Dear Editor,
I was reading a letter on October 11, 2007 by the self proclaimed political pollster, Vishnu Bisram and couldn’t help drawing the conclusion that he is unable to separate his ethnic identity from his professional work. The result is reports that have the distinct workings of a person with an agenda to further the interest of candidates of his ethnic origin.
Mr. Bisram was in Trinidad on polling business but if you read his letter one gets the distinct impression that he is attempting to shape the voting minds of the public to fit his desired polling and voting outcome. Surely, if this individual claims to be a professional, he should realize that a legitimate pollster should not be perceived to have any hidden agenda. Instead, the tone of his article on the Trinidadian opposition leader, Mr Panday sounds like the writings of a fan instead of an objective professional.
I have read other letters by Mr Bisram where he directly attempts to manipulate the public’s polling opinions. In another example he advised American based Guyanese to vote for Hillary Clinton instead of Mr Obama since according to him, “she had a better chance at winning.”
Yours faithfully,
Allison Garnett
Editor’s note
We sent a copy of this letter to Mr Bisram for his comments and received the following response:
Garnett begins her letter with a negative describing me as a “self proclaimed pollster”. No one confers or bestows a “title” of pollster on anyone. There isn’t a licence granted to a professional as a pollster like one gets a licence practicing medicine, dentistry or law or to become a teacher (in America where exams must be passed to obtain a teacher’s licence). Thus, in a field like polling, which is a “sub-subject” (Sociology or Political Science) of the social science discipline, the practitioners are self proclaimed pollsters (or experts) and they develop their skill (or reputation) from the success of their polling work – that is if their findings “measure up” according to the actual results of elections. I will let the readers decide if my polling work has “measured” up against the actual results of elections.
Garnett charges that I am unable to separate my ethnic identity from my professional work. I am not sure what is meant by that characterization because she has not specified what she means and exactly how “I am furthering the interests of candidates of my ethnicity”. And just exactly what ethnicity am I she does not say. Ethnically, I am Indian, Hindu, Guyanese, and West Indian and if one were to objectively read my letter published in SN (Oct 11), I did not endorse any party or candidate or call on voters (Indians or Guyanese living in Trinidad) to “support candidates of my ethnicity”.
There are three political parties (ruling PNM and opposition UNCA and COP) contesting the elections in Trinidad and each has a multi-ethnic cast of candidates; in fact each party is about racially balanced in terms of Indians and Africans with Indians contesting “safe” African seats for the PNM and Africans contesting “safe” Indian seats for the UNC. It would be far fetched to claim that my letter can be interpreted as telling Indians or Hindus to vote for Indians or Hindus in the PNM and UNC. At any rate, people hardly vote for candidates; they vote “party line”. Thus, when Indians vote for UNC, they are voting for Indians and Africans and when Indians vote PNM they are voting for Indians and Africans. So any claim that I am influencing people to vote for candidates of my ethnicity lacks merit. It is crystal clear that my letter did not appeal to voters to support Indian or Hindu candidates in Trinidad. It also did not encourage voters to support any particular party (PNM, UNCA, COP).
The letter simply noted that Basdeo Panday, who was written off by political analysts and pollsters (except me) as well as by his PNM and COP opponents has been politically resurrected if ever he was dead following the massive rally on Oct 7. Distinguished political scientists from UWI- Profs John Laguerre, Selwyn Ryan, Bishnu Ragoonath, Hamid Ghany, etc and columnists in the Guardian, Express and Newsday newspapers all commented positively on Panday’s ability to attract one of the largest crowds at a political meeting in the history of Trinidad. No one could explain how Panday was able to pull off such a mammoth gathering that dwarfed the size of the crowds that went to the launching of the candidates for PNM and COP. There was not any subtle or hidden message in the letter commenting on Panday’s political comeback. And at any rate, I doubt very much that large numbers of Indian or Hindu Trinis read SN and would be influenced by what I wrote.
I am no fan of Panday. It should be noted that Panday has described me as an agent of the PNM (certainly that is not a party of my ethnicity since the PNM is perceived as an African party) and he has told a lot of prominent Guyanese that he lost the 2001 and 2002 elections because of my writings. And I have repeatedly written that the PNM will win the coming elections by a landslide including on Oct 14 (SN). It is, therefore, unfair of Garnett to accuse me of “promoting candidates of my ethnicity”.
With regards to Garnet’s critique of my support for Hillary Clinton, Garnet should be informed that Mrs. Clinton is not Indian or Hindu or Guyanese or West Indian. I called on Guyanese (not Indians or Hindus) to support her because she has the best chance of winning the White House and Guyanese I spoke with say they are fed up of the Republican control of the White House. I am not supporting Clinton because she is of the same ethnicity as me; clearly she is not of my ethnicity except that we are both New Yorkers. For the record, She is White Anglo Saxon.
I should inform readers that a poll out last Friday showed Clinton beating the Republican front runner, Rudy Giuliani, 51% to 43% while Barack Obama trails Giuliani. Obama also trails Clinton for the Democratic nomination in all states holding primaries and in national polls (53% to 23%) and his polling numbers have been declining over the last two months. One does not need to be a mathematical genius or a political expert to conclude that it is wiser for Guyanese (indeed all Democrats) to support Hillary instead of Obama if Guyanese want a Democrat to win the White House. If Obama were leading the Democratic pack and beating the Republican presumed nominee for President, I would urge Guyanese to vote for him. There is nothing ethnic in the choice. I make no apology for supporting Clinton. I worked for her husband, Bill, to help him win New York in 1992 and again in 1996 and I worked to help Hillary get elected to the Senate in 2000 and again in 2006. I am not polling for the American presidency and as such I do not see any conflict in backing her for the Democratic nomination and in the general election. And at any rate, even if I were polling, I am professional enough not to allow my liking for Clinton to cloud my objectivity in determining who will win the nomination and the Presidency. Last April I wrote in SN that polls were showing Giuliani beating Clinton for President.”
