By Virgil B. Vallecera
RATIONALE
At the dawn of the twenty-first century, the world is experiencing a concurrent rise in two major forces: nationalism and globalization (The Economist, 1999). While it may seem odd to speak about nationalism in an era of intensified global consciousness, nationalism is on the rise in various countries and has emerged as one of the main issues facing the world. In trying to reconcile the paradox of nationalistic resurgence at a time of global economic and technological interdependence, nation-states remain the primary object of loyalty in the modern world because a nation's "memory is central to identity." Indeed, the quest for a sovereign identity is driving much of the nationalistic sentiments today: as insecurities about globalization grow, loyalty to the nation-state increases. This helps explain why, at an economic level, the upsurge of globalization has failed to weaken economic nationalism.
Nationalism is a concept that has been linked to both collective behaviors and governmental policies (e.g., economic protectionism and cultural isolationism) and to individual behaviors (voting behaviors, inter-racial relations, stereotyping, etc). Although both levels of nationalism have implications for international marketing, the present focus is on individual-level nationalism. In this context, the dismantling of trade barriers, deregulation of delivery services, technological advances in telecommunications and improved payment systems boost cross-border consumer purchases by reducing the problems of physical access to markets (Baker, 1995). What remain to be seen are the socio-psychological barriers that might constrain consumers around the world from purchasing the now more easily available foreign products.
The surge of nationalism usually presents a morally ambivalent and for this reason often fascinating picture. “National awakenings” and struggles for political independence are often both heroic and inhumanly cruel; the formation of a recognizably national state often responds to deep popular sentiment, but can and does sometimes bring in its wake inhuman consequences, including violent expulsion and “cleansing” of non-nationals, all the way to organized mass murder. The moral debate on nationalism reflects a deep moral tension between solidarity with oppressed national groups on the one hand and repulsion in the face of crimes perpetrated in the name of nationalism on the other. Moreover, the issue of nationalism points to a wider domain of problems having to do with the treatment of ethnic and cultural differences within a democratic polity, which are arguably among the most pressing problems of contemporary political theory.
In recent years the focus of the debate about nationalism has shifted towards issues in international justice, probably in response to changes on the international scene: bloody nationalist wars have become less conspicuous, whereas the issues of terrorism, “clash of civilizations” and hegemony in the international order have come to occupy public attention.
It is not just a choice of which concept is stronger, but a choice that would identify one's stand. Even with the definition of what a state is, there is a clash between sovereignity and international recognition. In which, these two thing are of different entities, different concepts and are of different approach. It is appropriate to say that coinciding both concepts are of important specially to us, college students, for these would be the concepts that would define our stand in the future. As such, relevant national and international issues are of conflict and of what measures can these issues be resolved? All would matter on the inclination of one's idealism, would it be nationalism or move forward to internationalism?
Public opinion is a vital part of a society. Public opinion as a concept gained credence with the rise of 'public' in the eighteenth century. The English term ‘public opinion’ dates back to the eighteenth century and has derived from the French ‘l’opinion publique’, which was first used in 1588 by Montaigne. This concept came about through the process of urbanization and other political and social forces. For the first time, it became important what people thought, as forms of political contention changed.
The rapid spread of research about public opinion measurement around the world is a reflection of the number of uses to which it can be put. Governments and international organization have increasingly found surveys to be useful tools for guiding their public, analysing information and serves as a guide for their propaganda programs and is usually helpful in the formulation of other kinds of policies. The US Department of Agriculture was one of the first government agencies to sponsor systematic and large scale surveys. It was followed by many other federal bodies, including the US information agency which has conducted opinion research in all parts of the world.
Public opinion can be influenced by public relations and the political media. Additionally, mass media utilizes a wide variety of advertising techniques to get their message out and change the minds of people. A continuously used technique is propaganda.
Here in the Philippines, survey bureaus such as the SWS(Social Weather Station) serve as a institution that focuses on scientific social surveys for the sake of research and education. These survey bureaus serve as a reflection of what the people's opinion are and of great significance for it tends to stipulate and infer national and international policies.
Now, this paper seeks to discover where college students in Cebu City are at nowadays. Are they inclined more to nationalism or internationalism? Put it into a more complex way, are they confused or just stand there depending on issues? Their inclination reflects the yardstick on where this country might be going with the current breed of intellectuals it is trying to mold. The institutional aspects of the intellect determines the direction of the country currently sinking from the hustles and bustles of economic and political turmoil.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
The largest political actor numerically is the people, the vast majority of citizens in any country who do not have a direct say in policy making. The role of public opinion in domestic and foreign policies is complex, sometimes contradictory, and difficult to measure. It is obviously more important in democratic systems than in authoritarian systems, but there is not system in which public opinion is at the extremes of either consistently controlling policy or being totally ignored by leaders. Furthermore, there are variations within types of systems. One study of public opinion in four democracies found that it had the greatest impact of policy in the United States, with progressively declining influence in (then) West Germany, Japan, then France (Risse-Kappen, 2001). To discuss the people’s, much more the students’ level of public opinion towards domestic and foreign policy, the researchers will look at the variations in opinion interest and opinion, the quality of public opinion.
Adam Smith, one of the earliest classical economists, refers to public opinion in his Theory of Moral Sentiments, but it was Jeremy Bentham, the famous utilitarian Philosopher, who fully developed theories of public opinion. He opined that public opinion had the power to ensure that rulers would rule for the greatest happiness of the greater number. He brought in Utilitarian philosophy in order to define theories of public opinion.
The German sociologist Ferdinand Tönnies, by using the conceptional tools of his theory of Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft, argued (1922, "Kritik der öffentlichen Meinung"), that 'public opinion' has the equivalent social functions in societies (Gesellschaften) which religion has in communities (Gemeinschaften).
Public opinion is the aggregate of individual attitudes or beliefs held by the adult population. The principle approaches to the study of public opinion may be divided into 4 categories:
a) quantitative measurement of opinion distributions;
b) investigation of the internal relationships among the individual opinions that make up public opinion on an issue;
c) description or analysis of the public role of public opinion;
d) study both of the communication media that disseminate the ideas on which opinions are based and of the uses that propagandists and other manipulators make of these media.
