Leadership and public opinion
Leaders play an important role in the formation of public opinion. They explain a problem. People may have some frustrations or some anxieties. It is only the leader who articulates and crystallizes these faint yet strong feelings. For example, when Bal Gangadhar Tilak declared that “Swarajya is our birthright,” the entire people of the country and mainly the educated society felt that their strong feelings against the British domination in India were translated into action. being done .
Due to this announcement of Tilak, public opinion became more intense in favor of autonomous government. When the sentiments are strong among the majority of the people of a group or in a country, the agitator plays an important role in the formation of public opinion. The leader can also use the platform and the press to enlighten the people. Generally speaking, the leader facilitates a problem. Every problem is complex and when an expert tries to study it, he meditates on it seriously for many months before understanding it properly. For example, it is easy to say that the existing education system at a particular point of time is not suitable. Platform – The speaker can give many arguments and examples to show that the education system is not appropriate at a particular time. These can lead to changes in public opinion.
But when changes are to be made, no action can be taken until a comprehensive examination of the structure of the education system at a particular time is made, the needs of the society are not assessed and the possible changes that will lead to the need As far as is possible, predictions are not made about the fulfillment. In a country where revolutionary changes are taking place, it is always easy to allege that the education system is not meeting the demands of the times. But when people are completely satisfied with the status quo, it is difficult for an agitator or social reformer to create dissatisfaction among the people against the said situation. For example, when Gandhiji tried to implement his principles of basic education, there was little public response to him (1936).
Therefore, if the leader wants to bring public opinion on a certain basis, he has to study the general sentiments of the people. The second subject has to be made accessible so that everyone can understand that it is a real problem. “A common form of facilitation appears when one part of the stimulus is perceptible and the rest is left out. Such a one-sided response occurs because the individual does not have the ability to respond fully or because the first stimulus is left to the residual stimulus.” But prevents sighting.” . The facilitation of a problem lies in selective perception. It also depends on the prevailing demands and frustrations. As Cantrill put it, “When opinion is in an unstructured state, people are communicative and seek interpretation from a reliable source, then oral statements and program designs have a great impact”.
When the Public Health Department campaigns about health related problems, no public opinion is formed. Most people would not agree with health officials. But whenever the epidemic spreads, people will get angry then public opinion will emerge and health department officials will be talked to and they will be given full cooperation. Thus, when public opinion is formed, leadership is not everything in itself, leadership only matters when people have certain concerns. The leader cannot create such a situation. When such a condition exists, he can only operate it. Another thing we should keep in mind is that the leader may be able to explain the meaning of the topic to his own group in order to form public opinion. If he presents a particular type of program in very clear terms, it will not be of importance to the whole public, but only to the members of his group. If the leader wishes to appeal to the whole group in his program, his program must be largely unstructured so that communication and interpretation play their full part.
Public Opinion
The methods adopted in the study of public opinion can be broadly classified into two categories, namely, qualitative and quantitative. There is a historical method to study changes in public opinion. Using this method we can discover the way in which public opinion has changed over the years. For example, public opinion in India about the British was so close to zero that Robert Clive won the Battle of Plassey in 1757. This could happen only when the British power increased in many parts of the country and when the Muslim rulers, Hindu rulers and French and Dutch and European colonizers had to be defeated by the British, in such a situation, public opinion was intensified which led to the Indian War of Independence of 1857. transformed into
Due to the horrific defeat of the Indian armies, the whole country was in a state of indolence. When the Indian National Congress was established in 1885, the leaders began to take satisfaction only from the fact that they were praying to the British rulers for the relief of some types of sufferings of Indians. In other words , this was possible only when leaders like Tilak and Gandhi started their work not only in the educated sections of India but also in innumerable people of cities and villages which changed public opinion and in 1942 Mahatma Gandhi’s ‘ India The Quit Movement became fierce. Thus, by using the historical method, changes in public opinion in any group of people can be studied. Similarly, we can study the public opinion about the upliftment of Harijans in India by discussing the changes brought about by the Constitution and through education and social service for Harijans.
Similarly, after studying the history of women’s movement and the many organizations related to women and the social constitution of the last few years affecting the status of women, the changes that have taken place in the public opinion of Indians about the status of women in society. can study. By studying how many women are engaged in different jobs and in what kind of posts they are being appointed, we can see the changing public opinion about the status of women and their role in social, economic and public life. can understand.
The second qualitative method of opinion study is the individual study. By interviewing some people in the group, we can get some knowledge about the changes in the opinion of the group. To clarify this, we can refer to Lasker’s study on racial attitudes in children. Lasker was told by one person how as a child he was taught to hate Negroes and that Negroes were portrayed as cruel people whose job was to attack and ‘kill’ other people. The person further explained how these attitudes were inculcated in him. He said with certainty that as he grew up and studied these problems, his attitude towards the Negro changed. He found that the intention of a Negro was not to kill anyone. But still his dislike of the Negro people remained. Such studies can also be done in the people of India, through which we can find out the change of opinion in the context of Harijan problem or get information about the attitude-changes of Hindus towards Muslims or Muslims towards Hindus.
While both these qualitative methods have been beneficial, they also have their limitations. They do not give us an objective picture of public opinion.