watch’s 1990 report, suggestively entitled Where silence rules: The suppression of dissent in Malawi, accurately described the impact of the one-party rule on freedom of opinion and freedom of expression. During that time, citizens could not express themselves freely. The government defined the terms of social engagement, who would participate and how. Citizens were reduced to consumers of government propaganda.

Totalitarian governments fear freedoms of opinion and expression because these freedoms provide the foundation for accountability. When people think for themselves, they do not accept everything they are told uncritically; they investigate, scrutinise, disapprove, approve, condemn or praise.

Freedom of opinion and freedom of expression are good in themselves. They define what it is to be human. We are thinking and moral beings. We have language. We can communicate our thoughts, preferences and judgements. No one should be deprived of these freedoms, whether their exercise leads to something valuable or not.

Freedom of opinion and freedom of expression are also good because of what they can bring about. The opinions that individuals hold and share shape public morality and public opinion, both of which are relevant to public decision making. Responsive governments benefit from the wisdom of public opinion.

Unresponsive governments may ignore public opinion, but only for a short period of time. Unless suppressed, public opinion will always bring down governments that do not care about what the people say.

In short, one cannot emphasize enough the significance of the individual opinions that people express about government, however and wherever these are expressed. It is good for democracy when the people are able to participate in public discussions about governance. The people now pretty much have the freedom to determine the terms of engagement with the State.