POLITICIANS AND NOT POLLSTERS HAVE A DIABOLICAL CONTROL OVER THE MINDS OF THE MASSES.

Poll opinions, especially in the form of pre-election polling are standard tools for the political class as well as numerous organizations and business firms concerned with mass public opinion. This is how we ought to understand them. Indeed, this is how poll opinions are understood the world over. But the same cannot be said of Kenya. Here, the public is continually inundated with harsh criticisms against pollsters. Politicians will almost always challenge the appropriateness as well as the validity of opinion polls, whenever such findings are not boding well with their political desires.

They would accuse professional pollsters of having a tendency of the casual mind which, stumbling upon a sample which supports or defines their (pollsters`) prejudices; they would not hesitate to make it a representative of a whole population. Some politicians have even opined that pollsters are used as agents for influencing people’s attitudes and behavior especially in political contests. In other words, they see poll opinions as effective political propaganda tools.

Yet if the same politicians were to be told that they were leading in the court of public opinion they would celebrate and hail it (poll) as a barometer of the prospective general election. At no time would they pour cold water on the poll nor would they declare it a straw poll.

In tenaciously clinging to the view that poll opinions exercise diabolical control over the voters` minds politicians will be exhuming the long discounted theoretical framework of uniform media effects. Consequently, to allege without any empirical evidence whatsoever that opinion polls can influence masses to favor a political faction that seems to be enjoying a notable popularity at the time is a little short of flaunting ones ignorance.

According to Paul Lazarsfeld, even though the mass media (of which poll opinions are part and parcel of) is very influential in awareness creation, it has very minimal effect on changing people’s attitudes and behavior. People vote based on ethnic considerations as well as socio-economic predispositions, hence media’s role is minimal and accounts for very little if any conversions.

In his research on persuasion, Carl Hovland further corroborated Lazarsfeld`s view when his research on persuasion brought to an end the era of the viability of the powerful media effects theory. Much effort was instead directed at finding the magic keys to persuasion. Today, many scholars in the communication field hold the view that politicians as opinion shapers hold these keys. This is because the word of mouth is more powerful than an opinion poll; hence a politician only needs to be eloquent enough to win over people and put them at his disposal. Politicians also mediate media messages, churn propaganda and counter arguments which serve to remove or dilute the partisan doubts and to refute the opposition’s arguments which the voter encounters in exposure to media. This creates security, stabilizes and solidifies voters’ intention, and translates into actual votes or desired actions. This is what happened before, during and after the 2007 Post Election Violence.

From the foregoing, it is incorrect for a section of the political class to opine that people are incited to violence or unwittingly change their attitudes and behavior in support of a faction that is enjoying a roller-coaster courtesy of the pollsters.

As for the appropriateness of the polls, it is incumbent upon the political class to understand that scientific polling is not a matter of lottery. Here, proper techniques are employed and the sample is representative hence the results obtained are close to the results one would get if the entire population was to be surveyed. This means that if 46 percent of the sample surveyed thinks that a certain politician is the likely candidate to win the presidency, statistical theory can corroborate that even if the whole population was to be surveyed, the probability is 95 percent that between 44 to 48 percent of the people would express the same approval as the sample.

Politicians must also be advised that pollsters only tell them which way the cat is jumping. It is upon politicians themselves to take care of the cat. Put in a different way, it is the work of politicians to sway public opinion in their own favor. They should therefore start by asking why polls seem unfavorable to them. This should then be followed by clear strategies that would see them try to sway voters in their favour. Unless, of course, they are not equal to the challenge, and they have therefore resigned to letting public-opinion poll be a substitute for thought.

In the event that politicians have qualms with the poll findings then the prudent thing for them to do is to engage other polling experts to carry out a similar exercise. It is doubtable whether gagging pollsters will in any way prolong the careers of politicians rather it will only portray them as people who do not espouse the fundamentals of scientific methodology which by and large, is anchored in logical reasoning and empirical objectivity. Furthermore, such a move is unconstitutional as it will only serve to roll back the democratic gains that this country has so far achieved.