Should Public Policy Lead or Follow Public Opinion?

Should Public Policy Lead or Follow Public Opinion?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
December 30, 2013

Summary: The government must listen to the public. But it must not blindly rely on public opinion. Public opinion is an indicator of society's sentiments. The government must respect it. But that does not mean allowing it to run amok. Public opinion is often fragmented. The government must exercise professionalism and impartiality in its decision making. It must sell the public. It must lead the public. It must not become an example of the blind leading the blind.

Full text below:

Beginning today, the freeways will be metered on a pay per kilometer basis. Under conflicting pressures from the public, the long and short distance rates and the free mileage allotment have been adjusted repeatedly. But the government has been unable to quell public discontent. Ilan residents object to tolls on the plains portion of National Toll Road Number 5. They persist in their protests. Electronic toll collection will reduce bottlenecks. This is a benefit of the information age. But public opinion remains divided. A progressive policy continues to falter. This is surprising.

The popularity of the Internet has enabled people to express their opinions. Government policies are constantly subject to public scrutiny. Diversity of opinion has made it impossible for the government to formulate policies that please everyone. In order to reduce criticism, the government tends to wait until the public has announced its preferences first. Respect for public opinion is a good thing. Nevertheless the government must make decisions concerning complex issues that require professionalism. If government policies merely regurgitate public opinion, the result will be confusion and chaos.

The referendum on Nuclear Power Plant Number 4 is a good example. A public referendum is the most direct expression of public opinion. It is an important way to resolve major controversies. The government has repeatedly attempted to hold referenda. But the referendum process and the wording of referenda merely provoke additional controversy. This makes it impossible for referenda to resolve problems. Take Japan's Fukushima nuclear disaster for example. The Executive Yuan decided to respond to DPP appeals. It decided to support a referendum on whether to finish construction on the Nuclear Power Plant Number 4. But nearly a year later, the issue remains unresolved by any referendum. Instead, the ruling and opposition parties have become increasingly polarized. Social groups have become mired in irrational disputes. Obviously referenda are not a panacea for resolving major public policy disagreements.

Another way of determining whether the public approves of a government policy is opinion polls. Recently the Tourism Bureau Taipei Tourism Office said it would conduct a poll to decide whether it should use scientific methods to preserve Yehliu's famous "Queen's Head" rock formation. Proponents and opponents remain deadlocked. On one hand, the rock formation has tourism value. The public loves it. On the other hand, the environment must be protected and natural processes must be respected. The two camps have no common ground. The Taipei Tourism Office decision revealed its reluctance to offend either camp. But the real question is do opinion polls constitute an objective and accurate measure of public opinion? Would an opinion poll really lead to an informed decision?

Those who implement policy often use the following approach. Whenever a major policy controversy erupts, the government establishes an "ad hoc inter-agency task force." For example, suppose people complain about rising prices? The government establishes an "ad hoc price stability task force." Suppose people complain about food safety? The government establishes a "food safety task force." When Hung Chung-chiu was murdered, the government established an "ad hoc military human rights task force." When the documentary film "Beyond Beauty: Taiwan from Above" became popular, the government established an "ad hoc land conservation task force." The government invariably waits until public discontent boils over, before seriously tackling any problem.

Reliance on referenda, polls, or ad hoc inter-agency task forces to decide policy is neither good nor bad. It all depends on how one uses them. Some may hide behind public opinion. They may use it to cover up inept government policies. This merely proves that they have no idea what they should do. Many decisions require difficult and complex professional judgments. They may involve fiscal, security, and technical considerations, even risk evaluations. If the government fails to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the pros and cons, but instead rushes to consult opinion polls, it is not acting responsibly.

Take the Nuclear Power Plant Number 4 construction issue. This requires highly professional decision making. The government has billions of dollars invested. Should construction continue? The government must consider every aspect of the issue, including science, economics, and security On the one hand, the government boasts that it will arrive at a professional decision. On the other hand it swears it will abide by the results of a public referendum. This is obviously self-contradictory. Take the preservation of the "Queen's Head" rock formation. Some scholars have argued that the accelerated weathering of the Queen's Head was the result of considerable human impact. It was not entirely the result of natural factors. Today however, the Taipei Tourism Bureau wants to resort to the expediency of an opinion poll to determine what it should do. As one can imagine, no matter what result the poll yields people will not be persuaded.

This is true also for freeway metering on a pay per kilometer basis. In order to ensure a smooth transition, the government is offering a free milage grace period. This is a necessary concession. But it does not need to be permanent. Otherwise, satisfying short distance freeway users will invite resentment among long distance freeway users. The government can never please everyone. These "ad hoc task forces" reflect long accumulated problems, and the failure to address problems at their source -- policy implementation. Here a task force. There a task force. This merely shows that the government may have authority, but it lacks ability. Problems worsen and elude solution .

