What to make of the Awami League's polls?

Please note that two paragraphs of this post were amended, following a request for a correction. You can read about this in a separate post here. The two corrected paragraphs can be identified by *
---------------------------

Last Sunday, Bangladesh's English language Independent newspaper carried on its front page, a story under the headline, 'AL takes lead over BNP' which stated that the Awami league had a lead over the BNP of 6 percentage points. The first sentence read: 'With the support of 39.6 per cent of the electorate, the ruling Awami League has a clear edge in the election race over opposition BNP, which is favoured by 34.2 per cent voters, shows a mid-October poll.'

A similar story was also published in the Bengali language daily Ittefaq a few days later

What both of these articles did not say was the the poll was (a) done for the Awami League with the party's involvement; (b) the raw data was collected by a company owned in part by an Awami League MP (*see ownership details of company at end of article); and (c) the AL's research wing - which is run by Sajeed Wazed, the prime minister's son - decided not to publish the version of the results of the poll suggested by independent statisticians.* (This para was changed on 23 Dec)

In themselves, of course, none of the above should necessarily mean that the poll is not trustworthy.

Where does Bangladesh go from here?

The prime minister Sheikh Hasina has reconstituted and downsized her cabinet including an additional number of Jatiya Party members of parliament (who were previously part of the current government's alliance). The Bangladesh Nationalist Party has refused the Awami League's invitation to take part. No other opposition party politician is (as yet) part of this new cabinet - which the Awami League is calling an 'all-party' government.

Putting to one side the rights and wrongs of the different party positions, where is this all going to take Bangladesh, with elections due by 24 January, and the BNP currently refusing to participate?

It is a fast moving situation, but below are various scenarios of what could happen, with an assessment of how likely they will do so.

International dimensions of Bangladesh's current political crisis

The current political stand-off between Bangladesh's two main parties over the nature of the election-time government (BNP wants caretaker/neutral government; the AL wants an all party government under the control of the prime-minister) is not only of interest to the country's voting population, but also to a number of its neighboring, and not-so neighboring, countries.

Here is a thumbnail sketch of where the United States, India, China and Russia - currently stand in relation to the conflict between the Awami League and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party and why they have taken these positions.

Legitimacy of govt after boycotted polls likely to be ‘questioned’: Chabot

This was originally published in New Age on 13 November 2013

Legitimacy of govt after boycotted polls likely to be ‘questioned’: Chabot 

David Bergman  

The chair of the Foreign Affairs Sub-Committee on Asia and the Pacific in the United States House of Representatives has told New Age that the legitimacy of an Awami League government would likely be questioned if it wins an election without the main opposition party taking part.
Steve Chabot, a US congressman for 17 years was speaking exclusively to New Age in a one-on-one interview last week at the end of the first day of his two-day trip to Bangladesh where he met the prime minister, Sheikh Hasina, and the opposition leader, Khaleda Zia, as well as other government and opposition leaders.

Actions of AL, BNP ‘destabilising’ the country’: EU envoys

This article was published today (Tuesday, 12 Nov 2013) in the New Age newspaper, and is reproduced here)

Actions of AL, BNP ‘destabilising’ the country’: EU envoys

David Bergman

Ambassadors in Dhaka representing European Union countries have made a written request to the government seeking a meeting with prime minister Sheikh Hasina to discuss the current political impasse over an election-time government, but have so far not received any response.

‘There is an urgency amongst my colleagues and I to meet with the prime minister, ’ Dr Albrecht Conze, the German ambassador, told New Age on Monday.

The request for a meeting with the prime minister was sent last week prior to European ambassadors’ meeting with Khaleda Zia last Thursday evening.

On Sunday, European Union ambassadors met to discuss how to respond to the disruption caused to the country by the BNP-organised hartals, the recent arrests of opposition political leaders and the lack of dialogue between the Awami League and BNP over a mutually agreeable election-time government. 

One European ambassador who attended the meeting told New Age that the message which the ambassadors now wanted to convey to both the BNP and AL was that ‘disruption of public order through hartals and the arrest of senior opposition leaders was destablising the country.’

BNP has enforced a total of seven days of strike over the last two weeks in which a number of people have been burnt to death, and on Saturday the Awami League government arrested five BNP leaders, including two members of parliament.

The European Union remains undecided whether or not to send election observers to Bangladesh.

