Introduction: In the Age of Public Opinion, Asking About Public Opinion

Chapter 1: The Korean Context of Public Opinion and Publicization
Section 1: Korean usage examples and categories of public opinion and publicization
Section 2: Multidimensionality of Public Opinion and Multiplicity of Public Opinion

Chapter 2: The Concept of Public Opinion and Conditions for Public Opinion
Section 1. The concept of public opinion, public sphere, and publicization
Section 2: Principles and principles of public opinion and democratic innovation

Chapter 3: Future Conflict Management and Public Disclosure
Section 1. Communication and Social Conflict Resolution Mechanisms
Section 2: Public Sphere, the Intersection of Private and Public Communication

Chapter 4: Development and Convergence of Public Opinion Techniques
Section 1: Institutionalization of Governance and Diversification of Participatory Decision-Making
Section 2: Governance Failures and the Advancement of Deliberative Policy Formation

Chapter 5: Three Dimensions of Public Opinion and Implementation Model
Section 1. Democratic Innovation and Acceptance in the Korean Context
Section 2 Public Disclosure Implementation Model and Application Techniques

Chapter 6: Public Disclosure Implementation Model and Application Cases
Section 1. Cases of public discussion on agenda formation
Section 2: Cases of public opinion formation
Section 3: Cases of public discussion on consensus formation

Chapter 7: Six Stages of Public Disclosure and Implementation Strategies
Section 1 Planning and Preparation
Section 2 Implementation and Management
Section 3 Evaluation and Feedback

Conclusion: A Window to the Future, Public Opinion

Appendix Bill on the Establishment and Operation of the National Public Opinion Committee

#1
The origins of this book date back to 2015.
At the time, I was about to be transferred from my original workplace, the Korea Institute of Public Administration, to the Presidential Advisory Council on National Cohesion, and was about to be separated from the research I was relatively familiar with.
Although I am not good at it because I am used to it, I still felt sorry and came up with the idea of ​​the National Research Foundation of Korea's writing support program as a last resort.
And after going through various procedures and finally getting the research plan adopted, I started working on this book with great excitement.
At first, everything went smoothly.
Already a year before that, with the support of the National Unification Committee, 'Republic of Korea, Ask the People for Directions'.
It was because, while planning the '2014 National Debate', I learned practical skills before theory, and on that day, when I glimpsed the possibilities and potential of deliberative debate, I became confident in the future of public opinion.
However, this does not mean that the path to the future opens automatically.
Knowing one makes you curious about two, and knowing two makes three ambiguous.
As a result, it took me seven years, well over the three years I had promised to the research foundation, to finally finish the manuscript.

In the meantime, there was the impeachment of the president (2016), the inauguration of a new president (2017), and the public announcement of the Shin-Kori nuclear power plant (2017).
And then there were local elections (2018), general elections (2020), and by-elections (2021) one after another.
Over the past five years, when longing and lamentation for a "country I've never experienced before" intersected, what I've been hoping for is "a democracy I've never experienced before."
Because I saw the possibility of a new democracy at the beginning and end of the public discussion on the Shin-Kori nuclear power plant, and throughout the entire process.
By correcting the flaws in representation through direct voter participation and transforming participation into cooperation through deliberation, there is the possibility that the "strong democracy" that Benjamin Barber spoke of could become our reality.

However, the Moon Jae-in administration failed to brand public opinion as a new national civic participation mechanism, and was even more negligent in establishing a legal foundation for civic participation.
The true evils that the "candlelight" movement of the winter of 2016 sought to eradicate were the imperial presidency and the 1987 constitutional system that were strangling the Korean political and administrative system. However, the eradication of evils, which was mired in personnel purges, did not have the leisure to take care of the legal foundation.
Even the very moderate 'proportional representation system' has turned its back on the citizens in the square, serving the interests of a political cartel.
In the reality of parliamentary politics, which is called not only the 'plant parliament' and the 'animal parliament' but also the 'monster parliament', is it something to be happy about that the ruling and opposition parties have finally come together?