Polls in many countries that ask respondents to identify the most important problem facing their country usually find that only a small percentage name some foreign policy issue.
The reality that most people are not greatly concerned with foreign policy most of the time does not mean that there is an absence of concern. Sometimes there is broad public focus on foreign policy. There is also a segment of the public, the “attentive public,” that does regularly pay attention to world events. It is accurate to say, then, that public opinion runs the gamut from being interested in to being oblivious to foreign policy depending on the situation and the issues. Crises will engage a significant segment of the population’s attention. So will international and domestic or intermestic policies. Pure foreign policy issues that are not crises will engender much less attention.
It is also important to note that the generic term public opinion disguises many variations in opinion. One variation has to do with attentiveness. There is a positive correlation between higher degrees of education, higher occupation status, and other socioeconomic characteristics and attentiveness. The upper reaches of society’s socioeconomic strata, its elites or “establishment,” pay much to foreign policy, have more information, and express their views to policy makers more than do those in the mass. This is particularly important because the policy views of elites and masses differ. The mass is more nationalist and protectionist. A survey of Americans that asked the “public” (mass) and “leaders” (elite) to rack the importance of various possible foreign policy goals found that the top foreign policy priority for the public was to “protect American jobs.” Sixty-five percent of the public indicated that as an important goal. That goal do not make the top five priorities of the leaders, with only 39 percent identifying it as an important goal (Rielly, 2001). The mass also is usually less internationalist than that elite. The same survey asked if US troops should be sent to aid Israel if it were invaded by Arab forces and found that only 27 percent of the public, compared to 70 percent of the leaders, favored intervention.
There are other lines of division within public opinion base on demographic characteristics. Gender is just one line of demographic division. The gender gap is evident on war-peace issues and others. One study concluded, for example, that women are more averse to supporting military action because “in international conflict situations, females may tend to perceive more negative risk, more potential harm, and they also may view such losses as more certain than do males” (Brandes, 2003:5). Among Danes, opinion on whether they in 1992 should ratify the Maastricht Treaty expanding European integration found a majority (54 percent) of women in favor compared to a minority (47 percent) of men (Bille, 2003).
Public opinion is also divided according to ideology and basic values. Scholars have analyzed public opinion according to ideology or values scales. Theses include, among others, isolationism-internationalism, militancy-cooperativeness, and multilateralism-unilateralism (McIntosh, 2004; Wittkopf, 2000). What these studies show is that the specific opinions and other basic values.
Another important aspect of public opinion to consider is its quality. There are some analysts, as noted earlier, who dismiss the public as uninterested in and ignorant about foreign policy and who contend that, if too closely heeded by policy makers, the uninformed whims of public opinion create dangerous instability in foreign policy. Others disagree and hold that public opinion is both reasonable and stable.
Studies that take a somewhat broader perspective are considerably more charitable about the quality of public opinion. Such research looks at long-term trends in public opinion and also tries to equate shifts in opinion about events to see if opinion moves in a reasonable way (Peffley and Hurwitz, 2002; Page and Shapiro, 2002).
Whatever the divisions or quality of public opinion may be, the key matter it its impact on domestic and foreign policy. To a degree, the impact of opinion relates to the situation and the policy issue. During a crisis, the public is interested, but it is apt, at least in the short run, to rally behind whatever policy the political leaders announce. On intermestic issues, the public is also prone to be aware, but it is much more likely to oppose the preferences of political leaders. On pure, noncrisis foreign policy issues, the general public is not likely to be interested, and the policy-making field is left to political leaders and a narrower range of interest groups and other affected subnational actors.
When evaluating the role of public opinion, it is important to remember that most foreign policy makers are essentially politicians. They are not slaves to public opinion, but they keep a weather eye on it. Therefore opinion polls increase the public’s impact on decision making. The discussion about how public opinion influences policy is complex, but there are several impacts that the researchers can not briefly. The first is that foreign policy helps determine who gets elected to the political leadership in democracies. Moreover, who is in office affects some policies. Second, whatever the exact level of public interest may be, politicians are prone to believing that the public is watching and that if they ignore it, they will suffer during the next election. Presidents and other political leaders watch polls very carefully. Third, policy makers believe that the chances of foreign policy success overseas are enhanced by public opinion support at home. Fourth, in democracies, most policy makers believe that public opinion is a legitimate factor that should be considered when determining which policy is to be adopted (Rourke, Carter, and Boyer, 2004: 370-384).
Thus, when public opinion is intense and a significant majority favors one policy or another, if can have a profound impact on what occurs. Protest marchers and other forms of direct action further enhance the image of the public in the minds of decision makers. Studies show that the constant barrage of public protest over the war was a factor in ending the US intervention in Vietnam (Small, 1988). Even in less turbulent times, however, strong opinion often carries the day because, as one scholar put it, “policymakers in liberal democracies do not decide against an overwhelming public consensus: (Risse-Kappen, 2001: 510).
A last thought on the role of the public in making foreign policy is that it is also possible to translate public opinion directly into foreign policy choices. In some countries, policy can sometimes be decided by referendum: a direct public vote on a specific policy question. Use of direct democracy is still limited, but it is growing. Switzerland, which exudes stability, is the leader in direct democracy.
The public, much more the intellectual sector-the students, is only one of the many subnational actors that have a say and have an influence on policy-making. This internal factor-the subnational actors-includes political leaders, bureaucratic organizations, legislatures, political parties and opposition, interest groups, and the public, of course. Each of these influences domestic and foreign policies, but the political leaders and bureaucratic organizations are consistently (though not always) the strongest factors.