Towards the end of October, Catherine Ashton, the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy wrote to the foreign minister, Dipu Moni, stating that the EU was willing to observe the polls in Bangladesh on two conditions.

The first condition was that the government signed a memorandum of understanding which would allow election monitors unrestricted access to the country, and the second one stated that observers would only be sent if the ‘political and security situation’ in the country was conducive to their presence.

The European Union has received no formal response to the letter but one diplomat told New Age that it had been told by government officials that no memorandum of understanding could be signed until a date for elections had first been announced.

The EU diplomats are concerned that this delay may result in the observers, which usually include long term monitors, having insufficient time to come to Bangladesh, particularly as the Christmas period is likely to occur just prior to any election.

The same western diplomat said that the second condition indicated that there ‘has to be the right political and security environment [before the observers come] and what this means is open to interpretation.’

‘Even if the monitors come, they can at any time be called back as happened in 2006,’ the diplomat said.

The EU had suspended its observer mission in January 2007, the day that the army effectively took control from the then caretaker government under President Iajuddin Ahmed, arguing that ‘conditions for credible and meaningful elections did not currently exist’.

Prior to this, the country had been racked by violence in the run-up to the planned January 22 polls, with a united opposition led by then opposition leader Sheikh Hasina deciding to abstain from the elections.

The EU diplomats are keenly aware that a decision not to send the monitors could result in having fewer sources of information that will allow them to make an assessment of the fairness of any election.

‘It will be a finely balanced decision,’ whether to send the observers if the BNP does not participate in the elections, the diplomat said.

The diplomats have yet to take a final view about how BNP’s lack of participation in the election, due to take place by 24 January 2014, will impact upon its decision about the credibility of the poll.

Dipu Moni, the law, and the politics of the BNP arrests

I would certainly like to be a fly on the wall when Dipu Moni the foreign minister, sets up her next meeting with foreign diplomats and tries to explain why the government has arrested five Bangladesh Nationalist Party leaders, including two MPs.

The New Age newspaper (website down, so no link available right now) quoted her as saying:

‘The demand for a caretaker government is illegal and unjust, though BNP has been stick[ing] to it. In the name of that demand, they have killed people during the previous hartals, created chaos and made provocative speeches'

[Note: news website suggests that this is an actual quote from Dipu Moni, but it is possible that it is a contraction of what she said]

The foreign minister is obviously within her rights to argue that the demand for a caretaker government is 'unjust' - though in doing so she is setting herself against the vast majority of the Bangladesh people who support the notion of a neutral election time government. 

But hey, this is politics, and Moni - and the Awami League - can certainly try and argue that the demand for a caretaker government is unjust if they want to

But what about her saying that the demand is 'illegal'?

Moni, is a lawyer, so one assumes she would not, particularly in her position as foreign minister,  have used the word 'illegal' lightly.

Clearly there are no penal code provisions that would make the demand for a caretaker government illegal - and if there were, then the Awami League leaders who made the demand (successfully) for introduction of caretaker government in 1995/6 were also making an illegal demand.

Perhaps, Moni though is trying to argue that the BNP is in breach of a new article 7A of the constitution that was introduced in 2011 (as part of the 15th amendment which also removed the caretaker government provisions.) This states:

7A. Offence of abrogation, suspension, etc. of the Constitution.⎯
(1) If any person, by show of force or use of force or by any other un-constitutional meansÍ
(a) abrogates, repeals or suspends or attempts or conspires to abrogate, repeal or suspend this Constitution or any of its article; or
(b) subverts or attempts or conspires to subvert the confidence,  belief or reliance of the citizens to this Constitution or any of its article, his such act shall be sedition and such person shall be guilty of sedition.
(2) If any person⎯
(a) abets or instigates any act mentioned in clause (1); or
(b) approves, condones, supports or ratifies such act, his such act shall also be the same offence.
(3) Any person alleged to have committed the offence mentioned in this article shall be sentenced with the highest punishment prescribed for other offences by the existing laws.

Now, this provision is extremely broad - applying to those who 'attempt' to repeal any article of the constitution or indeed anyone who 'attempts ... to ... subvert the confidence, belief or reliance of citizens to this constitution.'

However, the section is only engaged when these above activities are done, 'by show of force or use of force or by any other un-constitutional means'. 

Now making the 'demand' for a change in the constitution does not fall within these categories mentioned above.  Even if Moni was referring to making such a demand through hartals - 'hartals' are also not in themselves illegal or unconstitutional in Bangladesh.

