Post by miguna on Dec 25, 2005 7:27:41 GMT 3
STEADMAN OPINION POLL IS MISLEADING (THE FINAL TAKE)
By MIGUNA MIGUNA* - © 24 December 2005
There are those who argue that because public opinion polling is fairly new in Kenya, we need to encourage companies like the Steadman Group to continue conducting substandard polling and publish their subjective results unabated. We are supposed to trust these opinion poll results merely because this field is new in Kenya. I strongly disagree.
Let’s not engage in shadow-boxing. The onus is on the Steadman Group as the entity that conducted and published the opinion poll results, to explain how they conducted and analyzed the polling and who paid for or commissioned the polls. It is a universal concept all over the world that the responsibility is on the one making a claim or advancing a proposition to justify, substantiate or prove their position, claim, theory, and hypothesis.
The onus is not on those challenging the results to present opposing figures in order to debunk the results. Challengers are only required to question. If we are not convinced by the methodology, sampling, analysis or the results, Steadman cannot simply ask us to conduct or commission another poll before we can challenge it. Neither can we simply accept the results because Steadman is the only major polling company in Kenya. Even the argument that the company is fairly young or that opinion polling is fairly new in Kenya does not cut it. We should be able to examine the Steadman record and scrutinize its methods, analysis and results without regard to all these factors.
In my view, the real “reasons” for the latest Steadman Group Poll results are as follows:
• To create unnecessary negative competition among LDP leading figures like Kalonzo Musyoka, Raila Odinga and Musalia Mudavadi. These three are widely believed to be presidential material. They are also regarded to be fairly ambitious, with considerable national following. Hence, the attempt to prematurely thrust Kalonzo as the most popular presidential candidate even before the LDP conducts its own presidential candidate selection is aimed at creating a wedge between the three presidential hopefuls within the party. In declaring Kalonzo the most popular Kenyan presidential material, the poll results were expected and are intended to create pressure from his Eastern Province base, culminating in an expectation that he will be the chosen LDP presidential candidate. This is also supposed to make Kalonzo feel indispensable to LDP. There is a certain level of arrogance that this feeling creates in politicians. The thinking behind the polls is that both Raila and Mudavadi will or may resist the “imposition” of Kalonzo on the party. They are expected to demand democratic internal party selection or election process. It is believed that if Raila, Kalonzo and Mudavadi were to run together, Raila may beat Kalonzo and Mudavadi. Although these are just speculative thoughts, they form the basis of the Steadman poll. Those who “commissioned” the Steadman poll bank on the hope that faced with such a situation, Kalonzo would opt to leave LDP and attempt to run on his own or in association with some other political party. Kalonzo, this thinking goes, would feel cheated. The ultimate result is that LDP would fragment, with the Eastern Province votes (and possibly others) accompanying Kalonzo to the new outfit. With LDP divided, Kibaki would find it much easier to take on LDP or whatever new outfits Raila, Kalonzo or Mudavadi find themselves in. LDP must foil this plan.
• By announcing that Uhuru Kenyatta is the third most popular presidential candidate, Steadman and those behind the polls are calculating in creating a wedge within the ODM. Although Uhuru is the Chairman of Kanu and a prominent member of the ODM, it is widely understood that he has no firm political base. Kanu is currently divided in the middle with Nicholas Biwott laying claim on a significant portion while Uhuru is really Chair of the second portion by virtue of still being accommodated by the Rift Valley Kanu base. However, in the greater Rift Valley, it is William Rutto rather than Uhuru who holds the key to the vast votes. Without the support of Rutto and co., Uhuru would not be a viable presidential candidate. For starters, Uhuru has no significant claim to votes from Central Province. In fact, he cannot even claim to have real support to speak of in his Gatundu South constituency. As long as Kibaki is considered a presidential candidate in 2007 (or any other time presidential elections are held before 2007), Uhuru will not be a major factor in Central and Nairobi Provinces. The calculation is that, presenting both Uhuru and Kalonzo as the “leading” presidential candidates within the ODM will create competition not only between the two of them, but it will also inevitably create negative tensions between LDP and Kanu, within ODM itself, as well as between Kalonzo, Mudavadi, Raila and Uhuru. By cleverly “eliminating” Raila from the list, Steadman intended to either present Raila as the “king maker” - similar to the Kibaki-tosha of 2002 – but it also hoped to create resentment, fear, anxiety or panic in Raila’s supporters or support base in Nyanza, Nairobi, Coast, Western, North Eastern and Rift Valley provinces to the extent where there would be a “demand” for elections within ODM itself to identify the most “popular” presidential candidate. Again, it is up to LDP, Kanu and ODM to frustrate this scheme.
