Dear Editor,
The objective of a party is to win an election. So a party has to utilize means (democratic of course) to maximize the number of votes obtained in order to win an election. In the modern era of electoral politics, parties, even in Third World societies (like Jamaica, Trinidad, Grenada, etc.), hire consultants (strategists) or political scientists to guide their campaigns and they conduct opinion polls (from at least two different pollsters and have a series of polls done) to gauge popular support. In this way, they can plan and adjust strategies and or take corrective measures to win the election.
In Guyana, political parties, for their own reasons, don’t place much value or emphasis on consultants, pollsters or independent strategists. In fact, one of the leading figures of a party told me that polls, strategists, and political scientists are “a waste of time”. A political scientist is an expert in his field not much different from say a cardiologist or a dentist or architect being an expert in his field. Would we say a cardiologist or a dentist or architect is a waste of time? Only in Guyana such a view prevails! In Guyana, everyone, particularly politicians, is a political expert and a pollster too. They know everything and have the solution for every problem. They don’t ask how much support they have. They tell you how much support they have.
Dismissing the importance of a political expert in Guyanese society is cultural. Social Science researchers (in field studies) have pointed out that parents want their children to study the natural sciences or law or engineering. Indians, in particular, want their children to become doctors, dentists, engineers and lawyers. You would hardly find Indians in universities studying social sciences. In fact, when I was a student at CCNY during the late 1970s, my peers Baytoram Ramharack, Vassan Ramracha and myself were the only ones majoring in political science. (I first completed a BS in Bio-Chem and then did a major in Poli Sci before pursuing a MA in International Relations). In our Indo-Club, our colleagues used to refer to the three of us as “idiots” for studying political science, telling us there would be no future for us in that field. They told us that one does not have to study politics to become a politician, pointing out that no Indo-politician actually studied politics. They were right – jobs are/were not readily available for Caribbean political scientists and we became teachers. No one cared for our service or our political expertise. But they did use our opinion polls (TRPI and NACTA) when it suited their purpose.
Consultants don’t work by guess or make decisions in committees or by consensus. They study the electorate and track focus groups in order to determine relevant issues of importance. They carry out their task scientifically. Political consultants have become the architects of campaign strategy everywhere, except Guyana. They order opinion polls (conducted by pollsters). The strategists (consultants, political scientists) look at the findings and construct plans that will win over voters. The pollsters determine the issues of interest to voters and the strategists draft proposals which parties present to the electorate to appeal to undecided voters or to get voters to switch from one party to next. Planning strategies is not about satisfying one’s ego; they are about winning the elections. If it means reversing a policy to capture vote, a political party has to do it since the goal is to win an election. In Guyana, some politicians are stubborn and may pay a price on elections day especially since the NACTA poll is showing a closely fought election.
Consultants help parties develop advertisements, shape campaign messages, write speeches, tell politicians what to say so that they won’t get into trouble with the electorate for misstatements. Notice which party has been making more mistakes!
I do not know if the ruling party has consultants or pollsters. Everyone I queried said no. I am told the opposition coalition has the benefit of consultants from US, Canada, and Jamaica. Not surprisingly, they have been running an effective campaign, making virtually no major blunder. They announce policies to win over young Indians because they recognize the outcome of the election will be decided by a group of Indians who are thinking of voting for the opposition. Consultants study Indians and recognize what young Indian professionals and businesses want and they make promises to them: cut the duties on imports of vehicles, lower the VAT, lower bridge toll, give soft loans. None of these proposals will actually pan out because they are impossible. But voters like to hear these things even if they will not be delivered. As an illustration, in Trinidad, Manning was advised to pull back a housing tax. He was told voters were up in arms against his tax and he would lose if he did not pull it back. He would not back down. The opposition promised to reverse the tax. Manning lost by a landslide; the new government wants to impose the same tax to meet a revenue shortfall.
Consultants and pollsters guide and advise politicians where to hunt for votes. But all that the advisors and consultants can do is to offer guidance. They cannot force the client to accept the advice. Ultimately, the politician makes the decision. Often, politicians make bad decision as Manning did. The worst politician is the one who is his own advisor and consultant just like the worst legal client is the one who is own advisor and lawyer.
It is most unfortunate that Guyanese politicians are not using the expertise of objective political scientists, especially those who may be generally sympathetic to their cause. But such is the nature of politics in a third world setting – if you are not completely with us, you are against us. There is almost zero tolerance for objectivity and or scientific polling.
Yours faithfully,
Vishnu Bisram
