1) While public opinion influences political decisions in democracies, relying solely on it to make all decisions is unrealistic and problematic. Public opinion is volatile, can be influenced by sensational media, and may lack expertise on complex issues. 2) Representative democracy aims to balance public opinion with objective and pragmatic decision-making. Elected officials reflect constituents' views but retain autonomy to consider issues from different perspectives. 3) Not all decisions require direct public involvement, but all should consider majority consensus. Democracy is about reaching decisions that best represent society as a whole, not just majority preferences on every issue.

1. Rory Gaskin
‘Some decisions are too important to leave to public opinion’. Do
you agree?
To give the people what they want is to make the people happy. This was the reason
behind much political policy made by former US president Abraham Lincoln. His
logic was simple- ‘public sentiment is everything’ . While the desires of the people
have changed since 1865, it is this idea which has served as an axiom for the
creation of democracies universally; the supremacy of the will of the public often
dictates our decisions as individuals, as well of those of our wider society. However,
though our freethinking and autonomous nature provides a means for decision-
making, it is, ironically, this very virtue that often restricts our ability to do so. In fact,
views on the role of public opinion can be as diverse as the opinions themselves.
Therefore, whilst idealistic, it is impossible for public opinion to be the only source
from which decisions are derived, it will be argued that it is the ever changing and
conflicting direction of society’s moral compass which renders the views of the
majority a futile foundation on which all decisions should be based.
Regardless of such disagreement, the consideration of public opinion is keystone to
a democracy. Indeed, under Athenian democracy – the first democratic state
established in 508 BC – the random selection of citizens to form a government was
fundamental to the establishment of liberties in accordance with its direct democracy,
as opposed to being subjects themselves to the rule of another. Arguably the most
important decision politically, the onus to elect a presiding government is still today
placed upon the public. In fact, the integrity of such opinion is rendered only yet more
apparent in its role in criminal law: the jury are not only seen as the arbiters of truth
but also bestowed with the central role of deriving one’s guilt and, in some cases,
passing sentence. It is thus this consideration of public opinion which separates our
democracy from a dictatorship: government does not dictate policy but, rather,
presents that which represents our values and beliefs. Without such representation
in key political decisions, our egalitarian means of decision-making would, ultimately,
regress to totalitarian rule.
However, this ‘all-or-nothing’ approach to public involvement is not realistic; it
undermines an essential characteristic of a functional democratic state –
pragmatism. The magnitude of political policy is so great that they necessitate
objectivity, rationality and expertise, all of which is often lacking from public opinion.
Echoing the words of Douglas Hurd, its fickle nature renders it unsuitable to make
such decisions. Unlike that of experienced legislators, the role of the press is more
profound in forming public opinion. Sensational headlines and the rise of ‘fake news’
reveal that there are many areas where public understanding differs to the proven
realities. The ease with which public opinion can be influenced raises skepticism
towards its validity as a true representation of public belief. As illustrated through the
infamous Brexit claim of ‘£350 million available to the NHS a week’ , public opinion is
often based not on facts but on false premises and lurid broadsheets. The exclusion
of public opinion from some decisions, in turn, upholds our democratic ideals: the
preclusion of the headlines from influencing political policy prevents its domination by
wealthy media moguls.
Thus, whilst it may be argued that the rejection of a mandate based on public opinion
falls outside the bounds of democracy, the job of the politician is as much to lead as

2. Rory Gaskin
to reflect such opinion. However, given the volatility and intricacy of public belief,
how exactly would one ascertain the opinion of the majority? Likewise, given that
most political and economic events affect people unevenly, would it not also be
necessary to consider one’s socioeconomic status to truly reflect public opinion, as
well as contrast public values and attitudes? While a simple ‘yes-no’ plebiscite may
suffice in simple decisions, democracy necessitates that the multi-faceted nature of
public opinion be reflected in decisions of a greater magnitude. If not, do we not run
the risk of promoting the simplicity over the integrity of our democracy?
Essentially, it is our representative democracy which aim to solve these issues. The
officials whom we elected reflect the opinion of their constituents whilst retaining their
own personal autonomy. Though by no means a flawless form of decision-making,
the spirit of democracy still prevails. As opposed to a system in which the majority
dictates – leaving the minorities often marginalised - the elected body can take an
objective view of the people’s opinion whilst maintaining that which often lacks from
public belief – a consideration for the wellbeing of the country on a whole. In 1935,
US senator Louis Ludlow presented the ‘Ludlow Amendment’ which called a national
referendum on any declaration of war. To him, the ramifications of such a decision
required a clear mandate provided by the public. However, rather than upholding
democracy, Congress would have relinquished its right to debate and declare war to
an inexpert elective body, whose focus is on short-term personal gains and needs. Is
this truly indicative of the rational and democratic values by which we abide?
Notwithstanding these limitations of public opinion, democracy is ultimately facilitated
by public consultation. Although political policy is decided by the legislative, it is the
mandate on which they were elected that shapes their endeavour to do so. The
thrust of the question is hence incompatible with a democracy: it would require a
dictator-style body to judge the importance of an issue in relation to its probable
decision-makers. Otherwise, the process of electing said-body becomes paradoxical
– the people would make a decision to elect a person to decide whether the people
could thus make a decision.
Stemming from this idea, the role of public opinion becomes clear: all decisions
should consider the consensus of the majority but do not require direct public
involvement. Not only would the basis on which the opinion is formed render it
problematic, but it would also greatly reduce our ability to pass legislation. Above all,
democracy does not intend to establish equality but rather attempts to reach
decisions by reflecting the society it represents. Though politicians will never fully
represent public opinion, one thing will always be reflected – the desire to do what is
best.