Lies, damned lies, and opinion polls

Questioning the latest polls out of Afghanistan

Derek Rosin

It is an established principle of international law that any election taking place during a foreign occupation is illegitimate. The reason is obvious enough: the presence of a foreign, hostile army negates a country’s sovereignty and undermines the possibility of free and fair elections. Common sense, right? Why then should we embrace the results of public opinion polls held in the same circumstances?

If you haven’t heard yet, a recent poll has “revealed” that a majority of Afghans support the short-term presence of foreign troops. It’s unlikely that the poll reveals much at all, given its methodology and the context in which it was carried out.

The poll was initiated by the Canadian firm Environics, but it was conducted by D3 Systems. D3, as the Canadian Peace Alliance has pointed out, is well known for providing politically convenient results to its clients, which include NATO. D3, for example, has regularly produced polls that claim that Iraqis say their lives are better since the U.S. invasion. This of course contradicts countless other polls, not to mention common sense.

Afghanistan is not a liberal, pluralistic society where free speech is tolerated. It’s an Islamic theocracy under martial law. The consequences for speaking out against the government can be severe. Interpreters of any poll must keep this in mind.

One problem among many with the poll is the dense concentration of its respondents drawn from the government strongholds of Kabul and Kandahar — the cities where foreign troops are most concentrated. In and around Kabul, U.S. troops have massacred bystanders on highways and shot and killed anti-occupation protesters in the streets. In Kandahar, Canadians have killed civilians for driving too close to their vehicles. Elsewhere, Afghan national police have killed other protesters, and thousands have been killed in NATO air strikes throughout the country. Through their actions, these troops have created a climate of fear. Can we really expect honest responses from people in such a context?

One wonders if pollsters ventured out into Taliban-controlled areas. If they did, they would only have be able to do so under heavily armed guard, the intimidating presence of which surely invalidated the results.

Given these problems, it’s no wonder the poll results themselves are so contradictory. For example, the poll indicated that 74 per cent of respondents want a negotiated settlement with the Taliban, yet, simultaneously, 43 per cent of them want foreign forces to stay until the Taliban is defeated. Huh?

The poll is obviously problematic. We shouldn’t whitewash the deep divisions gripping Afghan society. After all, Taliban rule was a nightmare, and many people in Afghanistan want to prevent its return. This is especially true for the non-Pashtun nationalities, whom the Taliban oppressed severely. Yet hitching their wagon to NATO in the hopes of getting free isn’t likely to succeed. Real sovereignty will not be won this way. This path can only lead to the country’s domination by the oil, gas, mining, and pipeline companies whose interests provide the real reasons for why NATO countries are in Afghanistan at all.

It’s also true, of course, that the occupation itself is causing so much hardship that the insurgency has been able to strengthen itself by drawing from a growing pool of fed-up Afghans. This is the heart of the problem. Neither the Taliban nor the Hamed Karzai government are fit to rule. Both sides are reactionary theocrats — spawned and supported through foreign interventions, including by the U.S., over the past decades. The continuing occupation — and the fighting and factionalism it breeds — is only intensifying this mutually-reinforcing polarization.

Derek Rosin is a recent graduate of the University of Winnipeg.