#2
It is right to abolish the 1987 constitutional system that has fulfilled its historical mission.
And we must make way for the citizens of the 'candlelight' protests in the winter of 2016 to go their own way.
What is the way? This book answers that, above all, we must vitalize civic politics that combines representative and direct democracy.
There are three main specific implementation strategies.
First, the representative function of the National Assembly must be corrected.
It is often said that the National Assembly's stagnation is due to the National Assembly Advancement Act, but there can be no problem with emphasizing the principles of representative democracy based on dialogue and compromise.
It is also the duty of the National Assembly to resolve political disputes through dialogue and compromise.
What's wrong with the ruling and opposition parties faithfully representing the interests of their own groups?
The real question is whether all the groups it is supposed to represent are represented.
If both the ruling and opposition parties are groups that represent the interests of the people, not their own interests.
A full-fledged proportional representation system is a reform that is necessary and beneficial to both the current ruling and opposition parties as well as the future ruling and opposition parties.
Thanks to the multi-party system created by proportional representation, it will be easier to form alliances and alliances, making it easier to break through the deadlock caused by the confrontation between the two major parties, and thus the National Assembly Advancement Act will shine even brighter.
Second, if all groups that need to be represented are represented, it is time to ask ourselves whether the representatives of each group are expressing their group's interests and preferences 'as they are' and 'properly' creating policies that correspond to them.
The diversification of benefits and representation that the proportional representation system will bring alone cannot transform the National Assembly into a temple of public opinion.
Beyond the three types of direct democracy—referendum, citizen initiative, and citizen recall—and including citizen audits and citizen lawsuits, the path to completing representative democracy is to allow citizens to represent their own interests and preferences on important issues.
In this way, both the United States and Switzerland succeeded in controlling the rent-seeking behavior of political cartels, improving the quality of representation, and mediating social conflicts.
At this time, trust in the good people who communicate directly with citizens and act as watchdogs of a fair and transparent decision-making process is a bonus psychological contract effect.
Third, we must be wary of the pitfalls of majority rule and strive to create a healthy public forum.
Any democracy that blindly relies on majority rule, whether representative or direct, is inherently vulnerable to the risk of populism.
It is no wonder that Philippe Bouvard said, "A democracy can be created by adding one more fool to half a dozen fools" (Philippe Bouvard), that is, majority democracy is "oppression of the people, by the people, for the people" (Oscar Wilde).
The key is not majority rule, but the level of deliberation and public discussion that leads to majority rule.
If fake news runs rampant as it does now, distorting information and distributing unrefined opinions unilaterally, wrapped in crude emotions and abusive language, then representative democracy, as well as direct democracy, will only become a source of disorder, chaos, conflict, and strife.
On the other hand, if the health of the public sphere, where diverse opinions can freely exchange and be transparently verified, is guaranteed, direct participation by citizens often functions as a rational procedure that breaks the deadlock in societal decision-making.
That is social contract politics.


#3
This book focuses on the third of the three strategies described above.
This is because we believe that the only way out of the hostile polarization of narrow-minded worldviews armed with partisan logic is through the formation of a healthy public sphere.
Therefore, Chapters 1 and 2 examine the concepts of public opinion and public sphere, and in particular, examine how the meaning of public opinion circulating in Korean society is externalized in the language practices of Koreans.
And through this, I wanted to reveal the social usage of the word ‘public opinion’.
In addition, we explored the differences between the Confucian public sphere and the Western bourgeois public sphere and considered the conditions and environment for a “healthy” public sphere.
This is a story I would like to share with researchers exploring the concept of public opinion.

Chapters 3 and 4 contain the results of an empirical study conducted to address the question of whether public opinion can be effectively implemented in the political and administrative context of Korean society.
Does deliberation truly function as a mechanism to change our initial thoughts and preferences and foster understanding of others? Can we truly reach agreement through sincere discussion? Is this even possible in Korea? The answer, while subject to several conditions, is "yes."
Therefore, in the following chapters and sections, we examine and introduce various methods of participatory decision-making and deliberative policy formation from the perspective that public deliberation is an implementation strategy for realizing 'democracy as communication' as advocated by Jurgen Habermas.
This book will be helpful to anyone interested in the theoretical background of citizen participation in Korea's political process, especially in administrative and policy processes, as well as to those preparing for public discussion.

Chapters 5 through 7 analyze public opinion implementation models and application techniques that are appropriate for the context of Korean society, while also providing an implementation manual (guide) that can be utilized in the field.
Therefore, research on the public disclosure implementation model encompasses everything from theoretical work to categorizing implementation strategies to organizing domestic and international cases and creating a manual.
In particular, the manual in Chapter 7 is a product of domestic and international public discourse experience, and introduces empirical lessons that can be referenced by anyone preparing for and responsible for public discourse, from planning to implementation and evaluation.
Those who think the theory is useless or do not have time to read the entire book can choose to read only the parts they need.


#4
As with everything in life, this book owes much to the help and patience of many people.
Without their expectations and encouragement, without their help and care, this book would still be a blank slate.
There is too little space to list each name and express my gratitude.
I just bless them with the gratitude I have in my heart.


October 6, 2021
Eun Jae-ho