Who corrupts the pollsters?

“When the results of public opinion polls is in the interest of a politician, he typically says that he has trust in sociology. If not, he says that all sociologists are corrupt.” Such an opinion was voiced by Director of the Ukrainian Institute for Sociological Research Oleksandr Yaremenko at the recent round table held at The Day. Unfortunately, Ukrainian realities lead us to believe that this statement is true. It should be added that in order to break away from the logic of the so-called Soviet builders of communism (who viewed sociology as imperialism’s whore) and not to be accused of anti sociological orthodoxy politicians often tend to soft-pedal independent negative polls by referring to some restricted studies of public opinion. Until now, this attitude toward sociology has been manifested mostly by the leaders of opposition parties. Lately (see The Day’s story on February 15), the same opinion was shared by Director of the Presidential Administration and leader of the For A United Ukraine election block Volodymyr Lytvyn. True, while the opposition claims that the Presidential Administration has contracts made to order public opinion surveys, the president’s chief of staff perhaps, has his own vision. Regrettably, Mr. Lytvyn did not share it, remarking vaguely that “some will not be happy to see my bloc win the elections.”

Hopefully, Mr. Lytvyn does not regard sociology as a venal science, as he rashly admitted at the press conference. Perhaps, it was his emotional assessment of that host of cases when layman polling services conducted surveys (cooking their results) contracted by easily distinguishable political forces or candidates. All this prompts a big question about who corrupted sociologists during earlier elections by using survey results as a tool to fight political opponents. Was it the opposition? For example, during the Kaniv Four saga (when four presidential candidates teamed up to oppose Leonid Kuchma — Ed.) Oleksandr Moroz and Oleksandr Tkachenko tried to convince their voters that, according to some restricted surveys known only to them, they got was 15 to 17%. Whether they believed such data themselves is their own problem, but there was someone who fed this information to them.

Quite probably (and this version seems to be true) the Lytvyn statement was a wake-up call to the local authorities spurring them to step up their campaign efforts. Incidentally, meeting on the next day with the Pravda Ukrayiny newspaper staff, www.SMI.ru reports citing UNIAN, Mr. Lytvyn stated that, according to a public opinion poll, 25% of Ukrainians will support the existing regime under any circumstances, and since the For a United Ukraine block is the party of power, “there is every reason to believe that it will score a high percentage of votes in the election.” He mentioned that his bloc ran its own public opinion survey which encompassed 25,000 Ukrainians. According to its results, Mr. Lytvyn continued, “There is every reason to suggest that our bloc will gather at least 14 to 15% of the vote,” adding that the bloc representatives refrain from referring to this data too often not to make campaign workers prematurely move into lower gear. Incidentally, according to the same www.SMI.ru, during parliamentary elections in Russia Our Home-Russia and Yabloko fell victim to illusory survey results by polling agencies working under contract with their opponents. More specifically, NDR leader Ryzhkov Jr. said that ratings should not be trusted as they are part of mudslinging campaigns. Having bought the story of a 15 to 20% vote forecast to him by private sociologists, Mr. Yavlinsky began to see himself as prime minister. But how much of the vote was scored by the NDR and who in Ukraine knows Russia’s Premier Yavlinsky?

With so many cases of juggling public opinion polls occurring in ten years of Ukraine’s independence and faced with clashing survey results, unsophisticated Ukrainian might feel an aversion to sociology. It is with this in mind that The Day yet again is telling its readers that an association of professional sociologists, the Sociological Association of Ukraine, has been created, with membership serving as a hallmark of quality for any sociological structure. The SAU has already confirmed accreditation to the Institute of Sociology of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology, the Ukrainian Institute for Social Research, the Social Monitoring Center, the Socis Company, the Department of Sociology at the Karazin Kharkiv National University, the East Ukrainian Foundation for Social Research, and the Sociopolis Center. Keeping their good name is a guarantee of the professionalism and impartiality of these firms, something which is the backbone of their existence as clients are unlikely to deal with a firm whose reputation was tainted.

Oleksandr YAREMENKO, Director, Ukrainian Institute for Social Research

“As a sociologist, I am gravely concerned with what is happening to Ukraine’s sociological services on the eve of the elections. First, there is a large number of polling services that conduct made-to-order surveys rigging their results. For the man in the street it is difficult to distinguish between objective and distorted information, the more so that some information is deliberately withheld, with some part presented objectively and the other in the light that favors the survey contractors. On the other hand, such practices impede the work of the sociological services accredited with the Sociological Association of Ukraine. The poll conducted jointly by our institute and the Social Monitoring Center indicates that, as of February 10, 4.4% of pollsters support the For A United Ukraine bloc. Under the same poll, the ratings of all political parties and blocs sank, with the exception of Our Ukraine and the Social Democrats, SDPU(o). We attribute this to the lack of advertising, organizational problems, and build-up of resources. A 20% vote for our parties seems to me to be ephemeral. Despite the fact that voter support for Our Ukraine is reaching this mark, I have doubts that it will be finally cleared. A growth of support for the bloc Lytvyn leads is very likely because they have so far done little promotion. Recall how Women for the Future’s popularity skyrocketed only due to sound election campaigning.

Mykola SHULHA, Doctor of Sciences in sociology, Deputy Director of the Institute of Sociology, President of the Sociological Association of Ukraine:

We have to take into account several aspects. Are we justified to have grudges against those who pass themselves off as sociologists? Of course, we are, because they are just sham researchers given to lying for the sake of stuffing their pockets with money. The sociologists united by the SAU are a different group, and describing what they are doing in humiliating terms would be wrong. I hate to indulge in slinging mud back taking potshots at Lytvyn, but I am certain that Volodymyr Lytvyn, Corresponding Member of the Academy of Sciences and, incidentally, a former researcher of the Institute of the History and Philosophy of Law to which I belong, was too emotional. This is evidence that we have to promote legal awareness and care for public morals. I am frustrated to hear politicians talk in such a matter of fact way about using their office to enhance their election chances. To me this is a brazen violation of the law.