This months Research World magazine from ESOMAR is a great read and has several articles that relate to democracy, illustrating how research can help and it similarities.
However, I feel that most of the authors miss the point about both democracy and politics. So, here are a few of my views. But before I start I should highlight my dual interest. I have been an elected local government councillor since 1983, serving during that time on a Borough Council and a County Council. I have also been a parliamentary candidate and served for two years on the National Executive of the then Liberal Party (since subsumed into the Liberal Democrats).
I think I would start by challenging the notion that politicians should be in the business of giving people what they want!
I am not in politics to give people what they want, I am in politics to convince people to want what I want, otherwise I would be a civil servant (i.e. have more power, more money, and less hassle). Of course, I also accept that as I engage in the process of convincing others to want what I want (e.g. nuclear disarmament) I will listen to what they have to say, and will sometimes end up wanting what they want.
The views of the public are what limits the action of politicians, not what shapes their long term goals. For example, I might want to reduce the carbon footprint of the UK to the same per capita figure as India, but in order to get to that end I can only do steps that the public either wants or will at worst accept.
The big difference between politicians and citizens is the need to choose. The closest form of research, in terms of the process a politician goes through, is conjoint. In order to have better play facilities I either have to have less of something else or more tax. Even if I have more tax, I still have the opportunity cost of better health or policing to set against play facilities. By contrast it is quite proper for a citizen to say they way better play facilities, more policing, more health facilities and lower taxes. An unprincipled politician might offer all of these, but even an unprincipled politician can't deliver all of these, he or she will have to make choices.
Research is great when it realises its role is to inform the decision making process. However, it tends towards the mob when it thinks its role is to make the decisions. However, the same is true in commercial market research, but should be seeking to inform the business decisions, we can't make them.
Perhaps my most contentious view (and one that perhaps puts me in the same camp as the advertising creatives when they talk about research), is that all great improvements come from ignoring popular opinion.
If we look at the big issues, abolition of slavery, universal suffrage, the rights of indigenous peoples, animal rights etc, they were passed despite the majority of the population being opposed or apathetic.
The trend for 'great' changes tends to be a) a small group of citizens start campaigning, b) eventually a majority of the elite agree with the campaign (the elite might be Parliament, it might be the cabinet, in an extreme case it might be just the President or Prime Minister), c) the law is passed/implemented despite lacking popular support, d) if it turns out it was a 'great' law it becomes accepted as a basic tenet of our society and becomes defended by the majority.
The problem with democracy is when the 'elite' thinking they are making a great change and they are wrong, for example the Vietnam War, the Anglo-French invasion of Suez, banking deregulation, and in the UK rail privatisation.
However, at the time every 'great' change was made, it seemed wrong to the majority. Only history gets to decide whether a new policy will become the equivalent of an Apple iPod or an Apple Newton.
