Mobilization of public opinion

Development Forum (published by the UN Centre for Economic and Social Information/OPI) in its latest issue (November-December 19781 reproduces a text by Jean Ripert, Under-Secretary-General in charge of the Department of International Economic and Social Affairs. The editors introduce the text (reproduced in this issue on pages 123-456) with the paragraph : « The drive toward world development and a better economic order has made little headway in the present decade. The mobilization of public opinion as an essential element in the effort has not been very successful either. Nevertheless, the approach was right, says UN Under-Secretary-General Jean Ripert, and a more massive mobilization is indispensable ». But was the approach right? How is it possible to be so sure ? The current policy has been in force since the beginning of the First Development Decade and the world situation has deteriorated significantly since that time with many warnings of much worse to come in the very near future. And in that same issue of Development Forum, there are a few small symptoms of the inconsistencies underlying Jean Ripert's text. The editors have titled it « Rally public opinion » in English whilst leaving il as « Mobiliser l'opinion » in French. Is « mobilization » now inappropriate to an English-speaking audience and, if so, why ? The emphasis is on the media with a single passing reference to « nongovernmental organizations which relay new ideas to the public should also contribute ». For a body which is usually meticulous about translation, this phrase appears in French, without mentioning nongovernmental organizations (a UNterm), as « doivent également contribuer conjointement... les groupes qui servent de relais pour la diffusion d'idées nouvelles dans l'opinion publique (partis politiques, Eglises, associations laïques d'entr'aide et d'animation, universités et institutions de recherche, etc.) » Clearly international NGOs play no part in this scheme, and the national ones are seen as passive relays for the « new ideas » generated by the United Nations. (Why should the UN play on the ambiguities of terms which it itself has created ?). And yet in the same issue in the NGO Forum section (which is omitted from the French version) appears a text which stresses the importance of the nongovernmental organizations. It is reproduced as an insert on this page. And finally there appears a note (also absent from the much shorter French version) to the effect that « Development Forum regrets that due to financial difficulties the previously announced 11 editions of this year have been reduced to 10 ». Those responsible within the UN system for « mobilizing public opinion » have for too many years conveyed the impression that their approach was the correct one and completely justified the resources which have been channelled into their activities. And yet their results fail completely to match their rhetoric. Perhaps their financial difficulties will encourage a healthy re-examination of their whole philosophy. As it is one is forced into a sense of déjà vue. Some five years ago, this same sense of « deja vue » was provoked by the UN Secretary General's own review and appraisal of the « Dissemination of information and mobilization of public opinion relative to problems of development ». It seems therefore appropriate, much as it is to be regretted, that our text analyzing that report and its context should be reproduced to counter-balance the unchanged emphasis reflected in Jean Ripert's article on the matter. At that time the article below appeared under the heading « Mobilization for alientation versus Catalysis for participation; the critical choice for the United Nations system ».