Vox populiIt is said that God speaks in the voice of the people. Whether it is true or not depends upon the interpretations accorded to the phrase vox populi, vox Dei over the centuries. These interpretations are highly subjective as the powerful, both autocrats and democrats, have always tried to mould public opinion into paraphernalia of their ambitions. The righteousness of popular opinion is a very contentious subject and has been discussed by philosophers and theologians alike through ages.Vox populi, voice of the people or public opinion, is an important socio-political factor that mandates the actions of a ruler. In democratic societies where people are a stake holder in power, a favorable public opinion is very much coveted by rulers. Any wavering in public support can bring the most powerful government to ground. Public opinion is therefore a check on the ambitions and deliverance of rulers. This rule holds true even in undemocratic societies. An autocrat who is negligent of the welfare of people loses his legitimacy in the eyes of the masses and this ultimately begets public discontent and revolutions. The Arab spring is one such recent example. Therefore, to have a successful and durable reign, it is imperative for a ruler to keep the public opinion in his favor and to achieve this he has to remain acquiescent (at least to an extent) to the public demands.Public opinion, though justified it may be, does not mean that it is always right. Chinese philosophers, Confucius in particular, were biased in favor of public opinion and went so far as to advice the ruler to discern even the unheard voices of the people. This notion might be due to the fact that Orientals have a sort of religious devotion for their rulers thus eliminating the chances of sanguinary overthrows. Hence the rulers without the fear of revolution from the people must repay their devotion with acts of kindness and welfare. Western and Arab philosophers, on the other hand, were wary of public opinion. Plato in his Republic favors an aristocracy instead of a democracy. His alienation from the concept of righteousness of public opinion was a result of the ostracizing of his mentor, Socrates by the citizens of Athens. This event forced him to think that because Socrates was executed by popular opinion therefore unharnessed public opinion hold in itself the seeds of evil. According to Plato, people are gullible and docile therefore a group of elite from among the people must have the right to rule and keep the ambitions of their fellow citizens in check. Otherwise concentrating too much power and freedom in the hands of people is inimical to the existence of a favorable social order. People, being gullible, are susceptible to the promises of a demagogue and being unable to solve their problems themselves, they uplift that demagogue who, in turn corrupted by power, becomes a tyrant. So according to Plato, public opinion which at times appears justified, should not be always seen as beneficial to public order. This does not mean that public voice should be suppressed but it should be addressed (sincerely) to an extent where it does not relegate the interests of a state as it did in Athens during the Peloponnesian war and was to do in Carthage during the second Punic war. After weighing the pros and cons, I will gravitate towards the platonic point of view. Public opinion, though necessary to curb the powers of a ruler, should not be seen as a divine decision. A ruler must respect the opinion of his people (or at least have a verisimilitude of respect) and must take steps to address their legitimate grievances but he must keep the interest of the state before the wishes of his people. This might be seen as a Machiavellian concept but it holds in it the salvation of the state and more importantly the salvation of the people.