Difference in public opinion and its impact
Difference in public opinion is a common phenomenon in any society where there is diversity since people have varying philosophies (Halstrøm 2017, p. 16). Personal belief and values inform the action of individuals in a community and their arguments. Politics influences the way people reason and also the view they take on public engagement on pertinent issues. In Australia for instance, there are people from different parts of the world and therefore possess diverse cultural values and beliefs, and this is crucial in determining the manner in which they reason regarding societal issues (Halstrøm 2017, p. 16). Based on this demographic dynamics in the country, there has been antagonizing campaigns about the need to celebrate the Australian Day on January 26 of every year. Such variations in opinions have resulted into the establishment of two rival groups in the nation one opposing the date and agitating for a new national holiday and the other standing by the Australian Day on January 26 (Sundt 2014, p. 2070).
Background of the two rival groups
Each side has their rhetoric for their position and works to convince citizens to support their course. However, the government at all levels of administration must tell the public the truth about this celebration and its rationale to the people of Australia. The two sides; ‘Change for our future’ campaigning against the Australian Day on January 26 and ‘Pride in Australia’ for the day have distributed leaflets to perceived supporters and are preparing to confront each other during a community meeting to address the issue. The following are the standardization of the content of the leaflet for each group that may be fundamental in bringing together the two rival parties and creates peace among them.
‘Change for our Future’
The group is frustrated by the fact that their opinions on the need to change the national day from January 26 have not been put into consideration by the government. Such feelings are very dangerous especially when they held by the minority group who feel inferior and therefore seek attention (Sundt 2014, p. 2070). Clear reason for their emotions does not inform the movement's actions and thus appealing to the masses by establishing fallacies based on false data to build their case (Pearson 2014, p. 689). The group seems to have no problem with the name of the holiday, but they differ with the reason behind the celebration since the date marked the day of inversion by foreigners (Britons) on their lands. From this claim, the movement is probably composed of natives who feel that they need to have control over their property (Fozdar 2015, p. 432). Most importantly the ‘Change for our Future’ will continue to use violence as a tool to present their case and seek recognition by the administration irrespective of whether they have facts to support their argument or not. They need a chance to pass their concerns officially to the government, and that is what must be granted for them to cease violence. Despite their rhetoric having no significant basis, they are entitled to an opinion which should be respected and can only be dissuaded by facts (Sundt 2014, p. 2070).
‘Pride in Australia’
The group is reacting to the actions of the other movement and feels that their right to celebrate is being interfered with (Halstrøm 2017, p. 16). The most important in their argument is that they are on the same side as the administration and therefore do not much effort to convince to stand. Considering that the country is culturally diversified, they feel that they need the Australian Day and are ready to defend it, by all means, possible and that is why they are also resorting to argumentum ad-populum, a fallacy that appeals to the public (Halstrøm 2017, p. 16). Although their argument may be based on factual data, their approach is unwarranted (Sundt 2014, p. 2070). ‘Pride in Australia’ is more concerned with continuity and therefore are rigid to change and are taking advantage that they are the majority rhetoric that politicians have used so far to rule masses. Significantly, their argument that the ‘Change for our Future’ has not given a proposal for an alternative date makes them more reasonable. The case suggests the team is willing to have a discussion and engage the rival group in an attempt to solve the ideological stalemate between them. The Councilor should, therefore, take this claim as the strong point for approaching this movement and convincing them to a peaceful engagement.
Analysis of the Strengths and Weaknesses of the Arguments of the Two Groups
Everyone is entitled to an opinion whether they are right or not and every argument makes sense depending on the premises used. Both ‘Change for our Future’ and ‘Pride in Australia’ have a point in their claims especially based on the foundation of their opinions (Sundt 2014, p. 2070). The most significant factor in their argument is the manner in which they will package their arguments to win the masses that are crucial in influencing policy formulation in any country. This section highlights some of the strong points and flaws of each side’s claim to come up with an informed recommendation on the course of action.
Strengths of the ‘Change for our Future’ Arguments
From the leaflets, it is apparent that every group has a point to pass across irrespective of the personal perception. One of the most persuasive cases that come from the ‘Change for our Future’ movement is that as much as the holiday is called Australian day, there is no any convincing reason as to why it is associated with Australia(Fozdar 2015, p. 432). Unfortunately, the day concedes with the day the Britons arrived in Australia implying that the people are supposed to celebrate this occasion does not directly link to Australia (Pearson 2014, p. 689). From the layman’s point of view, this group of individuals is being patriotic and hence is giving the rest of native Australians something to be proud of in the name of a new Australian Day from the January 26. Secondly, every individual has a right to an opinion, and therefore this team has all the reasons to pass their message (Halstrøm 2017, p. 16). However, from their claim, despite agitating for long over the need for a change of the celebration day and no one has given audience to them at all. In this case, they have to come with a fallacy by appealing to the masses and win peoples apathy. From the affective domain, some individuals will show their emotional support to such groups (Sundt 2014, p. 2070). Rationally, a person tends to defend their beliefs and values and according to ‘Change for our Future,’ the day does not signify any aspects of the Australian norms but instead glorifies the foreigners who at one point mistreated the natives. If this argument is taken on a phase value, it will serve the purpose of shifting the residents’ perception of the day, and many may join the crusade reject the January 26th Australian Day (Fozdar 2015, p. 432). Finally, the use of data in the leaflets is an important strategy since it can serve as a basis to build their arguments and for many who will not bother to conduct further research will believe in the information provided. Once there is evidence
Strengths of the ‘Pride in Australia’s Arguments
On the other hand, ‘Pride in Australia’ claims that the celebration is not all about Australian natives but is meant for every resident of the country irrespective of the place of origin. The day is distinct to commemorate the diverse nature of Australian residents rather than the natives (Pearson 2014, p. 689). The first essential argument they have made in the leaflet is that the people opposed to the January 26th Australian Day do not suggest an alternative date. Based on this claim, the group exposes the lack of seriousness and commitment by the ‘Change for our Future’ to their course (Kriaučiūnienė 2015, p. 371). They are also deducing that, in the absence of the celebration on January 26th Australian Day, Australians will miss a chance to a common event for all. Moreover, failure to fully support their argument by valid statistical data portrays ‘Change for our Future’ as a failed group who are only addressing their emotional problems instead of looking at the issues affecting the entire community (Fozdar 2015, p. 432). Furthermore, the group ‘Pride in Australia’ uses inductive reasoning to conclude that, if the national day is removed without any apparent reasons, then it will set a precedent and people will continue agitating for the elimination of other holidays leaving Australians with nothing to celebrate (Pearson 2014, p. 689). The use of relevant data by the group reveals that they have facts to support their claims thus offering more strength to their arguments.
