Congratulations to the Himalmedia team for initiating a culture of public opinion polls in Nepal. Although they aren't 100 percent and come with several caveats, the polls can give us a baseline hypothesis and be helpful in the deliberations. In 'Listen to us' (#292) you have done a good job in simplifying the results for the general reader. Plus, not going overboard with the numbers and sending a balanced message should allow the results to be discussed carefully within a measured context on radio, tv and by analysts.
We have seen enough punditry from just about everyone on all sorts of crucial issues with grave consequences. Sometimes we tend to engage in a holier-than-thou attitude. Thus these opinion polls can put a set of parameters on such debates and give us better deliberations. Extreme slogans and unsubstantiated claims have torn us apart and it is quite refreshing to see that the Nepali people are more 'sophisticated' than we give them credit for.
The people of Nepal have spoken loudly that violence does not win people's hearts and minds. They have shown no interest in the extremes-of either the right or left variety. This is a triumph for democracy and freedom. There is perhaps a lesson for all of us while we grope around for solutions. The 1 February move has been a complete failure and yet the people are still not with the Maoists and their extreme agenda. But this may not last forever. The country has seen enough carnage and is being pushed towards isolation, and the king should take a note of it. What is he going to do about it? The ball is in his court.
Alok K. Bohara, PhD
University of New Mexico, USA
. The Himalmedia Public Opinion Poll (# 292) raises a few methodological questions. How was the 'stratified random sample' drawn? Almost all of the questions asked are highly sensitive even for surveys in normal times. Thus, rapport-building between the enumerator and respondent would be absolutely crucial. In the present circumstances when the people, both in rural areas and small towns, are caught between the Maoists and security forces, they have only learnt to remain tight-lipped. What miracle methodology for rapport building was used so that people suddenly decided to fully open up their mind and mouth to the visiting stranger? Since many of the specific alternative choices in the response could more logically belong to 'multiple choice' type, how did the enumerator decide that a given respondent meant only one answer and not more than one?
A 'sample' in Nepal is bound to include a large number of illiterate and uneducated respondents even as the questions and their choices of responses are highly esoteric in nature. Even in normal situations, such questions would need lots of patient explaining to such respondents to make sure that the answers being given are 'valid'. How was this problem handled? How were the enumerators taught to stay away from the element of 'suggestion' when formulating the questions for uninitiated respondents? In such statistically significant exercises, it is necessary to share with the readers the degree of 'standard deviation' and 'margin of error' both of which have gone unreported.
Given the fact that Himalmedia has been highly politically biased against the king and in favour of the corrupt politicians, the latter having been squarely responsible for Nepal's democratic debacle of the 1990s, it would be a fair question to ask how much of 'doctoring' of the responses was involved to make the 'poll findings' consistent with its political prejudice?
Unlike in the west where people are mostly urban, educated, highly exposed to both print and electronic media and have a long tradition of poll taking, its problems would be vastly different in a traditional social context like that in Nepal. If the problems that it implied were not properly addressed for a highly sensitive exercise of political poll taking, it would amount to a gross misuse of methodologies of social science.
Bihari Krishna Shrestha,
Kathmandu