• Although most political analysts and commentators have rarely focused their attention on the possibility of a William Rutto presidential candidature, this is a factor that must be considered. Not factoring in Rutto in any power equation within two years is an analytical folly. First, there is no guarantee that Rutto himself may not garner for the presidency on a Kanu ticket come 2006/7. In any event, no serious presidential candidate from Kanu or the ODM can succeed in the Rift Valley without Rutto’s involvement. Second, simply floating Kalonzo and Uhuru as presidential trying balloons without examining how they will construct their “winning” teams is not just a horrible and incompetent political analysis, it is practically unworkable in the present-day Kenya. Kenyans – post the failed coalition government of Narc – fully understand that any viable political machine must incorporate many political entities. At the very least, a future winning team must represent a national outlook. The outlook must, of necessity, be fairly representative of most regions - with very significant vote-catchers from at least seven provinces - namely, Central, Nyanza, Western, Rift Valley, Nairobi, Eastern and Coast provinces (not exactly in this order). And third, given Rutto’s own recent tensions with Uhuru, it is not entirely speculative to suggest that his support for the Uhuru presidential candidature is not guaranteed. Yet, Steadman completely left the Rutto factor out of its questions.
• Inevitably, the Steadman Poll results have created suspicion among the three political entities (LDP, Kanu and ODM) as well as between its leading lights, Raila, Kalonzo, Mudavadi, Uhuru and Rutto. Who has benefited from these suspicions?
Unlike every reputable public opinion polling group in the Western countries that openly discloses the people or organizations that “commissioned” the polls and the “reasons” why the polls were conducted at the time of releasing the results to the public, Steadman has not disclosed this crucial information. The question is why. Why has Steadman concealed or withheld this important information from the Kenyan public?
Since we all know that whoever commissions a poll plays a significant role on how questions are designed and what results are obtained (after all, the commissioner routinely presents a “global” question to the pollster), it is expected that whoever paid for the Steadman polls had a hand in both the questions and the final results. Why then does Steadman refuse to tell us who the latest poll funders are? For if the funder is a Kenyan political party, it would inform us on how to interpret and view the results. Similarly, if the funders are “interested” persons, organizations or parties, we would also draw our own inferences – negatively or positively.
No opinion polling is conducted entirely on neutral or no political, social or economic ideologies, affiliations, policies, philosophies, et cetera. This would be absurd since polling companies are going concerns which are not just owned by individuals or groups of individuals, the owners are not empty vessels. The Steadman Group is neither an NGO nor a research company funded by the Almighty God.
The Steadman Group definitely had a well-paying client or clients that placed an order on the latest opinion poll. Usually, no polling company would release its results to the public before providing its client or clients with the same. In fact, the poll results are only released with the client’s permission. And clients do not routinely permit poll results that do not support their positions or ends to be released to the public. Which then leads me to ask: who or what did the Steadman poll support? Who gained or stands to gain most from it? Not LDP or ODM. Certainly not Kalonzo, Uhuru, Mudavadi, Rutto or Raila. We know for sure that ordinary Kenyans did not commission the polls.
The mere fact that Steadman has refused to declare who funded its poll itself tells a very intriguing tale, which deserves another essay.
Those who argue that the poll results ought to be to deemed objective because both the government and some elements deemed to support LDP or Kanu or ODM have “attacked” the results is disingenuous. Firstly, I have not seen LDP, Kanu or ODM attack the results. Secondly, I am not sure whether Kenyans trust that the so-called government’s condemnation is genuine. Given this government’s record, I would be suspicious of its vehement attacks. These may prove to be crocodile tears. And thirdly, the mere fact that the poll results are questioned by all sides (assuming that this was true, which it is not) it does not, in itself, make those results “objective.” Objectivity is not determined by the number of sides that support or attack a particular result. How do we know that the Steadman figures are “real” materially? How do we know how the samplings were done or whether Steadman is telling us the truth about this? How do we know that the conclusions Steadman claims it derived from the numbers fairly and objectively represent the views collected? Do we simply trust Steadman? Why should we?
After we boil everything to the bottom (analytically speaking), one has to question the rationale for the poll at this time. If there are no imminent snap elections - as we are loudly told by president Kibaki and his acolytes – why did the Steadman Group purport to ask a very small fraction of Kenyans, whom they believed, from pre-selected names, to be the most popular presidential candidate?