It is therefore difficult to see how the demand for the introduction of new provisions in the constitution is illegal.

What about the arrest of the leaders. She says in the New Age quote:

'In the name of that demand, they have killed people during the previous hartals, created chaos and made provocative speeches'

It is true that in the last series of hartals, there were a number of simply atrocious incidents in which burning of vehicles and use of cocktail bombs used by BNP supporters/activists caused terrible, and in some cases fatal, injuries to children  - and it may well be fair to argue that the BNP as a party along with some leaders have some overall moral responsibility for these incidents (as the AL did for incidents in 2006). But to try to pin criminal responsibility for what took place on any one of these five men is another matter.

The National Human Rights Committee chairman was correct when he said that the police cannot arrest someone on the basis of no 'specific allegation' which is the case here.

No doubt the police/government will try and concoct some kind of case against these men - as they have done so before against in relation to other incidents (it is interesting of course to see Sajeeb Wajed, the prime minister's son argue that there is specific evidence against these men), but most people will conclude that any cases the police/government do bring will have no proper legal basis and the arrests are just for political ends. Nothing more, nothing less.

Dipu Moni has talked a lot in the past about the government's commitments to 'rule of law'. Perhaps she needs to think again before doing so again.

However, putting to one side the issue of the legality of the arrests, what about the politics behind them - what do they mean, and who gains.

I would make the following points:

1. It seems to reflect a decision by the government not to seek any accommodation with the Bangladesh Nationalist Party but to go for elections under some kind of so called 'all party pro-AL government', and which the BNP will not take part. Whilst of course it is possible for things to change in the next few weeks, this seems unlikely as the government's course now does appear to be set very firmly towards elections without the BNP (a course it may well have been on anyway for quite some time.) (The BNP also seems to have ditched any idea of taking part in negotiations to seek some kind of settlement with the Awami league - and are now going all out to try and stop the elections taking place or if they do take place, prevent them from having a high turn out.)

2. One of the reasons for concluding the above, is that if the government was in any way imagining a contested election with the BNP, it would not have made such arrests. The opinion polls suggest that this kind of action is unpopular amongst the electorate. Moreover, the arrests were done at a moment when the Awami League was gaining some kind of higher moral ground through (a) the unpopular hartals organised by the BNP and (b) the media coverage of the terrible injuries to people though the hartals. This was a moment for the AL to exploit - but instead the AL arrested 5 BNP leaders and surrounded the house of Khaleda Zia. As one of my colleagues said, 'No one will remember Munir [the boy who died from his burns during the hartal] now, they will all talk about these arrests.'

One must surely assume that the AL leaders were aware that the optics of the arrests would not look good - but decided to go ahead with the crackdown anyway as it gave them other strategic advantages relating to their target of weakening the ability of the BNP to stop the one-sided elections.

3. What are these strategic advantages? As I have said elsewhere, politics in Bangladesh is war by other means - and the arrest of the BNP leaders and the threats against Khaleda Zia herself are I would suggest done to demoralise the BNP, and show up their weakness as a party, whilst for the AL supporters this is a great morale booster. Whether the strategic advantages out balance the optics disadvantages is yet to be seen.

4. What will be the impact of these arrests on the BNP? It could either make the party move to the extreme and proceed further towards violence/hartals or it could make the BNP appreciate that it's strategy of hartals is not going anywhere - making them less popular, failing to result in a level of violence that could provoke the army to intervene and also not resulting in any increased likelihood that the Awami League will agree to their demands (in particular its hope that at the very least Sheikh Hasina will stand down as prime minister during the pre-election period.)

For the AL, which in the end would, I suggest, prefer for elections to take place without the BNP, it is better for them that the BNP remains in a moderate hartal/aggressive mood, as they can get on with the elections, and the BNP will continue to reduce in popularity. Ironically, if the arrests make the BNP more willing to push for negotiations, this could work against the AL strategy. But time now is short - and it may be difficult for the BNP to change tack.

Org-Quest/Prothom Alo's September 2013 poll

Earlier this month, the daily Bangla language paper, Prothom Alo published the results of an opinion poll conducted by Org-quest Research Ltd during the month of September 2013.

The poll was important for a number of reasons (to see the methodology used, see the end of this post)

First, the election in Bangladesh is supposed to happen before 24 January 2014 so it provided an opportunity to see what the country was thinking on a number of key issues;

Second, it provided an opportunity to see whether its findings reflected the most recent poll conducted by AC Nielsen/Democracy International in July 2013.