Nationalism, to a far extent, can eat away and setback mankind, like a disease. When asked should either nationalism or internationalism be promoted in society, the following questions must be answered: How does a nation handle conflict? Are peoples subjugated? What are the consequences of nations being overly dependant on others? The answers to these questions are the driving force behind the ideologies of Internationalism and Nationalism. Internationalism is a focus on betterment of oneself while benefiting the world, and stresses cooperation and teamwork. Positives of internationalism include improved aid and development throughout the world, increased cooperation though collective security as well as increased growth through economic alliances.
Nationalism is sometimes an extremely assertive ideology, making far-reaching, if sometimes justified, demands, including the disappearance of entire states. It has attracted vehement opposition. That has developed into several forms of anti-nationalism in the western world. The Islamic revival of the 20th century also produced an Islamic critique of the nation-state. (Filipino Natioanalism, Wikipedia)
While internationalism in the cosmopolitanist context by definition implies cooperation among nations and states, and therefore the existence of nations, proletarian internationalism is different, in that it calls for the international working class to follow its brethren in other countries irrespective of the activities or pressures of the national government of a particular sector of that class. Meanwhile, most (but not all) anarchists reject nation-states on the basis of self-determination of the majority social class, and thus reject nationalism. Instead of nations, anarchists usually advocate the creation of cooperative societies based on free association and mutual aid without regard to ethnicity or race.
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
The study aims to identify the inclination of college students’ public opinion in the aspect of national and international cum domestic and foreign policies.
Specifically, the study sought to answer the following questions:
1. What is the profile of the students, in terms of:
1.1 age;
1.2 gender;
1.3 school;
1.3 educational attainment; and
1.4 ideology?
2. What is the opinion interest of college students when it comes to national or/and international issues and policies?
3. What is the quality of public opinion of college students when it comes to national or international issues and policies?
4. What is the perception of college students in terms of the influence of public opinion on national or international issues and policies?
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
This study is significant to the following sectors:
Students. Considering the current quality of instruction and education, this opens their eyes on the level of public opinion they have gained towards national and international issues and policies.
Teachers. The students’ level of public opinion as well as their apparent preference reflect the quality of instruction, whether it is bias to nationalism or internationalism.
School Academic Heads. The level and preference of public opinion evaluate not only the quality, but the scope of education they have integrated in their academic curricula.
Academic Institutions. This assesses the overall level and political inclination of the institution towards national and international issues and policies. This also gives a view on the quality of the political inclination of the institution.
Commission on Higher Education. This gives the commission a benchmark on the political inclination of the institutions under their supervision. This also assesses the quality and scope of the current curricula.
Future Researchers. This gives them a point of reference in analyzing the political inclination of the college students in Cebu City towards national and international issues and policies. This offers a comparative study on the level of public opinion of concerned sectors towards the case.
SCOPE AND DELIMITATION
The researchers will focus on the opinion interest, quality of public opinion, and public perception. The respondents come from the Cebu City colleges and universities offering Political Science degree. These respondents are from University of Cebu (UC), University of San Carlos (USC), University of the Philippines (UP), Cebu Normal University (CNU), Southwestern University (SWU), University of Southern Philippines Foundation (USPF), University of the Visayas (UV) and University of San Jose Recoletos (USJR).
The issues that concern the researchers are limited within the year 2008.
RESEARCH METHOD
The descriptive method of research was used in this study. Descriptive method of research is a fact-finding study with adequate and accurate interpretation of the findings. It describes what actually exist such as current conditions, practices, situations, or any phenomena (Calderon and Gonzales, 1993:193)
Since the study is concerned with the present status of public opinion of college students towards national and international policies and issues, the descriptive method of research is the most appropriate method to use. This study describes the college students’ variations in opinion interest and opinion, the quality of public opinion, and the perception towards public opinion as an influential factor to policy-making.
RESEARCH RESPONDENTS
The study involves the intellectual sector of the society. The specific target respondents are students enrolled in the Political Science degree from various colleges and universities of Cebu City; namely, Cebu Normal University, Southwestern University, University of Cebu, University of the Philippines, University of San Carlos, University of San Jose-Recoletos, University of Southern Philippines Foundation, and University of the Visayas.
RESEARCH ENVIRONMENT
The mentioned colleges and universities of Cebu City are the target research environments.
DATA COLLECTION TECHNIQUE
The method of collecting data used is the normative survey. This is concerned with looking into the commonality of some elements. Since this research is a status study, the normative survey is the most appropriate method to use in gathering data.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE
The researchers used the convenience sampling. Convenience sampling is the process of picking out people in the most convenient and fastest way to immediately get their reactions to a certain issue. The most convenient way of gathering the necessary data is by personally surveying and interviewing people. Given the geographical constraints of the research, the researchers see this type of sampling as the most convenient and fastest way to gather data.
INSTRUMENT USED
In this study, the instrument used to collect data is the survey questionnaire. This is used because it gathers data faster than any other method.
STATISTICAL TREATMENT OF DATA
The researcher used simple average and percentage statistical treatment in the presentation, analysis, and interpretation of gathered data made from the questionnaires. To wit;
% = F / N x 100
Where: %-Percentage
N-Total Number of Respondents
F-Frequency
100-Constant Value
This research makes use of the following terms:
Academic Gap. The difference between the higher educational institutions’ academic treatment and bearing of their clienteles, the students.
Age Gap. The difference between various age brackets in terms of the level of maturity and knowledge of individuals or groups.
Domestic Policy. The sum of a country’s goals and actions on the local political arena. The study of domestic policy is synonymous with individual-level analysis and examines how individuals and institutions define their interests, establish goals, decide on specific policies, and attempt to implement those policies.
Elites. Those individuals in a political system who exercise disproportionate control of policy either by occupying policy-making positions or by having direct access to and influence over those who do.
Foreign Policy. The sum of a country’s goals and actions on the world stage. The study of foreign policy is synonymous with state-level analysis and examines how countries define their interests, establish goals, decide on specific policies, and attempt to implement those policies.
Gender Gap. The difference between males and females along any one of a number of dimensions, including foreign policy preferences.
