The interaction between the government and the public is based on the assumption of two-way communication, but in fact we are dealing with one-way information and persuasion of the public. Public opinion is fully realised by the possibility of deciding on the candidate of one or another political party – elections are therefore the most direct expression of public opinion. Before that, various levers are used to shape opinion, which are intended to influence public opinion – including public opinion polls published by the media. Public opinions can thus be pre-formed and suggested to the public. “Cheering for Robert Golob is possible in these times by sampling “random” respondents in carefully selected territorial units (areas, local communities) that are known to be home to left-wing voters,” explained Roman Vodeb, who is convinced that public opinion polls are systematically conducted with a single purpose: to influence people to electing those candidates that the contractor or the client favours.
Mass communication is especially effective in forming opinions on new issues, including those that are not related to existing views. In this way, the message does not contradict unfavourable predispositions or group norms. To some extent, the communication of “new faces” works in a similar way. Media reporting therefore reinforces existing opinions more often than it changes them – and in certain cases it can also create them or at least help to create them. It is known that an individual adapts to group norms and that the process of gratification takes place. If an individual does not adapt, he or she may face negative sanctions, so the individual mostly protects his or her identity and is resistant to attempts to change personal views. The media play a bigger role in problems that are less important to the individual – this is also why people are prone to only minor changes in attitudes.
It is typical of totalitarian systems that agitprop media are gaining ground, and in democratic systems, governments are gaining – or at least trying to gain – a monopoly position backed by monopoly media. In the latter case, alternative communication systems are also being developed. In the past, all theories were based on the assumption that public opinion plays an important role in the political decision-making process, but critical studies have been talking about public opinion crisis for some time – mass media, political centres of power and agencies manipulate it: “Political behaviour is most easily influenced through opinion control,” John Dewey noted in his book The Public and Its Problems.
Psychoanalysis expert Roman Vodeb said that almost a hundred years ago Freud’s nephew asked about public relations, that is, influencing people, crowds. He, like (uncle) Sigmund Freud, was a psychoanalytic expert. In his three epochal books Propaganda (1928), Public Relations (1945) and Engineering of Consent (1955), he also “along the way” set out to manage the masses (voters) in different political contexts.
From the “fox” Bernays onwards, it is known that people – including voters – can be managed, so to speak, manipulated – not only in the field of consumerism (shopping/marketing), but also in the field of political marketing.
Most people are susceptible to manipulation
Vodeb went on to explain that nowadays the skills and techniques of influencing people are extremely sophisticated also because (psychoanalytically) it is known that man does not (in essence) have free will – that is, a person is controlled by unconscious. The phenomenon of suggestion – influencing and guiding people – is already quite sophisticated. In the world, much more than in our country. “However, it is also known in our country that people, i.e., voters – I affectionately call them sheep in this political context, precisely because of their blind leadership and unconscious obedience – can be manipulated,” he pointed out, adding that people are very receptive to manipulation – not all, but most. Politically labile or undecided people do not have a strong will or political autonomy. “In these difficult times, when everyone is confused, scared and vulnerable, it is possible to influence them in some way, through fake public opinion polls,” said the double Master of Science.
Golob’s popularity: sampling of “random” respondents is done in carefully selected territorial units
Vodeb pointed out that “foxes”, who are aware of the phenomenon of stalled public opinion polls, are counting on this manageability, suggestibility. Politically biased “researchers” or owners of various polling companies or institutes systematically conduct various pre-election polls with one purpose: to influence people by electing their candidates to defeat political opponents. According to Vodeb there are a lot of tricks woven into this opinion poll. According to him, the most trained are FDV graduates with a left pedigree. Even left-wing branches that produce counterfeit or politically dictated (biased) opinion polls are significantly more than right-wing or neutral (objective). Vodeb gave an example: cheering for Robert Golob is possible in these times by sampling “random” respondents in carefully selected territorial units (areas, local communities) that are well known to be home to left-wing voters – which is carefully recorded in the database with respect to all previous elections.
Suggestive voters like to join the majority, which is artificially constituted in pre-election opinion polls
Well, in the end, according to Vodeb, the “political activists” are left with pure fraud, that is, manipulating data or lying – carefully planned forgery, which should pay off in such a way that the suggestive “sheep” would decide for the majority, “which is certainly right”. And this is what “political activists” are trying to highlight in their fake polls. Labile or complaint, suggestible voters who do not have their (solid) political backbone or autonomy, unconsciously “leach on” the majority, which is carefully planned, but false, i.e., artificial, constituted in these famous pre-election polls. A thought that, by legitimate logic, wanders through the preconscious and unconscious of labile voters who do not really know exactly how to make a political decision on how to vote – mostly goes like this: “I have no idea who to vote for… – if I vote like the most vote, I will fail the least!” And even if such a voter “fails” with his/her cast vote, he/she has his/her cover in the fact that the majority who joined him/her also failed – so the individual has a rationalised imagination and feels better than if he/she had made his/her decision and then fail autonomously.
Sara Bertoncelj