Thirdly, the poll involved a large sample size of 5000 people - almost double that of the AC Nielsen/DI polls) with a margin of error of only +/-1.39%, so all being equal the results should be more accurate.

Fourthly, Prothom Alo has been undertaking an annual poll for the last five years, so the poll will show interesting trends over this period.

Prothom Alo has been kind enough to share the full report of the survey with Bangladesh Politico, and so below are some of the main points - with some relevant comparisons to the AC Nielsen/DI poll that had earlier been reported in New Age.

ELECTION ISSUES

Voting Intent
The Prothom Alo poll found that 50 percent of people would vote for the BNP compared to only 37 percent for the Awami League - with the Jatiya party on 7 percent and the Jamaat on 3 percent.

	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013
AL	56%	46%	38%	35%	37%
BNP	25%	38%	43%	44%	50%
Jatiya	3%	6%	8%	12%	7%
Jamaat	3%	3%	4%	3%	3%

In July 2013, Nielsen/DI had found that BNP stood at 43 percent to 32 percent in BNP's favour – so the Prohthom Alo result shows much stronger support for the BNP (and indeed for the AL).

Indeed Nielsen/DI’s results – whose polls that I know of only started from June 2012 – have generally shown less strong support for the BNP than that of the AL: whilst Prothom Alo’s polls show the switch in popular support from AL to BNP taking place in 2011, this only happened in the Nielsen/DI polls in January 2013.

However, whilst the figures are somewhat different, they both tell basically the same story. There has been a big swing since the last election toward the BNP (with support somewhere between 43 and 50%) with the AL lagging behind (between 32 and 36%).

The Prothom Alo poll suggests that the undecideds/dont knows/wont say are at 14 percent - which could represent the percentage of the population not intending to vote at the election.

Election time government
In the Prothom Alo poll, 82% of those questioned supported holding the election under a neutral government – with only 18 percent supporting elections under a party government - down from 90% in a poll undertaken in April this year.

	2011	2012	Apr 2013	Sept 2013
Neutral Govt	73%	76%	90%	82%
Party Govt	25%	22%	8%	18%

The poll also showed that amongst those who supported a neutral government were 53% of those who supported the Awami League.

Whilst the Nielsen/DI poll results also shows the unpopularity of the idea of a political government holding elections, it showed that the support for a caretaker government had declined considerably between April and July 2013

The Election Commission

At the same time as holding strong support for a caretaker government, the Prothom Alo poll also showed that nearly half the country thought that the current election commission has the ability to hold a fair election. 48% responded affirmatively whilst 51% negatively.

In relation to those who thought that the EC could hold a fair election - 84% of these were AL and 24% were BNP.

This finding was not dissimilar to the Nielsen/DI July 2013 poll which showed that 52 per cent had faith in the capacity of the Election Commission in ‘holding free and fair elections under the current government.’ Only 32 per cent felt that the Election Commission was ‘not capable,’

Lack of participation of the BNP in the elections.

In the Prothom Alo poll, when people were asked if the election would be acceptable without the participation of the BNP, 90% replied negatively, Even amongst those who intended to vote for AL, 83% thought that the election will not be acceptable if BNP does not participate

WIDER POLITICAL ISSUES

Direction of the country
In the Prothom Alo poll, 60% of people thought that the country was going in the wrong direction – a significant different from the 2009 results which showed that 70% of people thought the that country was going in the right direction.

This is similar to the results in the July 2013 Nielsen/DI polls which found that 58% of people thought that country was going in the wrong direction, with 37% saying it was going in the right direction.

	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013
Country in right direction	70%	61%	42%	40%	40%
Country in wrong direction	29%	39%	57%	60%	60%

Running of the country

In the Prothom Alo poll, 57% of people were not satisfied with the running of the country. In 2009, this figure was only 29%.

	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013
Satisfied with running of the country	66%	58%	43%	46%	43%
Not satisfied	26%	34%	52%	49%	57%

Corruption
In the poll, the proportion of those who thought corruption has increased under this government went up from 49% in 2012 to 54%. At the end of the first year of AL’s rule this figure was only 34%.