Ideology Gap. The difference between sets of related ideas, usually founded on identifiable thinkers and their works, that offers more or less comprehensive pictures of reality.
Internationalism. It is a political movement that advocates a greater economic and political cooperation among nations for the theoretical benefit of all.
Mass. The non-elite element of a political society. The majority of people who do not occupy policy-making positions and who do not have direct access to those who do.
Nationalism. The belief that the nation is the ultimate basis of political loyalty and that nations should have self-governing states.
Public Opinion. The political pulse and preference of the informed public towards the events, issues, and policies that surround them.
CHAPTER 2
FINDINGS
This chapter contains the findings based from the gathered data from the questionnaires and the documentary made by the researchers.
1.) The respondents are political science students from the Universities in Metropolitan Cebu, name: University of Cebu (UC), university of San Carlos (USC), Cebu Normal University (CNU), University of the Philippines (UP), University of the Visayas (UV), University of San Jose-Recoletos (USJ-R) and University of Southern Philippines-Foundation (USP-F).
2.) Data from both the results of the questionnaires distributed and the documentary show that most of the students and other personalities in Metropolitan Cebu are inclined to national issues.
3.) Given that they are more inclined to national issues, the quality of public opinion of the college students limits on the local level and the impact therefore is there is less socialization on international issues and policies most especially on globalization and other matters.
4.) Public opinion, especially the opinion of the intellectual sector, the students in particular, has much significance not only among individual lives but also to the rest of the societies and the world in general.
Based on the findings of the study, the researchers come up with the following conclusions: one, most of the students and other personalities in Metropolitan Cebu are inclined to national issues, which means that the youth is more concerned on issues in the national level and give less importance to a larger scope in the international level; two, given that they are more inclined to national issues, the quality of public opinion of the college students limits on the local level and the impact therefore is there is less socialization on international issues and policies most especially on globalization and other matters; and three, public opinion, especially the opinion of the intellectual sector, the students in particular, has much significance not only among individual lives but also to the rest of the societies and the world in general, which enlightens us to become more active and dynamic individuals in a world of politics.
UNPUBLISHED MATERIALS
Balabanis, G., Diamantopoulos, A., Mueller, R.D., and Melewar, T.C. (2001). The Impact of Nationalism, Patriotism and Internationalism on Consumer Ethnocentric Tendencies. Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 32, 2001. Retrieved December 2008 from Questia database.
Bille, Lars. 2003. “Denmark.” European Journal of Political Research 24:411-18.
Brandes, Lisa. 2003. “Who Cares? Interest, Concern, and Gender in International Security Policy.” Presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Acapulco, Mexico.
de Dios, Emmanuel. 1998. Between Nationalism and Globalization. The State and the Market: Essays on a Socially Oriented Philippine Economy
Gonzales, E. 1998. “Is Globalization a Threat to the Nationalist Imagination of the Philippines?” Institute for Popular Democracy.
Holm, Hans-Henrik. 1989. “A Democratic Revolt? Stability and Change in Danish Security Policy, 1979-1989.” Cooperation and Conflict 24:179-97.
Holsti, Ole. 2002. “Public Opinion and Foreign Policy: Challenges to the Almond-Lippmann Consensus.” International Studies Quarterly 36:439-66.
McIntosh, Mary and Martha Abele Mac Iver. 2004. “The Structure of Foreign Policy Attitudes in East and West Europe: Does the American Model Apply?” Presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association Convention, Washington, DC.
Parry, Geraint. 2003. “The Interweaving of Foreign and Domestic Policy-Making.” Government and Opposition 28:143-51.
Peffeley, Mark and Jon Hurwitz. 2002. “International Events and Foreign Policy Beliefs: Public Response to Changing Soviet-US Relations.” American Journal of Political Science 36:421-61.
Rielly, John. 2001. “Public Opinion: The Pulse of the ’90s.” Foreign Policy 82:79-96.
Risse-Kappen, Thomas. 2001. “Public Opinion, Domestic Structure, and Foreign Policy in Liberal Democracies.” World Politics 43:479-512.
Shamir, Michal and Asher Arian. 2004. “Competiting Values and Policy Choices: Israel Public Opinion on Foreign and Security Affairs,” British Journal of Political Science 24:249-71.
Sicat, G. 2002. Philippine Economic Nationalism. Retrieved from the University of the Philippines School of Economics database with Discussion Paper No. 0201.
Wilcox, Claude and Dee Allsop. 2001. “Economics and Foreign Policy as Sources of Reagan Support.” Western Political Quarterly 44:941-58.
PUBLISHED MATERIALS
Calderon, Joe and Expectacion Gonzales. 1993. Methods of Research and Thesis Writing. Manila: 24K Printing Co., Inc.
Page, Benjamin and Robert Shapiro. 2002. The Rational Public: Fifty Years of Trends in America’s Foreign Policy Preferences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Rourke, John, Ralph Carter, and Mark Boyer. 2004. Making American Foreign Policy. Guilford, CT: The Dushkin Publishing Group.
Rourke, John. 1995. International Politics in the World Stage 5th Edition. Guilford, CT: The Dushkin Publishing Group.
Rourke, John. 1996. International Politics in the World Stage 6th Edition. Guilford, CT: The Dushkin Publishing Group.
Small, Melvin. 1988. Johnson, Nixon, and the Doves. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Wittkopf, Eugene. 2000. Faces of Internationalism: Public Opinion and American Foreign Policy. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
INTERNET
Filipino Nationalism. December 2008. Retrieved from Wikipedia Website: http://en. wikipilipinas.org/index.php?title=Filipino_nationalism
Internationalism vs Nationalism: Case Studies. Retrieved March 01, 2004, from CheatHouse Website: http://www.cheathouse.com/essay/essay_view. php? p_ essay_id=3171
CHAPTER 1
THE PROBLEM AND ITS SCOPE
INTRODUCTION
THE PROBLEM AND ITS SCOPE
INTRODUCTION
RATIONALE
At the dawn of the twenty-first century, the world is experiencing a concurrent rise in two major forces: nationalism and globalization (The Economist, 1999). While it may seem odd to speak about nationalism in an era of intensified global consciousness, nationalism is on the rise in various countries and has emerged as one of the main issues facing the world. In trying to reconcile the paradox of nationalistic resurgence at a time of global economic and technological interdependence, nation-states remain the primary object of loyalty in the modern world because a nation's "memory is central to identity." Indeed, the quest for a sovereign identity is driving much of the nationalistic sentiments today: as insecurities about globalization grow, loyalty to the nation-state increases. This helps explain why, at an economic level, the upsurge of globalization has failed to weaken economic nationalism.
