Dear Editor,
I refer to Walter Jordan’s letter captioned “Pollsters should not express political opinions (07.03.10). Freedom of speech does not end when one becomes a pollster. One can still be a critic or commentator on important issues. Readers look forward to the views of individuals who have distinguished themselves as pollsters or in any other field. Whenever I visit Guyana or walk the streets of New York, people familiar with my writings praise me for my views on issues in addition to rendering compliments for my polling work.
In America, pollsters regularly appear on radio and TV to comment on matters not only relating to their polling. Pollsters such as Zogby of Zogby Polls, Maurice Carroll of Quinnipiac Univ Polls, John Marist of Marist Institute and Polls, Joel Benenson of Benenson Strategy Group, Jon McHenry, of Ayres, McHenry & Associates Inc, Mason Dixon, Dick Morris, Frank Luntz, all are newspaper or magazine columnists or commentators on radio or television; they write about issues not relating to their poll findings. Selwyn Ryan in Trinidad, Trevor Munro and the late Carl Stone in Jamaica, Peter Wickham in Barbados all are or were newspaper columnists commenting on important issues not relating to their polling. Ryan is a weekly columnist in Trinidad Express.
Dick Morris double up as pollster and commentator in the New York Post. Mike Kagay doubles up as pollster and editor of the New York Times. Frank Luntz, who did polling for AFC in Guyana, is a frequent columnist and commentator on American TV.
And there are hundreds more pollsters around the globe who are newspaper columnists. So Jordan is standing on shaky ground when it comes to pollsters penning their views or analysis on important issues.
Nothing debars a pollster from expressing his opinions when he is not polling. There is no revisionism or rewriting of history when it comes to Burnhamism – I penned just the facts as pertains to my recent commentary on Guyana’s republican status. Jordan seeks to deny some harsh realities that occurred under Burnham’s rule. Under Burnhamism, there was only one view – Burnham’s view.
On the issue of our “imperialist link” with Mother England, Guyanese express strong disapproval of the break with the Privy Council. Findings of polls on that issue were published in SN by Dr Baytoram Ramharack of TRPI; NACTA’s findings on the issue can also be found in SN archives. The findings consistently showed Guyanese prefer to return to rule under the British. On a related note, last year when I moved around Guyana polling on which party would win the elections, everywhere people (all ethnic groups) told me they wished America could invade and take over Guyana – so much for Guyanese being anti-imperialist.
Let me also inform Jordan that there is no evidence to attack me as imperialist-minded. But being anti-imperialist does not mean being an idiot. One must be practical and must apply reason, honesty and common sense to issues. Being anti-imperialist does not mean one has to support rigged elections, starve people of their cultural diet, and run a dictatorship. The record would show that while Burnham was advocating anti-imperialism and anti-colonialism he was in bed with the very imperialists – his sponsors. Burnham was a pragmatist and understood how to hold on to power by any means necessary.
It is not demonizing Burnham to say he rigged elections, restricted free speech, banned essential food items, broke from the Privy Council, manipulated the judicial system, illegally broke from England in 1970. These are facts. Burnham’s “tremendous programme of self-reliance in many products” led to mass starvation. There were long lines for basics such as bread and water.
Finally it is an untruth to say that the Privy Council has turned out to be a burden on the back of Caricom. An overwhelming majority of Caricom countries do not want to break from England. Since the Caribbean Court of Appeal was established, only two countries accept its appellate jurisdiction. There is no rush to join it.
Yours faithfully,
Vishnu Bisram