	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013
Corruptoin increased	34%	37%	46%	49%	54%
Corruptoin decreased	42%	43%	40%	38%	34%
Unchanged	23%	20%	13%	12%	12%

Politicization of institutions
When asked whether ‘politicization’ in this regime has increased or decreased compared to that of BNP led government, 59% thought it had increased, whilst 25% thought it had decreased and 15% believed that it remained unchanged. (It remains unclear exactly what question was asked, and how people understood the meaning of ‘politicisation’).

When the poll was done in 2009, the numbers of people who thought politicization had increased was much the same as the number who though it had increased; but five years years later the poll found that more than twice the number of people believe that there hasdbeen increased politicization under the current government

	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013
Politicisation increased	41%	47%	51%	51%	59%
Politicisation decreased	36%	28%	27%	27%	25%
Politicisation unchanged	21%	23%	17%	17%	15%

Government’s dealing with the opposition:

In the Prothom Alo poll, 73% thought the government did not deal with the opposition appropriately – a figure that was only 42% at the end of the first year of the government On the other hand, number of persons who thought that it dealt with the opposition appropriately went down from 57% to 26% in the same period.

	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013
Appropriate	57%	38%	33%	27%	26%
Inappropriate	42%	60%	62%	70%	73%

War Crimes Trials
In September 2013, 80% of respondents agreed that those who had committed war crimes should be tried and punished with only 19% against it.

This was slightly down from the results in 2009 to a similar question, where 86% agreed and 80% did not.

However when the same people were asked about the ‘appropriateness’ of the process, only 40% agreed that the process was appropriate, with 59% thinking that it was not.

	2010	2011	2012	2013
Process is appropriate	52%	47%	44%	40%
Process is not appropriate	38%	47%	47%	59%

One problem with this particular results is that it is not clear from the survey results exactly what question was used to ask about the appropriateness of the trials

However, these results reflect those in the Nielsen/DI poll which found that 86 per cent of these voters who knew about the trials stating that they personally wanted the trials to proceed, with only 12 per cent against. However, when asked about the fairness of the process, 63 per cent (of those that knew about the trials) thought that the trials were unfair or very unfair

Banning of the Jamaat
When respondents were asked, if the political party, Jamaat-e-Islami should be banned, 70% responded negatively, with 29% in favor of such a ban.

These results were similar to those obtained in April 2013, where 65% were found to be against the ban and 25% in favour.

Government’s role in dealing with Yunus and Grameen Bank
In the September poll, 69% of respondents said that they did not support the role played by the government with Dr. Mohammad Yunus and Grameen Bank which whilst 27 % did agree. 4% said that they did not know

This is an increase in lack of support for the government from the 2012 poll results; this found that 60% did not support the government with 26% supporting and 14% not knowing.

It appears that the vast majority of those that did not know in 2012, had now decided that they were against the government in this policy area.

In 2012, when the question was previously asked, was an increased of 9 percentage points from 60% when a similar question was asked in 2000.

----------------

Methodology used

This is an excerpt from the survey document

1.1. Target Respondents: Adult males and females (18 years and above) who were enlisted as voters.

1.2. Geographical Coverage: The survey was nationally representative, covering 30 districts across all the 7 administrative divisions in both urban and rural areas.
1.3. Sample Size: n=5000, distributed amongst male & females in urban – rural areas proportionate to population as shown below.

Area Type	Male	Female	Total
Urban	617	633	1250
Rural	1879	1871	3750
Total	2496	2504	5000

1.4. Sampling Technique: The survey was conducted by adopting multi-stage stratified systematic random sampling technique to make the study as representative as possible. Estimated Margin of Error was: ± 1.39. The survey strictly adhered to the internationally accepted methodology and ethical standard as per the guideline of European Society for Opinion and Market Research (ESOMAR). As a member of ESOMAR, Org-Quest Research Limited complies with the ICC/ ESOMAR International Marketing and Social Research Practices.

Systematic random sampling technique was followed to locate and interview target respondents. All seven divisions were considered. In each division 3 to 6 districts (primary sampling units - PSU), depending on the size, were selected keeping geographical dispersion in mind. Having selected PSUs, required number of secondary sampling units or SSU (municipal ward in urban area and village in rural area) and sampling/starting points (SP) were selected randomly based on electoral roll. Around each randomly selected starting point/cluster, a predetermined number of households were contacted and interviewed; leaving four intervening households in between (interviewed every fifth household).

The Right Hand Rule was used for selection of households other than the Starting Point (SP). This rule states that after reaching the SP, the investigator will have to go to the households falling on the right hand side from the starting point. Not more than 5 interviews were conducted in each starting point.