Nationalism is a concept that has been linked to both collective behaviors and governmental policies (e.g., economic protectionism and cultural isolationism) and to individual behaviors (voting behaviors, inter-racial relations, stereotyping, etc). Although both levels of nationalism have implications for international marketing, the present focus is on individual-level nationalism. In this context, the dismantling of trade barriers, deregulation of delivery services, technological advances in telecommunications and improved payment systems boost cross-border consumer purchases by reducing the problems of physical access to markets (Baker, 1995). What remain to be seen are the socio-psychological barriers that might constrain consumers around the world from purchasing the now more easily available foreign products.
The surge of nationalism usually presents a morally ambivalent and for this reason often fascinating picture. “National awakenings” and struggles for political independence are often both heroic and inhumanly cruel; the formation of a recognizably national state often responds to deep popular sentiment, but can and does sometimes bring in its wake inhuman consequences, including violent expulsion and “cleansing” of non-nationals, all the way to organized mass murder. The moral debate on nationalism reflects a deep moral tension between solidarity with oppressed national groups on the one hand and repulsion in the face of crimes perpetrated in the name of nationalism on the other. Moreover, the issue of nationalism points to a wider domain of problems having to do with the treatment of ethnic and cultural differences within a democratic polity, which are arguably among the most pressing problems of contemporary political theory.
In recent years the focus of the debate about nationalism has shifted towards issues in international justice, probably in response to changes on the international scene: bloody nationalist wars have become less conspicuous, whereas the issues of terrorism, “clash of civilizations” and hegemony in the international order have come to occupy public attention.
It is not just a choice of which concept is stronger, but a choice that would identify one's stand. Even with the definition of what a state is, there is a clash between sovereignity and international recognition. In which, these two thing are of different entities, different concepts and are of different approach. It is appropriate to say that coinciding both concepts are of important specially to us, college students, for these would be the concepts that would define our stand in the future. As such, relevant national and international issues are of conflict and of what measures can these issues be resolved? All would matter on the inclination of one's idealism, would it be nationalism or move forward to internationalism?
Public opinion is a vital part of a society. Public opinion as a concept gained credence with the rise of 'public' in the eighteenth century. The English term ‘public opinion’ dates back to the eighteenth century and has derived from the French ‘l’opinion publique’, which was first used in 1588 by Montaigne. This concept came about through the process of urbanization and other political and social forces. For the first time, it became important what people thought, as forms of political contention changed.
The rapid spread of research about public opinion measurement around the world is a reflection of the number of uses to which it can be put. Governments and international organization have increasingly found surveys to be useful tools for guiding their public, analysing information and serves as a guide for their propaganda programs and is usually helpful in the formulation of other kinds of policies. The US Department of Agriculture was one of the first government agencies to sponsor systematic and large scale surveys. It was followed by many other federal bodies, including the US information agency which has conducted opinion research in all parts of the world.
Public opinion can be influenced by public relations and the political media. Additionally, mass media utilizes a wide variety of advertising techniques to get their message out and change the minds of people. A continuously used technique is propaganda.
Here in the Philippines, survey bureaus such as the SWS(Social Weather Station) serve as a institution that focuses on scientific social surveys for the sake of research and education. These survey bureaus serve as a reflection of what the people's opinion are and of great significance for it tends to stipulate and infer national and international policies.
Now, this paper seeks to discover where college students in Cebu City are at nowadays. Are they inclined more to nationalism or internationalism? Put it into a more complex way, are they confused or just stand there depending on issues? Their inclination reflects the yardstick on where this country might be going with the current breed of intellectuals it is trying to mold. The institutional aspects of the intellect determines the direction of the country currently sinking from the hustles and bustles of economic and political turmoil.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
An old man, broken with the storms of state,
Is come to lay his weary bones among ye;
Give him a little earth for charity.
Is come to lay his weary bones among ye;
Give him a little earth for charity.
-Shakespeare, Henry VIII
The largest political actor numerically is the people, the vast majority of citizens in any country who do not have a direct say in policy making. The role of public opinion in domestic and foreign policies is complex, sometimes contradictory, and difficult to measure. It is obviously more important in democratic systems than in authoritarian systems, but there is not system in which public opinion is at the extremes of either consistently controlling policy or being totally ignored by leaders. Furthermore, there are variations within types of systems. One study of public opinion in four democracies found that it had the greatest impact of policy in the United States, with progressively declining influence in (then) West Germany, Japan, then France (Risse-Kappen, 2001). To discuss the people’s, much more the students’ level of public opinion towards domestic and foreign policy, the researchers will look at the variations in opinion interest and opinion, the quality of public opinion.
Adam Smith, one of the earliest classical economists, refers to public opinion in his Theory of Moral Sentiments, but it was Jeremy Bentham, the famous utilitarian Philosopher, who fully developed theories of public opinion. He opined that public opinion had the power to ensure that rulers would rule for the greatest happiness of the greater number. He brought in Utilitarian philosophy in order to define theories of public opinion.
The German sociologist Ferdinand Tönnies, by using the conceptional tools of his theory of Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft, argued (1922, "Kritik der öffentlichen Meinung"), that 'public opinion' has the equivalent social functions in societies (Gesellschaften) which religion has in communities (Gemeinschaften).
