Surveys Without Scientific Value

An institute named Iran Poll has published the results of its survey titled "Consequences and Results of Hassan Rouhani's Re-election." According to this survey, Qassem Soleimani has the favorable opinion of 61% of Iranians, followed by Mohammad Javad Zarif at 43% and Hassan Rouhani at 39%. There are other points in this survey that I will address below. Such surveys conducted by institutions outside the country have problems that undermine their scientific value. The most important of these problems include: conducting surveys in closed and authoritarian societies where individuals are tortured, raped, and killed for merely participating in peaceful street protests, and are held in solitary confinement for months for expressing their opinions. How can one expect that respondents will answer political questions from unreliable institutions honestly and faithfully, especially when interviewees are primarily elderly individuals living in non-metropolitan areas? The phenomenon of surveying is feasible in a society where people are exposed to news and information (media freedom) and can freely express their opinions both individually and collectively (freedom of parties, expression, and assembly), without incurring heavy costs for doing so, and where there is no security-based public intimidation. All four conditions are absent in Iranian society. If a polling institute claims that these conditions are met in Iran, one must doubt the professionalism and experience of their work as it denies obvious realities. Surveys in closed and authoritarian societies on political and security issues are fundamentally meaningless and do not testify to any reality. People neither see options before them to choose from, nor can they shape their opinions in a process, nor do they feel secure enough to express them. In topics that do not have any political sensitivity (preference for living in a city or village), scientific surveys may be possible, but when we step into the realm of the rulers' sensitivities, the possibility of measuring opinions drops to zero. If you ask Iranians about their preference between using internet taxis and non-internet taxis, there may still be a concern in their minds that "perhaps a security or military institution is conducting this survey" because there are many rumors that internet taxi services in Iran belong to IRGC members. In a society where due to the lack of media freedom and the people's distrust of them, rumors are one of the most important channels for disseminating and acquiring information, scientific surveys become impossible or very difficult. Imagine someone from abroad calling an Iranian and asking for their opinion about the U.S. government or its foreign policy. What percentage of Iranians feel free enough to express their opinion about the U.S. government to the questioner? In this regard, the results of the Gallup survey regarding the popularity of U.S. leadership in Iran (which assessed it as 12% positive and 61% negative) have no scientific value whatsoever. Surveys conducted by foreign institutions regarding the popularity or unpopularity of the nuclear program also fall under the same judgment. In a society where individuals are tortured, raped, and killed for participating in peaceful street protests and are held in solitary confinement for months for expressing their opinions, how can one expect that respondents will answer political questions from unreliable institutions honestly and faithfully, especially when interviewees are primarily elderly individuals living in non-metropolitan areas? The inability of independent polling institutions to operate in Iran means that face-to-face or in-home polling by independent polling institutions, especially those based outside (without government connection), does not exist. The government treats these institutions as "opinion makers" or threats to national security, and there are no signs of a change in this attitude. Essentially, polling in Iran is the absolute domain of security institutions, and the ruling body considers it a matter related to national and internal security. In this context, any institution inside that conducts polling for foreign institutions is accused and suspected unless it works with security agencies and is trusted by them. In some circles, I have encountered managers or researchers from some of these institutions who claim that their surveys are conducted inside and that they have offices in Iran, but they must answer the fundamental question of why some independent institutions, especially offices of institutions based abroad, cannot operate and their researchers and managers are arrested and imprisoned while some can work freely. Those who can work in Iran and have offices must have obtained permits for their work (one cannot even open a juice shop in Iran without a permit, let alone a polling institute). Those who claim to work in Iran and have offices must explain the process and conditions under which they obtained their permits. Answers to these questions are not provided on the information bases of such institutions. Problems with telephone contact These surveys are usually conducted via telephone calls. If pollsters do not inform individuals about which institution they are calling from and where they are calling from, they commit a lack of transparency, which undermines their work. However, if they are transparent and disclose this information, they put the respondent at a crossroads of honesty and dishonesty. This situation is exacerbated, especially in political and security matters. If you ask individuals about their preference between chelo kebab and ghormeh sabzi, they will respond honestly without any hesitation. However, given that all Iranians know their phones, especially in calls to foreign countries, are likely being tapped (and even if they are not, this perception exists), how can one expect them to answer honestly on issues involving political, military, and security officials? The problem of lack of transparency Surveys in closed and authoritarian societies on political and security issues are