CORNELIUS MONAMA | Who holds political analysts to account?

The approaching local government elections offer an opportunity to interrogate not only the politics we consume, but those who interpret them for us, and in this regard South Africa needs a more rigorous conversation about the role, authority and accountability of political analysts in a constitutional democracy.

More importantly, the time has come for a professional standards and accountability framework for political analysis: we need to establish minimum standards of competence, disclosure, methodological rigour and ethical conduct, while providing the public with a credible mechanism through which analysts can be held accountable.

Just as journalism has developed professional codes, editorial standards, press councils and press ombud structures, political analysis should not remain an accountability-free zone.

This is not a call to regulate political opinion or determine who may participate in public discourse; it is a call for professional accountability commensurate with public influence. People must remain free to advocate, criticise, predict and express political opinions. But when someone is repeatedly presented as an authoritative political analyst, there should be a defensible basis for that designation, minimum standards governing its exercise and a mechanism for scrutinising serious departures from those standards.

Too often, what is presented as political analysis is pedestrian observation, political advocacy, partisan preference and grievance dressed in the language of detached expertise. Personal animosities, political ambitions and ideological prejudices can pass as objective analysis. The authority conferred by the title “analyst” can shield such commentary from scrutiny.

Visibility is not methodology. Confidence is not expertise.

Political commentary has become an influential part of South Africa’s media environment. Analysts can shape perceptions of legitimacy, competence and political momentum. With influence comes responsibility, and with public authority must come public accountability.

The issue is not whether analysts have personal opinions, ideological preferences or biases. There is nothing wrong with advancing an ideological perspective, provided it is disclosed. What is problematic is presenting advocacy as neutral expertise, concealing political preferences behind the authority of the title “independent analyst”, and presenting speculation as fact. The public deserves to know the difference between analysis and advocacy, scholarship and opinion, evidence and predisposition.

In South Africa, the title is often conferred too easily and too generously. A person appears regularly on television or radio, writes columns or posts political commentary online and is consequently introduced as a “political analyst”. But repeated media exposure is not professional competence. Visibility is not methodology. Confidence is not expertise. Fluency is not analytical rigour.

There must be a defensible basis for conferring the authority associated with the title. This does not mean restricting commentary to people with particular academic degrees. Political insight can come from academia, journalism, public administration, civil society, research institutions and practical experience. But there should be identifiable standards against which anyone claiming professional analytical authority can be assessed.

These should include: knowledge of political systems and institutions; the ability to distinguish evidence from conjecture; transparent analytical methods; intellectual consistency; accurate use of data; and a willingness to revise conclusions when evidence changes. An analyst should not merely be someone who has acquired a media platform.

Political analysts make predictions, some of which will inevitably be wrong. Politics is uncertain, and no serious analyst should be expected to possess a crystal ball. But there is a difference between being wrong in good faith and being wrong because an “analysis” is pursuing an agenda. Analysts should be free to consistently predict the collapse of one party and the imminent rise of another, but they should be willing to explain the methodology behind their conclusions and what they learned when reality humbled them.

Media institutions also have a responsibility. Editors and broadcasters should stop treating the term “political analyst” as a self-authenticating title. Before repeatedly presenting someone as an authority, they should ask: What qualifies this person to analyse politics? What is their methodology? What is their track record? What are their affiliations? Have his previous claims proved demonstrably false? Do they distinguish fact from interpretation? Do they disclose conflicts of interest?

South Africa should therefore consider establishing an independent political analysis standards council — or similar professional body — with a credible code of conduct and independent complaints mechanism. Its purpose would not be to determine which political views are legitimate, but to establish standards concerning disclosure, evidence, methodology, conflicts of interest, misrepresentation and analytical integrity.

Political analysts, media organisations, academia and civil society must confront this accountability deficit. We need professional standards, disclosure, methodological transparency, a credible complaints mechanism and meaningful ways of evaluating predictions and challenging misleading analysis.

That is not an attack on political analysis: it is a demand that political analysis become worthy of the authority it wields.