THE results of the poll conducted in January this year by the US-headquartered International Republican Institute (IRI) were released as a ‘National Poll of Guyana’.

The poll surveyed some 1,500 adult persons spanning the 10 administrative regions, with a response rate of 20 per cent, and a margin of error of plus/minus 2.5 points.

The poll, which was managed on behalf of the Institute’s Centre for Insights in Survey Research by CID Gallup, was funded by the National Endowment for Democracy.

It took the form of face-to-face interviews and multi-stage probability sampling.
According to the IRI, it was aimed at gathering data surrounding contentious issues that the IRI wants to assist Guyana with solving.

The IRI said that as a result of doing this poll, it also hopes to make some necessary interventions by undertaking a small reconciliatory and conflict-resolution pilot project aimed at deepening democracy, and restoring public confidence in the governance and electoral systems here.

Firstly, it is good that the IRI wants to offer Guyana its help with resolving the contentious socio-political issues in society.

It is also great that the IRI saw the need to step in and do something that could lead to a much clearer understanding of the governance, democracy, and voting issues.

After all, Guyanese are not opposed to any help with the issues mentioned above, but there is a process; a right way of doing things in a fledgling democracy and independent State like Guyana.

Recall, Guyanese people have not forgotten the ‘vote like a boss’, the ‘blue caps’, and the strange civil society group initiatives that sprung up and had funding from the IRI and sister agencies just when Guyanese were scheduled to go to the polls in the pre-2011 and pre-2015 election periods.

Regardless of the motive, which remains suspect and questionable to most intelligent citizens, the IRI did not seek the meaningful involvement and approval of the country’s elected government before conducting this so-called National Poll.

Additionally, it may have had a handful of youth organisations and personalities who parade as the representatives of civil society and NGOs but did not consult with the Ministry of Health’s Ethics Committee or any other Government entity concerned in a meaningful manner about the content included in the survey.

If there were consultations, Guyanese would like this information to be published so they can be assured of the integrity and transparency of this perception and opinion survey.

Secondly, this opinion can never be representative of the views of all Guyanese, because of its stated response rate and margin of error. These are not 1,500 Guyanese that participated, but close to 300.

Admittedly, the PPP/C Government is finding it difficult to track down persons that were interviewed by the individuals conducting the poll in Region Four, where the survey was heavily concentrated. Suspicious much?

Therefore, methodology and sampling for the polls are genuine areas of concern for those who are rightly and justly questioning the seriousness and accuracy of the data presented with percentages and graphs.

This development is a serious cause for concern, as there seems to be no underlying scientific principle governing the research information.

Thirdly, the line of questioning, the structure of some of the questions, and the questions posed to the respondents are mindboggling, to say the least, particularly the ones that had the most political, ethical, racial, and social ramifications.

Did the IRI and CID Gallup have experts or technical people that looked at the questions before polling?

This was certainly not the case. Examples are too numerous to cite, but one can go to the website or poll results for oneself.

This entire poll is disappointing, from an academic and scientific standpoint.

Also, it has no creditability and integrity when one analyses the methodology and data collection methods.

Finally, this poll groups too many complex and very distinct issues or topics together. It failed to be considered a national poll.

It simply fell short.

And, Opposition Leader Aubrey Norton could not have been serious when he said the result of this poll will be used by the Opposition.

Even his economic advisers would try to dissuade him from using it to make a political perception of the people’s mood in relation to governance, electoral reforms, and elections, because he would be disappointed.

Sadly, Norton is opportunistic while practicing the politics of convenience, because he knows deep down inside that the poll’s results are highly questionable but still valuable to making the Opposition’s case.