Public opinion is the aggregate of individual attitudes or beliefs held by the adult population. The principle approaches to the study of public opinion may be divided into 4 categories:
a) quantitative measurement of opinion distributions;
b) investigation of the internal relationships among the individual opinions that make up public opinion on an issue;
c) description or analysis of the public role of public opinion;
d) study both of the communication media that disseminate the ideas on which opinions are based and of the uses that propagandists and other manipulators make of these media.
Polls in many countries that ask respondents to identify the most important problem facing their country usually find that only a small percentage name some foreign policy issue.
The reality that most people are not greatly concerned with foreign policy most of the time does not mean that there is an absence of concern. Sometimes there is broad public focus on foreign policy. There is also a segment of the public, the “attentive public,” that does regularly pay attention to world events. It is accurate to say, then, that public opinion runs the gamut from being interested in to being oblivious to foreign policy depending on the situation and the issues. Crises will engage a significant segment of the population’s attention. So will international and domestic or intermestic policies. Pure foreign policy issues that are not crises will engender much less attention.
It is also important to note that the generic term public opinion disguises many variations in opinion. One variation has to do with attentiveness. There is a positive correlation between higher degrees of education, higher occupation status, and other socioeconomic characteristics and attentiveness. The upper reaches of society’s socioeconomic strata, its elites or “establishment,” pay much to foreign policy, have more information, and express their views to policy makers more than do those in the mass. This is particularly important because the policy views of elites and masses differ. The mass is more nationalist and protectionist. A survey of Americans that asked the “public” (mass) and “leaders” (elite) to rack the importance of various possible foreign policy goals found that the top foreign policy priority for the public was to “protect American jobs.” Sixty-five percent of the public indicated that as an important goal. That goal do not make the top five priorities of the leaders, with only 39 percent identifying it as an important goal (Rielly, 2001). The mass also is usually less internationalist than that elite. The same survey asked if US troops should be sent to aid Israel if it were invaded by Arab forces and found that only 27 percent of the public, compared to 70 percent of the leaders, favored intervention.
There are other lines of division within public opinion base on demographic characteristics. Gender is just one line of demographic division. The gender gap is evident on war-peace issues and others. One study concluded, for example, that women are more averse to supporting military action because “in international conflict situations, females may tend to perceive more negative risk, more potential harm, and they also may view such losses as more certain than do males” (Brandes, 2003:5). Among Danes, opinion on whether they in 1992 should ratify the Maastricht Treaty expanding European integration found a majority (54 percent) of women in favor compared to a minority (47 percent) of men (Bille, 2003).
Public opinion is also divided according to ideology and basic values. Scholars have analyzed public opinion according to ideology or values scales. Theses include, among others, isolationism-internationalism, militancy-cooperativeness, and multilateralism-unilateralism (McIntosh, 2004; Wittkopf, 2000). What these studies show is that the specific opinions and other basic values.
Another important aspect of public opinion to consider is its quality. There are some analysts, as noted earlier, who dismiss the public as uninterested in and ignorant about foreign policy and who contend that, if too closely heeded by policy makers, the uninformed whims of public opinion create dangerous instability in foreign policy. Others disagree and hold that public opinion is both reasonable and stable.
Studies that take a somewhat broader perspective are considerably more charitable about the quality of public opinion. Such research looks at long-term trends in public opinion and also tries to equate shifts in opinion about events to see if opinion moves in a reasonable way (Peffley and Hurwitz, 2002; Page and Shapiro, 2002).
Whatever the divisions or quality of public opinion may be, the key matter it its impact on domestic and foreign policy. To a degree, the impact of opinion relates to the situation and the policy issue. During a crisis, the public is interested, but it is apt, at least in the short run, to rally behind whatever policy the political leaders announce. On intermestic issues, the public is also prone to be aware, but it is much more likely to oppose the preferences of political leaders. On pure, noncrisis foreign policy issues, the general public is not likely to be interested, and the policy-making field is left to political leaders and a narrower range of interest groups and other affected subnational actors.
When evaluating the role of public opinion, it is important to remember that most foreign policy makers are essentially politicians. They are not slaves to public opinion, but they keep a weather eye on it. Therefore opinion polls increase the public’s impact on decision making. The discussion about how public opinion influences policy is complex, but there are several impacts that the researchers can not briefly. The first is that foreign policy helps determine who gets elected to the political leadership in democracies. Moreover, who is in office affects some policies. Second, whatever the exact level of public interest may be, politicians are prone to believing that the public is watching and that if they ignore it, they will suffer during the next election. Presidents and other political leaders watch polls very carefully. Third, policy makers believe that the chances of foreign policy success overseas are enhanced by public opinion support at home. Fourth, in democracies, most policy makers believe that public opinion is a legitimate factor that should be considered when determining which policy is to be adopted (Rourke, Carter, and Boyer, 2004: 370-384).
Thus, when public opinion is intense and a significant majority favors one policy or another, if can have a profound impact on what occurs. Protest marchers and other forms of direct action further enhance the image of the public in the minds of decision makers. Studies show that the constant barrage of public protest over the war was a factor in ending the US intervention in Vietnam (Small, 1988). Even in less turbulent times, however, strong opinion often carries the day because, as one scholar put it, “policymakers in liberal democracies do not decide against an overwhelming public consensus: (Risse-Kappen, 2001: 510).
A last thought on the role of the public in making foreign policy is that it is also possible to translate public opinion directly into foreign policy choices. In some countries, policy can sometimes be decided by referendum: a direct public vote on a specific policy question. Use of direct democracy is still limited, but it is growing. Switzerland, which exudes stability, is the leader in direct democracy.
The public, much more the intellectual sector-the students, is only one of the many subnational actors that have a say and have an influence on policy-making. This internal factor-the subnational actors-includes political leaders, bureaucratic organizations, legislatures, political parties and opposition, interest groups, and the public, of course. Each of these influences domestic and foreign policies, but the political leaders and bureaucratic organizations are consistently (though not always) the strongest factors.
Nationalism is an infantile disease, the measles of mankind.
