Opinion Polls: Of Probabilities, Possibilities & the downright Phoney.

By Bhekinkosi E Ngubeni The first of the upcoming Zimbabwe election opinion polls has been published. The report is compiled by Susan Booysen, processed by Mass Public Opinion Institute and was commissioned by Freedom House, an American based entity that prides itself in maintaining bipartisan ethos. The report was recently made available via their website here: http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/special-reports/change-and-%E2%80%98new%E2%80%99politics-zimbabwe In abstract form, the report is primarily concerned with reflections on party support, economic conditions, comprehensive expectations and experiences of the elections process. Until now, prejudice and assumption have lead societal thoughts in the speculation of political outcomes. Freedom House has carried out a rigorous social research in an attempt to actualise and substantiate findings for the sake of informed forecast and debate. As it were, Zanu PF leads the polls enjoying 31% of voter support. On the other hand, MDC-T has lost considerable ground over the past two years appealing to just 20% of the nation. Having assessed the report, I have noted some reliability concerns I hope to address, in the process coming across as a killjoy to the thousands of Zanu PF supporters across the country who can smell blood and want the elections held as soon as yesterday. Firstly, an apparent gaping flaw is the reports failure to demonstrate an informed understanding of the political implications in reference to participants and their responses to the questionnaire. The bulk of the sample declared that in Zimbabwean politics, almost all citizens have to be careful about what they voice (see tab 21) against this background, it is sufficiently evident that, from the onset, the fear of reprisals poisons the outcome, effectively invalidating the chosen method of inquiry. To further illustrate the above point, one has to accept subjectivity is an inevitable part of any interaction. When opinion polls offer very different pictures of voting intention in a relatively short space of time, it is not enough to simply explain away the triggers by referencing to research results. We must accept, especially in our case, that respondents lie in varying proportion at varying times depending on a whole range of factors. Secondly, in theory, the report itself assumes a soft positivism technique in carrying out the research. I am not convinced the stratified random sampling method was the most appropriate for this particular study. I am under the impression this type of sampling is most effective only when dealing with a small population group i.e. university students or civil servants not the whole country. Therefore the division of the population by engaging this research method is defective in the sense that data may not be representative. Thirdly, however simple a questionnaire may seem, it is one of the most difficult research tools to construct and execute. The very reason why the report attained a much lower response rate could be down to the fact that some of the questions were ill-structured and complex especially in areas such as stagflation which are vague concepts to anyone without an economics background. The problem of interpretation comes into play. I attempted to answer the 74 questions asked, 16 made no sense at all and I consider myself substantially literate. A good 27 required feats of memory and a

couple had double meaning. I cant begin to imagine what must have been going on in the heads of ordinary minded folk as some of those questions were posed to them. Fourthly, perhaps telling pertains to the use of the closed ended questions approach which reflects only the researchers ideas. In tab 3, the report concludes that smaller political parties have virtually become extinct yet in Matebelaland alone MDC-N is the fastest growing party. It wouldnt come as a shock should they win the bulk of the seats in that region. The report is subjective in the sense that it assumes Zimbabwean politics as narrowly spread across two divides hence Susan and team mistakenly tout the non-existence of other parties. Therein lies the problem of questions imposed reflecting the researchers assumptions rather than real world goings-on. All party names should have been listed categorically not cheaply coined as others Finally, the reports expectations that, should the 47% non-respondents vote, their support is likely to be diffused across party categories come election time, are both inaccurate and misleading. Any seasoned researcher would question why half the sample is reluctant to disclose information. I suspect, on surface value, the majority of the non-respondents were observed in urban areas. I stand to be corrected. Having carried out social research, the rule of thumb, so to speak, undermines any evaluations where half the sample refuses to partake for whatever reason. Its not representative and poses too great a risk to be taken literally. In conclusion, the report is not altogether groundless. It collects and analyses vital bits of social data in notable fashion in the process illuminating previously difficult to understand variables in assessing current voter mentality. Nonetheless, the ambiguity and crassness in deducing the single most relevant proposition, that is, Zanu-PF leading the polls is not overwhelmingly self-evident. It appears to have major limitations which in turn create doubt and reliability concerns. I suppose the key question at this point would be to ascertain if a report asking the same questions but employing a dissimilar research method would amount to the same conclusion. Only then can any party be fit to judge the appropriateness of the said change and new politics in Zimbabwe

The writer, Bhekinkosi Ngubeni specialises in development economics, contact him on email: bheki213@yahoo.co.uk