Odd social science

For many years the IISEPS has been performing the clown show under the name of social science.

Last week the Independent Institute for Social-Economic and Political Studies (IISEPS) published results of a social study. In particular, rates of Belarusian political parties and movements have been disclosed.

I will not dwell into the results of the survey; they were immediately picked up by numerous media and published under the titles Lukashenka’s Rate Grew, Opposition’s Fell.

Meanwhile, a more thorough examination of the questionnaire created on the request of the civil campaign Our Home reveals the social scientists’ careless and unprofessional approach, at least.

Thus, the question “If the parliamentary elections were tomorrow, candidates from what political parties or movements would you vote for?” provides several options of replies, most of them including the name of the movement / party and the last name of its leader (Tell The Truth! – Ul. Niakliaeu, For Freedom – Al. Milinkieich, the Liberal Democratic Party – S. Gaidukievich). But in some other cases, there is only the name of the movement (European Belarus).

The fact that the name of the leader of European Belarus Andrei Sannikov was not included to the list is odd, especially given that the holder of this name was a presidential candidate who, even according to the official results, came second in the recent presidential race.

When a movement / party / civil campaign presents a candidate, it is a common practice when the promotion of the candidate takes the focus from the promotion of the brand. There can be other scenarios, but this is exactly what goes for the European Belarus. Of course, the director of the IIPSES Aleg Manaieu could be unaware of this fact. But as a social scientist, he was definitely aware of the fact that asking respondents to evaluate a name of an organization and a name of an organization plus name of a well-known politician are two different things.

This is not the only odd thing about this odd study. Some opposition groups are simply not included to the rate, like, for example, the organizing committee for the party Belarusian Christian Gramada that also had its candidate. Nor is the Belarusian Social-Democratic Party People’s Gramada with its leader, former presidential candidate Mikalai Statkievich, mentioned in the questionnaire. Statkievich is by far not the last person in the Belarusian politics.

I am not a social scientist. But even for me it is obvious that this is a deliberate and irresponsible manipulation. At the same time, the IIPSES published on its site the information about the alleged decrease in the opposition’s rate under a nasty title Oppositional Avitaminosis.

Social science is a complex science that has its funny moments. For example, one of the previous surveys showed that Belarus’ most popular political party is the Women’s Party Nadzieia that won by a landslide. The party had basically ceased any activity long before the survey was held, and existed only on paper. But the expression “women’s party” sounded good in the respondents’ ears. Belarusian social science experts still remember this anecdote.

But not every inaccuracy turns out to be such a harmless and funny anecdote.

After the parliamentary campaign of 2008, I had a chance to attend the IIPSES’ presentation on the results of that “elections”. Some data presented there made the audience laugh. According to the “study” (I can’t help putting quotation marks), the opposition was more popular in the countryside of Magiliou region than in big cities including Minsk. And the most powerful political force in Belarus, according to the study, was the Party of Labor and Justice, practically unknown and inexistent. When pointed to the faults and inaccuracies, philosopher and futurologist Aliaksandar Sasnou who presented the results shrugged and said calmly: “That’s how the people answered, we don’t know why they answered this way.”

Allegedly 66,1 percent answered “yes” to the question “Did you vote at the elections on September 28, 2008?”. This number stunned even the devoted supporters of voting. Already back then, for me this number became an evidence of the demise of the independent Belarusian social science, at least at the IIPSES. I even stopped reading analytical publications that refer to the IIPSES’ surveys.

A funny coincidence (if coincidence at all): the same number of respondents, 66 something percent, answered positively in the survey on the results of the ”parliamentary elections”. And it is not even about the two-fold difference between the data of the IIPSES and the ODIHR OSCE or the almost three-fold difference between the IIPSES and independent observers. The most important is that the IIPSES’ numbers differ from comrade Yarmoshyna’s with only 7 percent.

Certain events have taken place since the last “parliamentary elections” of 2008. The bloody suppression of the demonstration, the following arrests and tortures of the oppositional candidates that millions of Belarusians voted for, the terrorist attack in the Minsk subway, the economic crisis of 2011 that pushed the nation into poverty, the suppressions of the “silent” protest rallies that got an incredible feedback, thousands of hundreds of Belarusian who left the country searching for job or became political emigrants… All these and many other events definitely affected the people’s trust to the state institutions. However, the IIPSES’ experts together with their respondents obviously happened to have missed that.

And this is not funny at all. Opinion polls are a powerful tool. Their results have a wide range of impact: the activity of political forces; opinions of politicians and experts; the decision-making centers; elaboration of politics in Belarus and regarding Belarus. False and incorrect data result in wrong politics.

It is though interesting that the mythical 66 percent of voters at the election farces, in fact, stand for two thirds of the population, which together with the mythical rate of the democratic forces lets the legion of Lukashenka’s minstrels spread the “Well-Not-All-Is-Good-But-The-Majority-Are-Still -For-Lukashenka” song around the world.

We observe a similar situation with Lukashenka’s rate every five years. Before every voting the dictator’s rate, which normally stays still around 20 percent, suddenly escalates up to the obligatory 40 something percent. This number, too, looks well-based to me; it enables various “experts” to say in future something like “yes, there were falsifications, but Lukashenka has really won because his electorate is more disciplined, while the opposition couldn’t activate their voters”, and so on and so forth.

This pre-election raise of the rate is only possible due to the propaganda machine, artificial increase of the level of life, and other populist methods. Well, everything is indeed crystal clear, although we actually could critically evaluate such high efficiency of all these methods. But it is curious that during the presidential elections 2010, according to the IIPSES, Lukashenka’s rate also soared. Meanwhile, it happened simultaneously with the information war with Russia, the intoxicated “trashing” of the Belarusian dictator by all Russian TV-channels, and the three documentaries “God Batka” shown on the TV, of which at least one was viewed by every second Belarusian, some reports say.

IIPSES director Aleg Manaieu made an interesting comment on the recent fraud of the rates of the political forces:

“All the parties with official registration are on the list. So there can be no complaints. And as for the unregistered parties, it is up to those who make the list to choose who will be included, what they find appropriate and what should be left aside,” he said to Telegraf.by.

Blaming it all on the creators of the questionnaire (the civil campaign Our Home), isn’t it professional? But any of us can do a survey and write down replies via Facebook. The role of a professional social scientist is to formulate a proper question, evaluate the incoming numbers and register the moment when the tool in use stops generating acceptable results.

Social science is complex. Social science in a totalitarian society is three times more complex. This is why, for example, many social scientists are skeptical about credibility of social research in societies with high level of fear. Many respondents are simply afraid to answer.

Deliberate manipulations together with objective obstacles aggravate the situation tremendously.

Aliaksandar Atroshchankau for charter97.org