By Abiola Akintunde
Recently, there have been a dire need to redefine our roles, most importantly, the way priorities are misplaced is lugubriously saddening, there have not been questions on the relevance of news and justification of actions.
Well, the Political scientist may learn much from the politician, the reverse is not the case. Lawyers, economists, and others are actually more useful to politicians; traditional political science lends experts on detail sometimes.
But Behaviorism promises to inform the politician and help him control his environment, leading to the conviction that behaviorism is the path to an instrumentally potent political science. These are one of the first few things the political scientist must put into cognizance…
The Political scientist and the politician are entwined in a various circle of mutual manipulation, myth making and self-interest. The Political scientist need crises to dramatize news, and the politicians need to appear to be responding to crises. Too often, the crises are not really crises but joint fabrications. The two institutions have become so ensnared in a symbolic web of lies that the political scientist are unable to tell the public what is true and the politicians are unable to govern effectively.
Sadly, the Political Scientist instead, opt to focus on manipulators and their machinations rather than substantive issues which perhaps is unavoidable because it reflects several aspects of the University culture.
Personalities are more compelling than institutions, facts are more uncertain, attention spans are brief and simplification—often oversimplification—is the norm. But the Political Scientists focus on facades has several consequences.
One is that news can change perceptions, and perceptions often become reality. Adverse leaks or innuendos about a Politician often lead to his or her loss of influence, resignation, or dismissal. The stock market is also fertile ground for planted stories. Rumors or allegations spread by short sellers often drive a stock’s price down. There may be nothing wrong with either the Politician’s performance or the stock’s value, but the willingness of the Political Scientist to report innuendos and rumors as news changes reality. The subject of such reports, which are usually fabrications created by opponents, must be prepared to defend themselves instantly. The mere appearance of a disparaging report in the press changes perception and, unless effectively rebutted, will change reality and the truth. That is why government officials and politicians pay as much attention to communications as to policy.
In an environment in which perceptions can quickly affect policy, Politicians need to be as alert and aggressive, because of the consequences of the prevalence of Propaganda in the press is that, the public’s confidence in all institutions gradually erodes. As people begin to realize that they’re being misled, manipulated, and lied to, they resent it. Now, what then becomes the fate of the Politicians? what then becomes the achievement of the political scientists? if in the end there’s no revolution, that’s where we now get to experience unavoidable hazards that Is inimical to development.
Political Science has done so well in separating relationship, and that’s why the latter, the Political Scientists and the Politician are a cure, rather than the cause of disagreement. Hence, in the cosmological formation of the institution, there’s nothing wrong in it, we just need to reconfigure our mental magnitude and chase priorities. This is not to justify that the Politicians are saints and are above the principles of checks and balances , or that the Political Scientists are victims of oppression in this story, but that the dire need of both parties are to ensure that priorities are not misplaced to help us curb political cinematography.