______________________________________________________________________
*The writer is a Barrister & Solicitor in Toronto, Canada
By MIGUNA MIGUNA* - © 24 December 2005
There are those who argue that because public opinion polling is fairly new in Kenya, we need to encourage companies like the Steadman Group to continue conducting substandard polling and publish their subjective results unabated. We are supposed to trust these opinion poll results merely because this field is new in Kenya. I strongly disagree.
Let’s not engage in shadow-boxing. The onus is on the Steadman Group as the entity that conducted and published the opinion poll results, to explain how they conducted and analyzed the polling and who paid for or commissioned the polls. It is a universal concept all over the world that the responsibility is on the one making a claim or advancing a proposition to justify, substantiate or prove their position, claim, theory, and hypothesis.
The onus is not on those challenging the results to present opposing figures in order to debunk the results. Challengers are only required to question. If we are not convinced by the methodology, sampling, analysis or the results, Steadman cannot simply ask us to conduct or commission another poll before we can challenge it. Neither can we simply accept the results because Steadman is the only major polling company in Kenya. Even the argument that the company is fairly young or that opinion polling is fairly new in Kenya does not cut it. We should be able to examine the Steadman record and scrutinize its methods, analysis and results without regard to all these factors.
In my view, the real “reasons” for the latest Steadman Group Poll results are as follows:
• To create unnecessary negative competition among LDP leading figures like Kalonzo Musyoka, Raila Odinga and Musalia Mudavadi. These three are widely believed to be presidential material. They are also regarded to be fairly ambitious, with considerable national following. Hence, the attempt to prematurely thrust Kalonzo as the most popular presidential candidate even before the LDP conducts its own presidential candidate selection is aimed at creating a wedge between the three presidential hopefuls within the party. In declaring Kalonzo the most popular Kenyan presidential material, the poll results were expected and are intended to create pressure from his Eastern Province base, culminating in an expectation that he will be the chosen LDP presidential candidate. This is also supposed to make Kalonzo feel indispensable to LDP. There is a certain level of arrogance that this feeling creates in politicians. The thinking behind the polls is that both Raila and Mudavadi will or may resist the “imposition” of Kalonzo on the party. They are expected to demand democratic internal party selection or election process. It is believed that if Raila, Kalonzo and Mudavadi were to run together, Raila may beat Kalonzo and Mudavadi. Although these are just speculative thoughts, they form the basis of the Steadman poll. Those who “commissioned” the Steadman poll bank on the hope that faced with such a situation, Kalonzo would opt to leave LDP and attempt to run on his own or in association with some other political party. Kalonzo, this thinking goes, would feel cheated. The ultimate result is that LDP would fragment, with the Eastern Province votes (and possibly others) accompanying Kalonzo to the new outfit. With LDP divided, Kibaki would find it much easier to take on LDP or whatever new outfits Raila, Kalonzo or Mudavadi find themselves in. LDP must foil this plan.
• By announcing that Uhuru Kenyatta is the third most popular presidential candidate, Steadman and those behind the polls are calculating in creating a wedge within the ODM. Although Uhuru is the Chairman of Kanu and a prominent member of the ODM, it is widely understood that he has no firm political base. Kanu is currently divided in the middle with Nicholas Biwott laying claim on a significant portion while Uhuru is really Chair of the second portion by virtue of still being accommodated by the Rift Valley Kanu base. However, in the greater Rift Valley, it is William Rutto rather than Uhuru who holds the key to the vast votes. Without the support of Rutto and co., Uhuru would not be a viable presidential candidate. For starters, Uhuru has no significant claim to votes from Central Province. In fact, he cannot even claim to have real support to speak of in his Gatundu South constituency. As long as Kibaki is considered a presidential candidate in 2007 (or any other time presidential elections are held before 2007), Uhuru will not be a major factor in Central and Nairobi Provinces. The calculation is that, presenting both Uhuru and Kalonzo as the “leading” presidential candidates within the ODM will create competition not only between the two of them, but it will also inevitably create negative tensions between LDP and Kanu, within ODM itself, as well as between Kalonzo, Mudavadi, Raila and Uhuru. By cleverly “eliminating” Raila from the list, Steadman intended to either present Raila as the “king maker” - similar to the Kibaki-tosha of 2002 – but it also hoped to create resentment, fear, anxiety or panic in Raila’s supporters or support base in Nyanza, Nairobi, Coast, Western, North Eastern and Rift Valley provinces to the extent where there would be a “demand” for elections within ODM itself to identify the most “popular” presidential candidate. Again, it is up to LDP, Kanu and ODM to frustrate this scheme.
