DESPITE their repeated failures, inaccuracies, and absurdities, astrologers and fortune tellers continue to abound. Apparently, they have become part of each year’s “starter package.” In a world that continues to struggle for hope, people continue to gamble even in favor of the unknown. This is how desperate and obsessed some people are with luck and fortune.
It is not just astrologers and fortune tellers, however, who are getting in demand these days. As we move closer to election day, “political analysts” are also increasing. Whenever I listen to news, there is always “this or that analyst” who would have something to say about anything political. I have been hearing in different media the “analyses” of these so-called experts. Covered in their analyses are Duterte, the elites in Philippine politics, and the rise of Bongbong Marcos, among others.
Sadly, in a country where the scientific study of politics is far from “professionalized” – there are many claimants of the title as there are opinions from all around the corner. Except for those who I know are “legit” by virtue of their training and record of scholarship, many do not actually deserve to bear the title. Even certain lawyers and philosophers are enjoying the accolade of being addressed as a political analyst.
The term “analysis” should not be equated to any kind of opinion, take, or view. Just because one has some dozens of words to say about politics does not automatically make one a political analyst. Neither “guts” nor “gallantry” to release verbal fires and brimstones in an “on-air” interview serves as the licensure to practice political analysis.
Those who keep on relishing the salutation because of the privileged “feeling of expertise” are being delusional. The real scholars of politics would tell us that political science itself is problematic. What we call political analysis therefore presupposes an admission that the so-called “analysis” is nothing but an approximation of political life. But this is not all. The real analyst also admits that even “political life” or that which is called “political” is in-itself debatable. There is so much fluidity in politics. In the end what is subjected to analysis may be so elusive that no one method is sufficient to capture it.
Years ago, Gabriel Almond described the study of politics (despite its claims of scientific-ness) as a “discipline divided.” There isn’t one table on which all analysts meet and agree. There are many divisions in the way we see politics because there are many prisms through which political life can be viewed. No less Benedict Anderson, who wrote the book “Imagined Communities” (a must read in political science and history), would attest to this. He would, in his Memoir, speak of the disparity in directions and methods among his mentors in the study of politics.
Are we saying then that we cannot analyze politics? No. However, anyone who comes forward with a claim to the title (whether earned through a degree or bestowed by the radio anchorman accidentally) should be honest in saying that his view is just one among many other views. If indeed one is an analyst, one should be clear in saying that “this part is based on data” and “this part is merely mine.” He who does not allow people to critique his analysis is an “ideologue” and not an analyst much more a scientist.
The continual usage of the term “political analyst” without the appropriate substantiation and credibility would make the enterprise cheap. And the analyses would be classifiable to the category of astrological predictions: inaccurate, absurd, and ridiculous.