-Albert Einstein
Nationalism, to a far extent, can eat away and setback mankind, like a disease. When asked should either nationalism or internationalism be promoted in society, the following questions must be answered: How does a nation handle conflict? Are peoples subjugated? What are the consequences of nations being overly dependant on others? The answers to these questions are the driving force behind the ideologies of Internationalism and Nationalism. Internationalism is a focus on betterment of oneself while benefiting the world, and stresses cooperation and teamwork. Positives of internationalism include improved aid and development throughout the world, increased cooperation though collective security as well as increased growth through economic alliances.
Nationalism is sometimes an extremely assertive ideology, making far-reaching, if sometimes justified, demands, including the disappearance of entire states. It has attracted vehement opposition. That has developed into several forms of anti-nationalism in the western world. The Islamic revival of the 20th century also produced an Islamic critique of the nation-state. (Filipino Natioanalism, Wikipedia)
While internationalism in the cosmopolitanist context by definition implies cooperation among nations and states, and therefore the existence of nations, proletarian internationalism is different, in that it calls for the international working class to follow its brethren in other countries irrespective of the activities or pressures of the national government of a particular sector of that class. Meanwhile, most (but not all) anarchists reject nation-states on the basis of self-determination of the majority social class, and thus reject nationalism. Instead of nations, anarchists usually advocate the creation of cooperative societies based on free association and mutual aid without regard to ethnicity or race.
THE PROBLEM
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
The study aims to identify the inclination of college students’ public opinion in the aspect of national and international cum domestic and foreign policies.
Specifically, the study sought to answer the following questions:
1. What is the profile of the students, in terms of:
1.1 age;
1.2 gender;
1.3 school;
1.3 educational attainment; and
1.4 ideology?
2. What is the opinion interest of college students when it comes to national or/and international issues and policies?
3. What is the quality of public opinion of college students when it comes to national or international issues and policies?
4. What is the perception of college students in terms of the influence of public opinion on national or international issues and policies?
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
This study is significant to the following sectors:
Students. Considering the current quality of instruction and education, this opens their eyes on the level of public opinion they have gained towards national and international issues and policies.
Teachers. The students’ level of public opinion as well as their apparent preference reflect the quality of instruction, whether it is bias to nationalism or internationalism.
School Academic Heads. The level and preference of public opinion evaluate not only the quality, but the scope of education they have integrated in their academic curricula.
Academic Institutions. This assesses the overall level and political inclination of the institution towards national and international issues and policies. This also gives a view on the quality of the political inclination of the institution.
Commission on Higher Education. This gives the commission a benchmark on the political inclination of the institutions under their supervision. This also assesses the quality and scope of the current curricula.
Future Researchers. This gives them a point of reference in analyzing the political inclination of the college students in Cebu City towards national and international issues and policies. This offers a comparative study on the level of public opinion of concerned sectors towards the case.
SCOPE AND DELIMITATION
The researchers will focus on the opinion interest, quality of public opinion, and public perception. The respondents come from the Cebu City colleges and universities offering Political Science degree. These respondents are from University of Cebu (UC), University of San Carlos (USC), University of the Philippines (UP), Cebu Normal University (CNU), Southwestern University (SWU), University of Southern Philippines Foundation (USPF), University of the Visayas (UV) and University of San Jose Recoletos (USJR).
The issues that concern the researchers are limited within the year 2008.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
RESEARCH METHOD
The descriptive method of research was used in this study. Descriptive method of research is a fact-finding study with adequate and accurate interpretation of the findings. It describes what actually exist such as current conditions, practices, situations, or any phenomena (Calderon and Gonzales, 1993:193)
Since the study is concerned with the present status of public opinion of college students towards national and international policies and issues, the descriptive method of research is the most appropriate method to use. This study describes the college students’ variations in opinion interest and opinion, the quality of public opinion, and the perception towards public opinion as an influential factor to policy-making.
RESEARCH RESPONDENTS
The study involves the intellectual sector of the society. The specific target respondents are students enrolled in the Political Science degree from various colleges and universities of Cebu City; namely, Cebu Normal University, Southwestern University, University of Cebu, University of the Philippines, University of San Carlos, University of San Jose-Recoletos, University of Southern Philippines Foundation, and University of the Visayas.
RESEARCH ENVIRONMENT
The mentioned colleges and universities of Cebu City are the target research environments.
DATA COLLECTION TECHNIQUE
The method of collecting data used is the normative survey. This is concerned with looking into the commonality of some elements. Since this research is a status study, the normative survey is the most appropriate method to use in gathering data.
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE
The researchers used the convenience sampling. Convenience sampling is the process of picking out people in the most convenient and fastest way to immediately get their reactions to a certain issue. The most convenient way of gathering the necessary data is by personally surveying and interviewing people. Given the geographical constraints of the research, the researchers see this type of sampling as the most convenient and fastest way to gather data.
INSTRUMENT USED
In this study, the instrument used to collect data is the survey questionnaire. This is used because it gathers data faster than any other method.
STATISTICAL TREATMENT OF DATA
The researcher used simple average and percentage statistical treatment in the presentation, analysis, and interpretation of gathered data made from the questionnaires. To wit;
% = F / N x 100
Where: %-Percentage
N-Total Number of Respondents
F-Frequency
100-Constant Value
DEFINITION OF TERMS
This research makes use of the following terms:
Academic Gap. The difference between the higher educational institutions’ academic treatment and bearing of their clienteles, the students.
Age Gap. The difference between various age brackets in terms of the level of maturity and knowledge of individuals or groups.
Domestic Policy. The sum of a country’s goals and actions on the local political arena. The study of domestic policy is synonymous with individual-level analysis and examines how individuals and institutions define their interests, establish goals, decide on specific policies, and attempt to implement those policies.
Elites. Those individuals in a political system who exercise disproportionate control of policy either by occupying policy-making positions or by having direct access to and influence over those who do.
Foreign Policy. The sum of a country’s goals and actions on the world stage. The study of foreign policy is synonymous with state-level analysis and examines how countries define their interests, establish goals, decide on specific policies, and attempt to implement those policies.
