The Cadres Nation-commissioned poll, published in the September 30 Sunday Sun, did not provide any information which runs counter to what has been discernible from anecdotal evidence gleaned from informal public comment, the blogs, the traditional Pess and even calypsos.
As such, there is little to suggest that Peter Wickham’s poll is not an accurate reading of the public mood.
Despite this, the reactions of politicians and political operatives to the poll have thus far been predictable. Given the broad observations about a preferential six per cent swing towards the Opposition Barbados Labour Party (BLP), it was expected that governing party operatives would dismiss the poll and attack the pollster.
Significantly, the BLP has not issued an official comment on the poll, perhaps out of a desire to avoid premature triumphalism. The BLP’s one reaction, thus far, has been Mia Mottley’s emphatic denial of a lingering leadership dispute.
This was a response to the poll’s observation of continuing public concerns over BLP disunity. Given the hesitancy of voters, Mottley no doubt felt it incumbent upon herself to allay lingering suspicions of a divided party.
I will not seek to engage in a criticism of the poll’s methodology. The limitations of swing analysis are well known. Particularly, while swing analysis may provide broad generalizations about national shifts, and indicate the general mood of the country in terms of preferences for parties, leaders and attitudes about levels of satisfaction with the manner in which the country is being governed, there are several detailed internal constituency nuances and peculiarities which can only be captured by more indepth polling of specific constituencies.
On the other hand, however, since Peter as pollster is insistent on the professionalism and objectivity of his work and its results, he would no doubt be mindful that his own role as political activist and with weekly aired views on his own personal leadership preferences and ideological viewpoints, will encourage the Barbadian public to place him at the centre of the poll’s “story-line”.
In this sense, therefore, as a pollster he should not be too “hurt” by public suspicion about his “intent” since he has always worn his politics openly on his sleeve.
Whilst his polls are conducted in as scientific a manner as resources may allow, close scrutiny is therefore paid to the “interpretive” comment which accompanies his published data, and it is there that public suspicions are pricked. One such instance – and there are others – is the large significance which Peter places on the views of “uncommitted voters” in identifying a preference for an alternative leader.
What made the views of this cohort so important is not revealed.
One technique of social science research is to identify one’s preferences up front, thus pointing the reader to potential pitfalls. Peter’s polls should include a brief statement of his biases, and further strengthen his admirable work.
• Tennyson Joseph is a political scientist at the University of the West Indies, Cave Hill Campus, specializing in regional affairs. Email [email protected]