Weaknesses of the ‘Change for our Future’s Arguments
The weakness of the argument made by ‘Change for our Future’ is that they do not take time to pass their information to their rival group and the administration but expect their opinions to be addressed. Secondly, from the statistical claim they make, it is evident that the statement does not match any of the surveys conducted by recognized institutions such as Public Research Institute of Australia. Moreover, the cases from this group are a fallacy that cannot be proven (Fozdar 2015, p. 432). For instance ‘Change for our Future’ claims that since the date coincides with the day Britons came to the country, the holiday celebrates the Britons does not hold due to lack of premises to support the claim.
Weaknesses of the ‘Pride in Australia’s Arguments
The most noticeable shortfall in the ‘Pride in Australia’s Argument is the use of incitement to support their opinion. For instance, they are informing the public that once the January 26th Australian Day has been abandoned; they will not even be able to celebrate ANZAC Day. However, these two occasions are independent of each other.
Recommendations to the Councilor
The fact the groups have failed to provide more relevant statistics gives the councilor an opportunity to manipulate the minds of members of each team by providing accurate and reliable data from national research organizations (Pearson 2014, p. 689). According to the information from the Australian Institute survey, it is apparent that the majority of Australians (77%) support the January 26th Australian Day. The Institute of public affairs of Australia is also in agreement with the statistics as they also reported widespread support for the national day at 70 (Kriaučiūnienė, 2015). The data indicate that the majority of Australians are in favor of the January 26th Australian Day and therefore one side of the rival groups have been addressed since they have public support (Kriaučiūnienė 2015, p. 371).
The first course of action for the councilor should be to approach the movements separately and inform them of the significance of the planned community meeting in advance (Kriaučiūnienė 2015, p. 371). During this time, the councilor should also try to find out the needs of each party and request them to present their interests in writing for the area administration to analyze and find out the ones that can be implemented (Harris 2013, p. 341). Additionally, both teams should be informed well in advance that they will be offered a chance to present their concerns at the meeting so that they do not feel ignored.
Once the groups have been met before the meeting day, they should be advised to desist from violent techniques and should understand that they are all Australians have the right to opinions (Kriaučiūnienė 2015, p. 371). On the meeting date, the administration should ensure that members of both parties have been assigned separate sections to minimize the chances of emotional outburst among them, especially when they do not agree on ideas (Harris 2013, p. 341). There is nothing more convincing than the voice of reason, and thus there should be distinct speakers who will elaborate the need for the celebration of January 26th Australian Day. At the same time, there should be another group of individuals who will also cater for the interest of the ‘Change for our Future’ movement.
After the speeches and the representatives of each faction have been given a chance to present their case officially, the councilor can, therefore, form a committee drawing members from the administration and the two groups (Harris 2013, p. 341). Other people should come from the significant community stakeholders such as religious leaders, the scholars, and the heads of various societies in the country (Kriaučiūnienė 2015, p. 371). The committee should be tasked by trying to find a compromising point between the two rivaling groups and during this time, the teams should be advised to sign a binding agreement not to spread any more leaflets (Kriaučiūnienė 2015, p. 371).
Conclusion
In summary, it is apparent that each of these teams has a point to pass across and there is a need to offer them the opportunity to present it formally. Giving them a public platform to air their grievances will help in reducing their emotional reaction to each other thus avoiding the disputes similar to the ones exhibited during the previous celebrations.
References
Fozdar, F. (2015). National Days and the Politics of Indigenous and Local Identities in Australia and New Zealand, by Patrick A. McAllister. Anthropological Forum, 25(4), pp.432-434.
Halstrøm, P. (2017). Rhetorical Tools for Discovery and Amplification of Design Arguments. Design Issues, 33(1), pp.3-16.
Pearson, D. (2014). National Days and the Politics of Indigenous and Local Identities in Australia and New Zealand by Patrick A. McAllister. American Anthropologist, 116(3), pp.689-690.
Sundt, T. (2014). Sound arguments, true premises, and valid conclusions. The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, 148(5), pp.2070-2071.
Harris, C. (2013). Resolving Community Conflicts and Problems: Public Deliberation and Sustained Dialogue. Community Development Journal, 48(2), pp.341-344.
Kriaučiūnienė, R. (2015). The importance of value attitudes in solving intercultural conflicts. Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, 2(1).
