Public debate has once again been stirred by the release of the CeRrass survey, with government officials dismissing its findings as an inaccurate reflection of their performance. This reaction is neither new nor unique. Around the world, surveys that assess public opinion often face resistance, especially when their conclusions are uncomfortable. Yet the real issue is not whether a single study is flawless, but whether such studies are valued as part of a healthy democratic process.
Surveys like CeRrass do not claim divine authority. They are snapshots of public perception at a particular moment, shaped by methodology, sample size, and prevailing social conditions. To dismiss them outright because they challenge official narratives is to misunderstand their purpose. Public perception itself is a political reality. Governments may judge themselves by policy intentions, budget allocations, or long-term plans, but citizens judge by lived experience: prices in the market, access to services, employment opportunities, and trust in institutions.
The importance of independent studies lies precisely in their ability to provide an external mirror. They force those in power to confront how their actions are received beyond press statements and party rallies. Even when governments believe a survey is methodologically weak, the responsible response is not rejection, but engagement: interrogating the data, pointing out limitations, and offering counter-evidence. This approach strengthens credibility rather than eroding it.
Moreover, such studies contribute to accountability. They give voice to ordinary citizens who may not have direct access to policymakers. In societies where fear, loyalty, or political polarisation can silence criticism, surveys offer a safer channel for expression. They also enrich public discourse, allowing analysts, civil society, and the media to debate performance using data rather than rumour.
Ultimately, no survey should be worshipped, but none should be feared. CeRrass and similar research efforts are tools, not verdicts. When used wisely, they can help governments recalibrate policies, rebuild trust, and govern more responsively. Ignoring them risks governing in an echo chamber, where applause replaces reality.
