On the Credibility of Polls in Iran

In the lead-up to the presidential elections, there is hardly a day when Iranian media does not publish a new poll regarding the chances of candidates and their percentage of votes, or fluctuations among undecided voters and those who will not participate in the elections. The comparison of figures published by the media often reveals significant discrepancies among the results of these polls. While similar electoral polls in other countries typically show considerable convergence, with differences rarely exceeding 3 or 4 percent, a crucial question arises: how much can we trust these electoral polls in Iran? Another question is whether electoral polls hold the same credibility in all countries, or if the specific political conditions of each society can affect the quality and credibility of a poll. Polling is a common tool in today's world for studying public opinion and policymaking. The role of this method in significant political events such as elections has become very important and influential, to the extent that some critics argue that polls act more as guides to public opinion rather than reflections of it. The credibility of a poll is not solely related to its technical aspects (the polling method). In other words, the precise adherence to and systematic execution of a poll, like all other forms of quantitative fieldwork, is a necessary condition for its credibility, but it is not sufficient on its own, as such tools are directly related to the context and conditions of the society in which they are employed. If the data collected in a poll does not reflect the true opinions and votes of the people for any reason, its credibility is severely diminished. Political polling, which is a general and quantitative study of a sample of the entire population at a specific moment, requires a vital necessity for trust and a fear-free and doubt-free environment in society due to its methodological fragility and the potential for error. In countries where there is no open political space, the likelihood that people will refrain from expressing their opinions in public due to fear of government and security punishment cannot be overlooked. In fact, the most significant reason that can undermine the credibility of a systematic poll in the political domain is the lack of democracy and the absence of an open political space. For example, in a country with an authoritarian regime, conducting polls about the rulers and their policies, even if all the precise criteria of a poll are observed, still cannot reflect the true opinions of the people. Fear of the security consequences of a clear expression of opinion can deter individuals from participating in polls or lead to incorrect, hypocritical responses, or an unusual increase in options like 'I am unsure' or 'I do not know.' This fear and reluctance to express one's opinion can exist to varying degrees, and not all issues are equally influenced by political conditions. Another structural reason that makes polling difficult in non-democratic countries is the absence or weakness of political and civil organizations that represent various opinions and trends in society. The public's inclination towards these groups (right-wing parties, far-right, moderate left, radical left, etc.) creates a kind of relative stability in public opinion, which, although subject to significant changes over time, does not exhibit remarkable fluctuations in the short term (for example, during a specific election period). Another obstacle that complicates polling is the lack of tradition in this work and the absence of independent, credible organizations that conduct polls. In countries with a long history of polling, where the use of this method is part of the political culture of society, a kind of trust in recognized polling organizations has also developed, and the preparation of statistical samples and the implementation of surveys are carried out with greater accuracy and delicacy. This stability in the short term and the relative transparency of the political space allows individuals to express their opinions more easily about their demands, political figures, parties, or their programs. In countries where there are no well-established political parties and organizations, and the political space is chaotic and ambiguous, public opinion is also less stable, and individuals can easily change their opinions, making polling more difficult. The use of polling in Iran has significantly increased over the past two decades. However, many polling centers are affiliated with official institutions, which raises serious doubts about the honesty and impartiality of the polls and the credibility of their results. The Iranian Student Polling Center (ISPA), affiliated with the Jihad University, the Research Center of the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting, the Research Center of the Islamic Consultative Assembly, the Basij, the Ministry of Intelligence, and the Polling Center of the Presidential Institution are among the government polling centers in Iran. Alongside these official institutions, some independent private centers or organizations located abroad (such as IPOP, IPZ) also conduct polls at various times. What can be said in an initial comparison with open and democratic countries about the working methods of these institutions is the lack of transparency and clarity in their methodological data for judging their credibility. The criteria used for constructing and processing the sample population are not always clearly stated. Another fundamental problem with polls in Iran is the impact of the political public space and the fear and distrust of individuals regarding the quality and credibility of the results. Insecurity in polling does not only affect those who respond to questionnaires but also threatens those conducting the polls. For example, if the results of a poll do not please the authorities for any reason, it can lead to repercussions and punishment. The well-known poll by the Future Research Institute in 2002 regarding relations with the United States and the arrest of Abbas Abdi, Hossein Ghazian, and Behrouz Garanpayeh is remembered by all. According to this poll, 74 percent of the Iranian people supported negotiations with the United States, and since this topic contradicted Iran's official policy, it caused a significant uproar and led to severe judicial repercussions and the conviction of the poll's officials on charges of 'forging polls' and 'spying for the U.S.' The political responses to polls serve as a kind of security warning for institutions and encourage them to self-censor or consider the security aspects of polling results. Governmental or independent polling institutions know that entering prohibited political areas carries the constant risk of security and judicial repercussions. In a country like Iran, polling, even in its scientific, academic, or commercial aspect, is considered a political act and is subject to the same limitations faced by the political world. The significant discrepancies in the figures and statistics of the announced polls stem from the instrumental use of public opinion surveys and manipulation in sampling or results. In the last presidential election, the votes of candidates sometimes differed by as much as twenty-five percent, depending on which organization conducted the poll, with results often favoring one candidate or another. Finally, it should be noted that the instrumental use of polls, especially by polling institutions affiliated with official bodies (or commissioned by government entities), often serves the purpose of psychological warfare against this or that group or individual. A review of the polls published during the last two presidential elections indicates a sometimes serious gap between the announced votes and the poll results. The lack of independent, credible polling centers in Iran that can serve as a reliable reference for measuring public opinion is a result of the chaotic current market. This situation causes many to rightly view the results of polls with skepticism, and the practical application of such tools loses its credibility in public opinion.