Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Introduction
This reflection will focus on the trial of former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. Therefore, the study will review one theory of public opinion that is relevant to the above case and provide sound judgment. The maxim is that no person is to be prevented from pursuing justice. The former president of Egypt, Hosni Mubarak, was accused for his dictatorship and crimes committed while in office (Stork, 2012). On the other hand, the public believed that the penalty granted to his crimes was not sufficient enough and thus, more punishment was needed (Scott, 2012). The contention was that the verdict to sentence the former president to life imprisonment was not enough as he deserved a death sentence. These were the sentiments of the public.
It is important to note that the public is always not right and that one cannot reason with the mob. It is the case that public opinion has all sorts of diversities since anybody can give his comments. For instance, legal experts will contribute their ideas in the public forum and those who have no understanding of law will also comment on serious legal issues. So, there is likelihood to believe that the notion of the public in regard to the fate of Hosni Mubarak should be subject to scrutiny. This will be discussed by applying two theories namely:
-
Phil Converse’s Response Instability
-
Memory-Based Information Processing
Review of Theories
According to “Phil Converse’s Response Instability theory” a greater part of electorate lacks meaningful understanding and beliefs on issues that create controversial political opinions (Graham & Cheek, 2012, p.13). It further states that the public does not associate its feelings with attitudes; in other words, they lack response stability and that such would take place at random. Additionally, opinions escalating from the public take place as a matter of chance (Graham & Cheek, 2012).
On the other hand, John Zaller in “Memory-Based Information Processing theory” expressed that individuals have “conflicting considerations” over the same issue. He defines consideration as something which exists in the memory and which may influence how one responds to situations. The essential point is that people rarely carry out extensive examination into their memory when making responses to polls; it means that whatever is in their mind derives meaning from random everyday factors (Graham & Cheek, 2012).
Application of the Theories
As can be seen, the two theories have great relevance to the situation in Egypt following the verdict of the court regarding former President, Hosni Mubarak. It is evidenced that a cross section of the public believed that the former president deserved more penalty than the one settled for. For instance, it was not enough to make him serve a life sentence but rather a death sentence would have done better. Indeed, whichever way this would have gone, it must have been as a matter of principle not what the public opinion.
This refers to one of the theories above, where the public lack meaningful understanding of what they believe in. Therefore, there would be a gap in what the public expressed regarding the fate of Hosni Mubarak and what ought to have been the case. It is arguably so that justice follows certain legal modalities and there is a reason why one would end up serving a life sentence or death penalty. Assuming that the conclusion for the life sentence was after sound due process then the public did not have any grounds to push for a death penalty. So, in light of Phil Converse’s theory it is imperative that the opinions arising from the public be from meaningful beliefs and not unfounded claims.
On the same note, John Zaller’s theory is very applicable to the situation on Hosni Mubarak and the overall public opinion. The main focus is the fact that the public has divergent conflicting considerations over a given matter. This asserts that the public position on the fate of Hosni Mubarak was characterized by conflicting considerations. This makes the whole outlook bias and based on subjective approaches. This calls for more critical approach over the matter so that at the end of the day justice may prevail to both the former president and of course Egyptian citizens.
Personal Opinion on Application of the Theories
Ideally, there is no theory that is not subject to criticism. However, the meaning presented by it may be used to address a situation. The two theories discussed may encounter major criticism bearing in mind that the modern world is governed by democratic values. However, the two theories presented in the study make the reader more critical minded in addressing the verdict over Mubarak’s fate. They are valid and their wisdom may help to shape public opinion in Egypt so that at the end of it all justice prevails.
Conclusion and Summary
In general, the study has presented two theories in hope of shaping Egypt’s public opinion regarding the verdict delivered to the former president, Hosni Mubarak. The main emphasis is that whichever way this goes it must be guided by objective and non-bias principles. The due process should strictly be guided by the penal code or the constitution of Egypt and not public opinion.
References
Graham, F., & Cheek, L. (2012). A Theory of Public Opinion. Transaction Pub Publishers. Web.
Scott, S. ( 2012). Mubarak Convicted in Charges of Protestors’ death. Weekend edition Saturday. Web.
Stork, J. (2012). What Mubarak’s Trial can’t tell us? The Guardian. Web.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.