MARGINAL COMMENT
By HAROLD NICOLSON F all problems of human governance the most difficult, as the
most fundamental, is the proper relation between the government and the governed, between the informed and the uninformed. It is not sufficiently realised that this problem, within the last thirty '.'ears, has imposed itself in a new and highly complicated form. In the distant days of the Greek City States it was possible for all free citizens to gather together in the Assembly, to hear the "voice of a single herald," to listen to arguments, and to decide policy by direct and immediate voting ; and even then they had their Thersites and their Cleons anxious to confuse judgement and to arouse partisan emotions. But thereafter the body of the citizens became too numerous for any direct consultation and a system was devised whereby, in a democracy, the body of the citizens delegated their legislative powers to elected representatives. But since these representatives tended to belong to the governing, or more accurately the governmental, class, the fiction arose under which what was in fact an oligarchy was described as a democracy. The relations between the Government and the Legislature, even between the Cabinet of the day and the leaders of the Opposition, were so intimate and continuous that contact and comprehension could on the whole be easily maintained by the ordinary machine of Parliament. Within the last thirty years, however, two developments have occurred which tend to destroy the effectiveness of the oligarchic fiction and to restate the problem in its more primitive form. On the one hand the public, as they become better educated and more self-assured, tend to acquiesce less readily in the representative fiction and to demand some more direct relation between themselves and those who rule ; on the other hand, the astonishing development in the means of communication between the governing minority and the mass of the governed renders this "direct relation" technically far more feasible than ever before. The "voice of a single herald" can today reach two hundred million people in the same second.
The task of informing the public has thus become simultaneously both more necessary and less difficult ; and as a small symptom of this increasing necessity we have, since 1933, witnessed the gradual establishment within the body of our Governmental Departments of the Public Relations Officer and his staff. In reply to Sir E. Graham Little last week, Mr. Osbert Peake gave detailed information as to the numbers and cost of these innovations. The total number of Public Relations Officers now employed by Government Departments amounts to 1,187 at a cost to the taxpayer of an annual £572,151. It is interesting to observe that the number of publicity experts employed by the several Departments appears to be based upon their chance requirements rather than upon any ascertainable system. Thus whereas the War Office maintain 280 such officers and the Air Ministry 192, the Treasury possess only one and the Foreign Office only ten. The National Savings Committee, again—who indulge in enormous and well-planned advertising—appear only to have 81 Public Relations Officers, while the Ministry of Food, which one would suppose needed more extensive information services than any other Ministry, has only 56. Clearly there must exist some sensible explanation for these applrent anomalies ; but the curious discrepancies in the figures which Mr. Peake gave do at least suggest that nobody is very clear as yet about the definition to be given to this new function of Government or regarding the categories into which the several officers engaged under it should properly fall.
It is thus most opportune that P.E.P., in their broadsheet of February and, should have subjected the whole matter to a careful, and, as usual, well-balanced, analysis. They start from the assumption that in a modern democracy it is not sufficient that Governmental measures should be understood by an educated minority, and that it is essential to take advantage of such methods of com
, munication as the Press, the wireless and the film to instruct the ordinary citizen as to the nature, purpose and scope of national legislation or departmental enactments. Some form of Public Relations Office, or as they would prefer it to be called "Information Office," should therefore be maintained in every Ministry. The functions of such an office should be the presentation and release of departmental news, the explanation in simple language of the laws and orders promulgated, the provision of background information, the general instruction and even persuasion of the public and the interpretation of public opinion to the Deparunent itself. It is realised, moreover, that if each Government Department is to be served by its own organ of advertisement much overlapping and competition will result. It is therefore•suggested that there should be established, under a Minister, a Central Publicity Unit which should co-ordinate and regularise the activities of the separate departmental Information Officers. In theory, there is little which can be argued against such recommendations: in practice, however, certain criticisms suggest themselves, some of which have been dealt with in the P.E.P. broadsheet and some of which have not.
The most serious criticism is that this new function of Government might place in the hands of an unscrupulous executive a powerful instrument—irresponsible, monopolistic and independent—for directing public opinion in favour of their own policies or enactments. So long, however, as we possess an alert Parliament and a free and independent Press this menace does not appear to be overwhelming. More dangerous to my mind might be the tendency for such Information Officers to acquire within their Departments an influence greater than their responsibility would warrant. The ordinary civil servant is not by nature an active publicity agent ; the Information Officers would in many cases therefore be men who had previousexperience of advertising or the Press ; such men would not readily adapt themselves to the traditions and standards of the Civil Service ; and, since their relations with, and access to, their Minister would be distinct from those of the ordinary departmental officials, a dangerous tendency might arise for the Information Office to become a private bureau of the Minister owing allegiance to his own person rather than to the Department or Civil Service as a whole. Much friction and some confusion would thereby be caused. A third criticism is that any Information Officer charged with the task of " explaining " a given measure to the general public would be tempted to confuse explanation with persuasion and to present his case in a way which, while not departing from veracity, made the very most of all favourable facts. The public, in other words, would be given only one side of the case, and this is a danger inseparable from all functions of Information.
On the whole, however, I agree with P.E.P. that some such new function of Government is required, and that modern conditions, while imposing the necessity, also offer the opportunity. In any case, the functions of these official Information Bureaux should be confined to domestic, and should not extend to foreign, affairs. P.E.P. suggest in their broadsheet that had the Foreign Office during the last twenty-five years publicised the Russo-Polish problem, then public opinion would today be in a better position to understand the rights and wrongs of that unhappy controversy. Do they really believe this? Do they really believe that it would have been possible for a British Government Department to have issued its own " explanation " of so debatable a question without having enraged both Poles and Russians alike? And do they believe that the British public would have absorbed a Foreign Office " explanation " regarding the Polish, Sudeten, Macedonian or Silesian problems with more readiness than they read the balanced commentaries of Chatham House? On this point at least P.E.P. should think again.
Previous page