• Although most political analysts and commentators have rarely focused their attention on the possibility of a William Rutto presidential candidature, this is a factor that must be considered. Not factoring in Rutto in any power equation within two years is an analytical folly. First, there is no guarantee that Rutto himself may not garner for the presidency on a Kanu ticket come 2006/7. In any event, no serious presidential candidate from Kanu or the ODM can succeed in the Rift Valley without Rutto’s involvement. Second, simply floating Kalonzo and Uhuru as presidential trying balloons without examining how they will construct their “winning” teams is not just a horrible and incompetent political analysis, it is practically unworkable in the present-day Kenya. Kenyans – post the failed coalition government of Narc – fully understand that any viable political machine must incorporate many political entities. At the very least, a future winning team must represent a national outlook. The outlook must, of necessity, be fairly representative of most regions - with very significant vote-catchers from at least seven provinces - namely, Central, Nyanza, Western, Rift Valley, Nairobi, Eastern and Coast provinces (not exactly in this order). And third, given Rutto’s own recent tensions with Uhuru, it is not entirely speculative to suggest that his support for the Uhuru presidential candidature is not guaranteed. Yet, Steadman completely left the Rutto factor out of its questions.
• Inevitably, the Steadman Poll results have created suspicion among the three political entities (LDP, Kanu and ODM) as well as between its leading lights, Raila, Kalonzo, Mudavadi, Uhuru and Rutto. Who has benefited from these suspicions?
Unlike every reputable public opinion polling group in the Western countries that openly discloses the people or organizations that “commissioned” the polls and the “reasons” why the polls were conducted at the time of releasing the results to the public, Steadman has not disclosed this crucial information. The question is why. Why has Steadman concealed or withheld this important information from the Kenyan public?
Since we all know that whoever commissions a poll plays a significant role on how questions are designed and what results are obtained (after all, the commissioner routinely presents a “global” question to the pollster), it is expected that whoever paid for the Steadman polls had a hand in both the questions and the final results. Why then does Steadman refuse to tell us who the latest poll funders are? For if the funder is a Kenyan political party, it would inform us on how to interpret and view the results. Similarly, if the funders are “interested” persons, organizations or parties, we would also draw our own inferences – negatively or positively.
No opinion polling is conducted entirely on neutral or no political, social or economic ideologies, affiliations, policies, philosophies, et cetera. This would be absurd since polling companies are going concerns which are not just owned by individuals or groups of individuals, the owners are not empty vessels. The Steadman Group is neither an NGO nor a research company funded by the Almighty God.
The Steadman Group definitely had a well-paying client or clients that placed an order on the latest opinion poll. Usually, no polling company would release its results to the public before providing its client or clients with the same. In fact, the poll results are only released with the client’s permission. And clients do not routinely permit poll results that do not support their positions or ends to be released to the public. Which then leads me to ask: who or what did the Steadman poll support? Who gained or stands to gain most from it? Not LDP or ODM. Certainly not Kalonzo, Uhuru, Mudavadi, Rutto or Raila. We know for sure that ordinary Kenyans did not commission the polls.
The mere fact that Steadman has refused to declare who funded its poll itself tells a very intriguing tale, which deserves another essay.
Those who argue that the poll results ought to be to deemed objective because both the government and some elements deemed to support LDP or Kanu or ODM have “attacked” the results is disingenuous. Firstly, I have not seen LDP, Kanu or ODM attack the results. Secondly, I am not sure whether Kenyans trust that the so-called government’s condemnation is genuine. Given this government’s record, I would be suspicious of its vehement attacks. These may prove to be crocodile tears. And thirdly, the mere fact that the poll results are questioned by all sides (assuming that this was true, which it is not) it does not, in itself, make those results “objective.” Objectivity is not determined by the number of sides that support or attack a particular result. How do we know that the Steadman figures are “real” materially? How do we know how the samplings were done or whether Steadman is telling us the truth about this? How do we know that the conclusions Steadman claims it derived from the numbers fairly and objectively represent the views collected? Do we simply trust Steadman? Why should we?
After we boil everything to the bottom (analytically speaking), one has to question the rationale for the poll at this time. If there are no imminent snap elections - as we are loudly told by president Kibaki and his acolytes – why did the Steadman Group purport to ask a very small fraction of Kenyans, whom they believed, from pre-selected names, to be the most popular presidential candidate?
______________________________________________________________________
*The writer is a Barrister & Solicitor in Toronto, Canada
