The politics of perception

Edmund Tayao / Mettle Works

Why do we measure? Why do we need to determine whether one is big or small, tall or short? When do we say that it is substantial or insignificant? We measure for purposes of comparison? We compare for purposes of reference? We need reference to determine how to go about doing things? Certainly, measurement is a necessity wherever you are, whatever you do, but it has to be precise, or at the least, sufficient to provide us the right reference and, therefore, information for our particular purpose.

Measurement is not just any number, as a number has to have basis, essentially a representation of reality. It’s like wanting to have a high grade in class just for the sake of it, regardless of whether there was real learning that took place. If this is the case, the high grade is meaningless, as it would just be useless. Measurement cannot be about appreciation of beauty or melody, or taste, as these depend significantly on an individual’s idiosyncrasy. We can, at best, make classifications of art and music, but coming up with a scale as to which is beautiful is something else.

Numbers matter in politics and governance. In politics, numbers matter because the easiest way to understand it is through perception, gut feel, which are all influenced by the immediate environment, friends, colleagues, relatives and, of course, the media.

This should not be the end-all and be-all, however, as politics is substantially about governance, about policies and programs.

The performance of government cannot just depend on what many say or perceive, on the majority of people’s gut feel. Performance should be about the real measurements of poverty, of the level of education, the volume of harvest or of production, of employment and underemployment, of the actual number of households in a particular area and socio-economic class, and so on.

If the performance of government is based only on perception, our understanding and practice of politics will never graduate from just popularity, from motherhood statements and appeal to the people’s emotions.

This essentially is why we rely too much on surveys; the real measure is set aside and the basis of policies and programs is at best only extrapolation or sophisticated guesswork.

How frequent is a national census conducted by the government? Adequately or not, it is supposed to be done only every five years; and because of the persistent dearth of government resources, or perhaps flawed prioritization, this mandated frequency is not even met and at times done after seven, even 10 years. This alone will tell us if we have the capacity to exactly determine the poverty situation in the country.

I don’t know if this inadequacy also explains why a single-digit improvement in a survey is enough for us to cheer and assume some kind of improvement. A recent survey says hunger decreased by 4.8 percent, and the report already says “Hunger falls…,” which gives the impression that it is a marked improvement.

Note that a survey will always have a margin of error. In this particular survey is 2-percent overall and 6 percent in the NCR. This means that the 4.8 percent could be even lower and, therefore, insignificant. This explains why the report says that the equivalent numbers of families that the percentages represent are “estimates,” not an exact count.

Yes, surveys provide us a picture of what’s there in reality, but cannot be a good measure. It is best used to validate existing data generated systematically and scientifically by the government from all levels of government. Then again, we don’t have a working database system; hence we rely on surveys.

Surveys are good reference only if there are existing facts and figures from which we can analyze. Unless, therefore, reports underscore the difference between surveys and real data, this report is again a tool of politics of perception.

Surveys are best in determining the popularity of a person or organization, of a product or the interest of the public in particular issues. This is, of course, perception and cannot be captured by exact figures.

This is the reason it is easier to arrive at a conclusion on popularity using surveys compared to making estimates of actual figures using percentages in the survey.

In another survey, for example, it is telling that the popularity of the government as a whole is not consistent with the popularity of the President; and while the overall popularity was sustained, there was a marked decrease in the NCR and the Visayas. The pulse of the public, therefore, is pictured by this survey suggesting that the people are objectively able to weigh on performance and popularity, distinguishing one from the other.

Essentially, these two surveys tell us that the proverbial assumption that the public does not understand issues is baseless and that the politics of perception is due largely to our overall political and socioeconomic system.

We can specify the media as the culprit for sustaining the politics of perception. But the media are just part of this overall system and, therefore, merely reflect our political and economic structure.