Gender Gap. The difference between males and females along any one of a number of dimensions, including foreign policy preferences.
Ideology Gap. The difference between sets of related ideas, usually founded on identifiable thinkers and their works, that offers more or less comprehensive pictures of reality.
Internationalism. It is a political movement that advocates a greater economic and political cooperation among nations for the theoretical benefit of all.
Mass. The non-elite element of a political society. The majority of people who do not occupy policy-making positions and who do not have direct access to those who do.
Nationalism. The belief that the nation is the ultimate basis of political loyalty and that nations should have self-governing states.
Public Opinion. The political pulse and preference of the informed public towards the events, issues, and policies that surround them.
CHAPTER 2
FINDINGS
This chapter contains the findings based from the gathered data from the questionnaires and the documentary made by the researchers.
1.) The respondents are political science students from the Universities in Metropolitan Cebu, name: University of Cebu (UC), university of San Carlos (USC), Cebu Normal University (CNU), University of the Philippines (UP), University of the Visayas (UV), University of San Jose-Recoletos (USJ-R) and University of Southern Philippines-Foundation (USP-F).
2.) Data from both the results of the questionnaires distributed and the documentary show that most of the students and other personalities in Metropolitan Cebu are inclined to national issues.
3.) Given that they are more inclined to national issues, the quality of public opinion of the college students limits on the local level and the impact therefore is there is less socialization on international issues and policies most especially on globalization and other matters.
4.) Public opinion, especially the opinion of the intellectual sector, the students in particular, has much significance not only among individual lives but also to the rest of the societies and the world in general.
CHAPTER 3
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the findings of the study, the researchers come up with the following conclusions: one, most of the students and other personalities in Metropolitan Cebu are inclined to national issues, which means that the youth is more concerned on issues in the national level and give less importance to a larger scope in the international level; two, given that they are more inclined to national issues, the quality of public opinion of the college students limits on the local level and the impact therefore is there is less socialization on international issues and policies most especially on globalization and other matters; and three, public opinion, especially the opinion of the intellectual sector, the students in particular, has much significance not only among individual lives but also to the rest of the societies and the world in general, which enlightens us to become more active and dynamic individuals in a world of politics.
REFERENCES
UNPUBLISHED MATERIALS
Balabanis, G., Diamantopoulos, A., Mueller, R.D., and Melewar, T.C. (2001). The Impact of Nationalism, Patriotism and Internationalism on Consumer Ethnocentric Tendencies. Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 32, 2001. Retrieved December 2008 from Questia database.
Bille, Lars. 2003. “Denmark.” European Journal of Political Research 24:411-18.
Brandes, Lisa. 2003. “Who Cares? Interest, Concern, and Gender in International Security Policy.” Presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Acapulco, Mexico.
de Dios, Emmanuel. 1998. Between Nationalism and Globalization. The State and the Market: Essays on a Socially Oriented Philippine Economy
Gonzales, E. 1998. “Is Globalization a Threat to the Nationalist Imagination of the Philippines?” Institute for Popular Democracy.
Holm, Hans-Henrik. 1989. “A Democratic Revolt? Stability and Change in Danish Security Policy, 1979-1989.” Cooperation and Conflict 24:179-97.
Holsti, Ole. 2002. “Public Opinion and Foreign Policy: Challenges to the Almond-Lippmann Consensus.” International Studies Quarterly 36:439-66.
McIntosh, Mary and Martha Abele Mac Iver. 2004. “The Structure of Foreign Policy Attitudes in East and West Europe: Does the American Model Apply?” Presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association Convention, Washington, DC.
Parry, Geraint. 2003. “The Interweaving of Foreign and Domestic Policy-Making.” Government and Opposition 28:143-51.
Peffeley, Mark and Jon Hurwitz. 2002. “International Events and Foreign Policy Beliefs: Public Response to Changing Soviet-US Relations.” American Journal of Political Science 36:421-61.
Rielly, John. 2001. “Public Opinion: The Pulse of the ’90s.” Foreign Policy 82:79-96.
Risse-Kappen, Thomas. 2001. “Public Opinion, Domestic Structure, and Foreign Policy in Liberal Democracies.” World Politics 43:479-512.
Shamir, Michal and Asher Arian. 2004. “Competiting Values and Policy Choices: Israel Public Opinion on Foreign and Security Affairs,” British Journal of Political Science 24:249-71.
Sicat, G. 2002. Philippine Economic Nationalism. Retrieved from the University of the Philippines School of Economics database with Discussion Paper No. 0201.
Wilcox, Claude and Dee Allsop. 2001. “Economics and Foreign Policy as Sources of Reagan Support.” Western Political Quarterly 44:941-58.
PUBLISHED MATERIALS
Calderon, Joe and Expectacion Gonzales. 1993. Methods of Research and Thesis Writing. Manila: 24K Printing Co., Inc.
Page, Benjamin and Robert Shapiro. 2002. The Rational Public: Fifty Years of Trends in America’s Foreign Policy Preferences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Rourke, John, Ralph Carter, and Mark Boyer. 2004. Making American Foreign Policy. Guilford, CT: The Dushkin Publishing Group.
Rourke, John. 1995. International Politics in the World Stage 5th Edition. Guilford, CT: The Dushkin Publishing Group.
Rourke, John. 1996. International Politics in the World Stage 6th Edition. Guilford, CT: The Dushkin Publishing Group.
Small, Melvin. 1988. Johnson, Nixon, and the Doves. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Wittkopf, Eugene. 2000. Faces of Internationalism: Public Opinion and American Foreign Policy. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
INTERNET
Filipino Nationalism. December 2008. Retrieved from Wikipedia Website: http://en. wikipilipinas.org/index.php?title=Filipino_nationalism
Internationalism vs Nationalism: Case Studies. Retrieved March 01, 2004, from CheatHouse Website: http://www.cheathouse.com/essay/essay_view. php? p_ essay_id=3171
Posts
