RE: SOMALILAND OPINION SURVEY-HARGEISA DISTRICT

 

The mission statement of the International Republican Institute reads: “A nonprofit, nonpartisan organization, IRI advances freedom and democracy worldwide by developing political parties, civic institutions, open elections, democratic governance and the rule of law.” On face value, it is a nob le mission and it encapsulates the aspirations of those societies struggling to break off the shack les of totalitarianism; the dream of all nascent democracies in a utopian world.



As an institution engaged in the advancement of freedom and democracy via grass roots partici pation in the political process, good governance, the rule law, and the fundamental rights of the individual, the International Republican Institute should be cognizant that these lofty ideals are s ubject to modifications to adapt to the cultural norms of the intended beneficiaries.



Having stated that, I would like to make a few comments on the above mentioned opinion survey:



Between September28th – October 8th 2011, the local outfit of the International Republican Inst itute conducted what it called “Somaliland Opinion Survey-Hargeisa District” to gauge the political pulse of the nation and conversely the approval rating of the current Somaliland government.



At first glance, the title is misleading, and therefore, it defeats the intended purpose of the surve y. The public opinion of the general population in the Capital region and its environs is not a true reflection of the national mood by any stretch of the imagination. The population of Hargeisa regi on constitutes a mere 40%-45%. The other 55%-60% live in the other FIVE regions of Somaliland. The analysis of this unrepresentative sample of the population can neither be conclusive nor can it be extrapolated to reflect the rest of the country.



In this endeavour, we can surmise that the International Republican Institute is acting as a hired Public Relations firm on behalf of the government of Somaliland.



The interpretation of the results of a survey whose information gathering methodology is not up to the universally accepted guidelines of opinion polls, leads to faulty conclusions.



The pollsters presented us a mixed survey- a jurisdictional mix up of two levels of government. Some parts of the questionnaire deal with the Municipal Level, while other parts deal with the Na tional government. A margin of error of +/- 4% requires a random sample size of 1000 individuals at the conventional 95% level confidence; a margin of error of +/- 1% may require a population sample of 10,000 persons; cost and time constraints prohibit that kind of survey in Somalia. However, to lend the survey some semblance of nationwide credibility, a sample of 1200 distribu ted among the six regions on the basis of the demographics of the previous election results, wou ld have given completely different picture.



It is an established fact in opinion polls that wording of the question is one of the major sources of bias: The order of the questions, the number of times the same question with a different set of answers is repeated, etc influences the outcome of the poll.



In the section of the survey on the Government’s ability to provide services, let us evaluate the possible effect of question wording on the probable responses:



“I am going to read to you a list of things that the government could try to do. For each one, ple ase tell me whether you think it is a very high priority, a priority, a low priority or not a priority at all. Please keep in mind that there is not enough money for the government to do everything at once.”



The sentence “Please keep in mind that there is not enough money for the government to do eve rything at once” renders the whole survey completely irrelevant and hence, all conclusions based on these results are deemed inconsequential.



Granted that the team at the helm of the International Republic Institute is well aware of the fact that the cascading Clan card stifled the morphing of sense of nationalism in the African continent, why the CLAN affiliation is factored into the respondent’s demographic information in this survey? Isn’t this contrary to the letter and the spirit of the mission statement of the Institute? The inclu sion of the Clan element in the survey is not by accident; it is a deliberate attempt to erase the achievements of Somaliland.


For the past eleven years, the regional governments imposed on Southern Somalia an unworkable power sharing formula based on 4.5 clans. The net result has been: a failed state, a fragmented and disintegrated society uncontrollably spiraling towards oblivion. I hope the objectives of the architects of this pseudo-survey are of a different mindset..