Within each selected household, names of all household members were listed down in descending order of their age. Serial numbers were provided to all members aged 18 years and above and enlisted as a voter in descending order of age i.e. starting with the oldest member of the family and going down to the youngest member who has completed 18 years. In case of more than one eligible member in a household, one of the adults was selected randomly by using KISH Table* for interview. Only one member in selected household was interviewed.

* Use of Kish Table (a randomized selection method) helps selecting the right respondents from the right household with multiple eligible respondents. The Kish Table was developed by a famous statistician named L. Kish.

Why Daily Star's opinion survey is a waste of time and money

The National Public Perception Study (also called 'Opinion Survey') undertaken jointly by the Daily Star and the Asia Foundation, and published today in the paper's 12 page tabloid spread - and also providing the paper with its front page lead article - is, simply put, a waste of time and money.

This may seem harsh, but the survey is a classic example of a pseudo poll, dressed up as a survey that is representative of the country, but in fact is not and as a result has very limited value.

The poll should not be given anywhere near the kind of attention that should be given to the recent polls undertaken by Nielsen/Democracy International and by Prothom Alo - if indeed it should be given any attention at all.

This is why.

In order for a survey to have any value, and for the Daily Star/Asia Foundation to be able to argue that the results are representative of the whole country, the poll has to be done in scientific way - and most importantly to use random sampling in order to identify the respondents.

This survey does not do this.

The purpose of an opinion poll is to ask questions of a small sample of a population of people who can represent the attitudes, opinions, or projected behavior of all of the people from which the sample is obtained. In effect, the fundamental goal of an opinion poll is to come up with the same results that would have been obtained had every member of a population been interviewed.

The key to reaching this objective is a fundamental principle called 'equal probability of selection', which states that 'if every member of a population has an equal probability of being selected in a sample, then that sample will be representative of the population.'

So for an opinion poll to be undertaken successfully in Bangladesh, every adult Bangladeshi must have an equal chance of falling into the sample. How this is done is the key to the success or failure of any such opinion poll.

Whilst the Nielsen/DI (published in the New Age) and the Prothom Alo polls used methods to randomise the selection of respondents - the Daily Star/Asia Foundation poll did not use this method at all.

As a result, there is little reason to imagine that the results of their survey are in any way representative of the whole country - which is what the Daily Star projects as being the case.

The methodology written in the newspaper puts much effort into explaining how weighting was done to make sure that the respondents were representative of the urban/rural divide for example - but this makes no difference if the original sample is not randomly selected.

And can one even explain the rationale for dividing the 100 selected respondents in each district into 'ordinary citizens' and 'non-political elites'? Is this how the country is divided?

In fact the Daily Star/Asia Foundation has done a great disservice to those organisations/newspapers undertaking proper opinion polls in undertaking this survey.

Bangladeshis are only just beginning to get used to the idea of opinion polls - and whilst most people may not understand the science/statitics behind it, many have started to appreciate that properly done opinion poll can produce legitimate results

For the Daily Star/Asia Foundation to undertake a survey with such little scientific value confuses all of this - and diminishes the work done by the scientifically organised polls.

It is particularly inappropriate for them to have undertaken this survey at such a politically sensitive moment in the country's politics. As the results are pretty meaningless.

The odd thing about all all this is that the Daily Star has in the past commissioned proper polling organisations to undertake scientifically rigorous opinion polls, so one would imagine that the paper's management are aware of the reason why one does an opinion poll rather than the kind of survey undertaken by them this time. But obviously not.

I can imagine that the Daily Star might respond to this criticism by arguing that it never actually said that the survey was representative of the national population - saying that it only 'gathered impressions' from a cross section of groups within Bangladesh. However, if you read the front page article, that is not the impression that is given. The impression given to the reader is that this survey is representative of the country.

There are three other oddities about this survey

1. Why did the Daily Star/Asia Foundation poll ask the question, 'Which party will win' rather than 'Which party will you vote for'. These are two very different questions, and will undoubtedly result in different results. 

That 55% of people think that that BNP will win the election, and only 28% think that the AL will win says nothing about the actual voting intention of particular people - and it is unclear why one would ask that question.

2. Why did the newspaper do this survey in September when its sister paper Prothom Alo had commissioned its own opinion poll in the very same period?

3. Why did the paper not at least commission  a professional surveying organisation to do the work?