CHRIS Ram (Stabroek News, November 2) has responded to my column of Wednesday, October 30, 2024, titled, “A survey of 139 persons does not have academic value.”
Let us quote a certain part of Mr. Ram’s outline which is not germane to the survey itself but in fact makes a political statement that may include a comment about me.
He wrote: “The passionate reactions to this survey from high office and their supporters suggest it has struck a nerve.” I can only speak for myself. I have no association with the government or the wider state establishment. There was nothing passionate about my analysis of the flaws of the survey.

I am a public intellectual and I see one of my roles as attempting to bring to the attention of Guyanese and non-Guyanese who take an interest in Guyana, the flaws, failings, fictions, deceptions, mistakes, banalities, confusions, and subjectivities of narratives made public so people can either be educated or attain knowledge or simply reflect on what is presented to them.
I have written thousands of passionate columns and all are related to dangerous actions of people and institutions that may result in the loss of freedom and rights in Guyana. As to my response to a survey of 135 Guyanese and the authors of the survey attesting to it being representative of how Guyanese feel about the oil contract, there is nothing to be passionate in contradicting the assertion of the authors.

Since I do not socialise or have political discussions with anyone in the corridors of power, I cannot say if in high government circles the survey struck a nerve. But if it did, my advice to the hierarchy of government would be to “unstruck” the nerve because a survey of 135 persons cannot gauge how stakeholders feel about the oil contract muchless the nation. Simply put – such a survey should not be relied upon by anyone interested in testing how the nation feels about the petroleum pact.
Now I need to emphasise my position with pellucid forcefulness. I am not challenging the survey and what it set out to do. My position is to confront the attestation of the authors that their project is an indication of the way Guyanese feel about the oil covenant between Exxon and the government.

My response in my October column was essentially an academic one and this article here is a repetition of my academic stance that the undertaking of Ram and McRae holds no scientific value.
Here are the words of Mr. Ram in his November 2 piece in relation to what the survey has achieved: “There is substantial public concern about the Agreement’s terms.” The focus here should be Mr. Ram’s word, “substantial.” But if it is substantial then that survey of 135 persons did not and cannot bring out that because such an undertaking by Ram & McRae is not the right methodology. Only a scientific poll can tell us how the nation feels about the oil agreement.

Mr. Ram contradicts himself when he wrote: “A survey gathers detailed information and insights about specific issues rather than predicting population-wide views”. But that is what I argued in my October 30 analysis. I simply said that the survey of 135 persons cannot capture the population’s attitude to the oil contract.
Giving Mr. Ram’s own admission, I was nonplussed that he did not mention in his November 2 piece that the Kaieteur News (KN) misread the purpose of the Ram & McRae project. Here is what KN noted: “94 per cent of Guyanese want (sic) renegotiation of Exxon oil deal according to the survey.”

So far, I have stayed away from use of strong words but KN’s take was so nonsensical that Mr. Ram was obliged to inform his readers that KN’s interpretation of the Ram & McRae was extremely poor judgement. It is common knowledge among academics that if you want to see how a majority of people feel about a national issue then you do a scientific poll.
Some famous, recent scientific polls on particular or specific issue in a country would be the polls on Brexit and Scottish Independence. A New York Times-Siena College poll published in October last year found that 59 per cent of Americans view the media as a “major threat to democracy,” while 25 per cent said the press is a “minor threat.” A Gallup poll in the same year found only 34 per cent of Americans believe major news organisations will report “fully, accurately and fairly” on current events.” To say that a survey of 139 persons tells you how 97 per cent of the Guyanese population felt is something no sane human should accept.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Guyana National Newspapers Limited.