fundamentally meaningless and do not testify to any reality. People neither see options before them to choose from, nor can they shape their opinions in a process, nor do they feel secure enough to express them. In topics that do not have any political sensitivity (preference for living in a city or village), scientific surveys may be possible, but when we step into the realm of the rulers' sensitivities, the possibility of measuring opinions drops to zero. These surveys have so many technical and methodological problems that if they were to express them transparently, they would disqualify themselves from benefiting. For example, Iran Poll does not state what percentage of respondents refrained from answering their questions. If an institution does not disclose its type of contact in the final report, it has forfeited its credibility. The survey mentioned at the beginning of the article does not specify whether its contacts were in-person or by phone. In a survey, it is important to note whether respondents were contacted on their landline or mobile phone, and this detail is absent in Iran Poll. Most of these surveys do not present their methodologies transparently to the Iranian scientific community so that their work can be compared with others. Another problem for these institutions is the hidden nature of all or part of their funding sources. Technical problems The sample population of this survey consisted of 1,000 people. The experience of independent polling institutions in Iran in the 1990s showed that this number is not reliable for a national survey. In national surveys of values and attitudes of Iranians conducted by the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance in the 1990s, the sample size was over fifteen thousand people. In political surveys, even at the level of Tehran, samples were mostly over 1,500 people. The exact wording of the questions from the interviewees has not been published in Persian, so it is impossible to judge them. Surveys with very "clean" results In these kinds of surveys, we constantly encounter opinions that are representative of the Islamic Republic's propaganda apparatus, such as the prevalence of anti-American sentiment, support for interventionist policies in Syria, and the popularity of military and security figures. Figures who fall out of favor with the regime suddenly and without any specific reason (likely due to opposition to Khamenei's views) see their popularity plummet. If a survey does not reflect any criticism or opposition to the current state of the country and does not inquire about any rival viewpoints, its trustworthiness and credibility must be questioned. The usual practice of these kinds of surveys is that they are first published abroad and then all their results are published uncensored inside. Even the government's propaganda apparatus welcomes them. Surveys from institutions like Iran Poll are so politically "clean" that it seems the leadership ordered them and the soft war officers conducted them. Anyone who spends just one day in Iran taking a taxi, going to a hair salon, attending a family gathering, and walking a few steps in the streets will observe public dissatisfaction with the current situation. For example, in the Iran Poll survey, which claims to have been conducted at three points before, during, and after the elections, part of the public opinions has been completely omitted, and mainly official viewpoints have been reflected. In these kinds of surveys, we constantly encounter opinions that are representative of the Islamic Republic's propaganda apparatus, such as the prevalence of anti-American sentiment, support for interventionist policies in Syria, and the popularity of military and security figures. Figures who fall out of favor with the regime suddenly and without any specific reason (likely due to opposition to Khamenei's views) see their popularity plummet. This survey indicates that Ahmadinejad's popularity has dropped from 60% before the elections to 25%. The only event that has occurred for him is his disqualification for candidacy in the presidential elections by the Guardian Council. Can the disqualification by the Guardian Council have such an effect on the popularity of a political figure? Such a Guardian Council must have very high popularity among the people of Iran, which is not the case. The set of responses arranged for these kinds of surveys directly reflects the views of the regime's security institutions and the ruling military body of Iran: concerns about worsening economic conditions, support for increasing defense capacities, confidence in government institutions, and satisfaction with the current political conditions. These views are assumed in the Iran Poll survey. Why are invalid surveys conducted? The final question that this article must answer is why these surveys are conducted if they are not scientific. First, there are various markets, one of which is the market of science. The market for political advertising and selling opinions as public sentiment has much more prosperity than the market for scientific polling. The Islamic Republic has learned well how to use various methods that are considered legitimate by the public (especially what is done in the name of academia in America or Europe) to present its political propaganda as reality. Those who sell donkey and cat meat as sheep and cow meat in Iran certainly know how to change the taste, color, and other characteristics to deceive buyers. Second, there are institutions abroad that have budgets for these tasks and believe that surveys can be conducted in Iran and think that there are individuals qualified to carry out this work without political and advertising concerns. There are also those on the other side of the story who try to allocate these budgets to themselves and carry out the work in a way that does not create problems for the government for themselves and their families (such as omitting the names of Khamenei and the leaders of the Green Movement or political figures abroad like Prince Reza Pahlavi from the list of names asked about popularity or favorable opinions).