The government must listen to the public. But it must not blindly rely on public opinion. Public opinion is an indicator of society's sentiments. The government must respect it. But that does not mean allowing it to run amok. Public opinion is often fragmented. The government must exercise professionalism and impartiality in its decision making. It must sell the public. It must lead the public. It must not become an example of the blind leading the blind.

政策應該領導民意，或追隨民意？
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.12.30 03:49 am

高速公路今起改採計程收費，在各方民意壓力下，長短途計程費率及免費里程幾經來回更易，仍無法平息不同民眾的不滿。其中，宜蘭居民反對國道五號平原段收費，仍在抗爭。電子收費有助減少高速公路行車瓶頸，也是資訊時代的大勢所趨；但在不同民意的拉扯下，一項進步決策仍推得步履蹣跚，讓人意外。

網路普及帶動言論市場的百家爭鳴，政府政策隨時都受到民意的檢視與批評；而民意的多元，也讓政府愈來愈難找到「面面俱到」的政策。在這種情況下，政府決策越來越傾向讓民意先行，以求減少批評。尊重民意當然是好事，但這仍要取決於議題的複雜度與專業性；否則，若凡事流為民意至上取向，最後可能反陷於無所適從的混亂境地。

核四公投就是一例。全民公投是最直接的民意呈現，也是解決國家重大爭議的重要手段；然而，台灣幾次推動公投的經驗，卻是在程序和議題擬訂上激發更多紛爭，而無法有效解決問題。日本福島核災後，行政院決定呼應民進黨訴求，由公投決定核四續建與否；但迄今一年，核四問題並未因將訴諸公投而得以化解，反而是朝野攻防愈發緊繃，社會不同群體也被捲入非理性的爭議。很顯然，做為解決重大民意分歧的最終手段，公投並非萬靈丹。

另一個民意常常被拿來為政策背書的模式，是民意調查。最近觀光局「北觀處」宣布將用民調方式，決定是否要用科學手段來保護野柳著名的「女王頭」蕈狀風化岩。主要原因，就在正反兩方僵持不下，一方訴諸觀光價值與民眾情感，另一方則訴諸環保和自然，兩者毫無交集。北觀處的決定，顯示它不願冒犯兩方的立場。問題是，要做多大範圍的民調，才能產生客觀而有代表性的民意呢？而這個民調真能做出明智的決定嗎？

行政部門還有一個常見的手法，是在發生政策爭議或重大事件時，成立所謂「跨部會專案小組」。諸如，民眾抱怨物價上漲，成立「穩定物價專案小組」；食安出狀況，成立「食安小組」；洪仲丘冤死案發生後，成立「軍中人權專案小組」；最近紀錄片「看見台灣」火紅，也成立「國土保育」專案小組。總是等到民怨沸騰，才想到要認真面對問題。

事實上，無論公投、民調或跨部會專案小組，做為決策選擇的手段，都無所謂好壞，而是要看如何運用。若只是想假藉民意來「補破網」，或掩蓋政府的施政無能，那只證明無技可施。尤其，許多政策涉及高難度及高複雜的專業判斷，諸如財務評估、安全考量、技術評比、乃至風險預測等，政府如果不謹慎依序做好全盤利弊分析，卻貿然把問題交給民調決定，豈是負責的作法？

以核四為例，這是個高度專業的決策，且政府已經投入數千億元，無論續建與否，政府都要把科學、經濟、安全各方面的論述攤開來。若一面宣稱找「最專業的團隊評估」，一面又說要訴諸公投，根本是自相矛盾。再談「女王頭」的維護，早在多年前，就有學者主張女王頭風化速度加快有相當程度的人為影響，並非完全自然因素造成；如今，北觀處卻只想用最廉價的民調決定。可以想見，未來無論民調結果如何，都難以服人。

高速公路計程收費也一樣，為求過渡期的平順，提供免費旅程作為緩衝，自是必要手段，卻未必要永遠採行。否則，滿足了這端的短程民眾，又招惹了那端中長程民眾的忿懣，永難擺平。再如各種臨時性的「專案小組」，反映的都是長年積累的問題，不從行政體系執行力的源頭去下功夫，東一個小組、西一個小組，只是暴露政府公權力欲振乏力，結果是事倍功半。

簡言之，政府不能不把民意放在心上，但也不能一味把民意掛在嘴邊。民意是社會人心的綜合指標，政府給予適當的尊重，它就不會變成一頭失控的野獸；然而，許多時候民意是四分五裂的，這就需要政府拿出專業能力與公正決斷來說服大眾、領導人民，而不是盲人瞎馬般地被帶著走。