Sometimes it’s useful to go back into time – not long – and see what was said about situations that have turned out quite different from what might have been said or predicted at an earlier period.

I kept a clipping from Stabroek News of Monday, April 21, 2006, exactly one week before the General Elections. The headline stated: “Latest NACTA poll – PPP/C, AFC Make Gains.” NACTA, the North American Caribbean Teachers Association, which has been polling and predicting on elections in Guyana and the Caribbean declared confidently that the PPP/C would win the Presidency, “but the PPP will still be short of an overall majority of seats in parliament. The AFC would hold the balance of power in the new parliament as the poll is projecting a loss of seats since the 2001 elections for both the PPP/C and the PNCR-1G with the beneficiaries being the AFC and the Justice For All (JFAP) parties.”

The August 21 Stabroek News item then reminds its readers that NACTA is a New York-based group which has been conducting polls in the Caribbean and elsewhere since 1989 and “has developed a reputation for being on target in its predictions.” It sure was on target for the August 2006 elections! But what target was it on? Not to be too controversial, it seems that NACTA had an agenda, built on the premise that polls frequently influence how the votes are cast. Stabroek News had an overpowering agenda – to achieve, at long last, the end of the PPP/C’s majority in Parliament and to make its “baby” the Alliance for Change (AFC) the pivotal party, hold the balance of power.

NACTA, the pollsters with 17 years experience gave the PPP/C 47% of the vote, just enough to hold the Presidency, but not enough to stay in government unless it had support from the AFC which it gave 16% of the vote. It gave the PNC/R -1G 27% of the vote and JFAP- 4%. Among its other gross errors, NACTA predicted two seats each for JFAP and ROAR!

The August 21 poll report in Stabroek News also noted that NACTA has a poll margin of error of 4% “meaning the support for each party could vary up to 4% in either direction… for example, therefore, the PPP/C could garner up to 51% support or as low as 43%”.

So, even with its generous margin of error, the possible 51% for the PPP/C, NACTA was way off course, since the PPP/C went even above 54%.

What can we make of such gross errors and poor judgment? What went wrong with NACTA’s polls? Was it for real, that one week before the polls a relatively accurate projection was impossible to make? Was it a consciously man-made error to guide the outcome of elections or was it just poor handling?

It is interesting to note that the NACTA Chief Mr Vishnu Bisram, is now claiming, or so I heard, that his poll prediction changed, coming closer to Election Day August 28 and that he tried to get his “latest” published in Stabroek News but did not succeed. It is also claimed that he published a different prediction in the Trinidad press, but I’ve never seen nor heard of it.

I also found it odd when I saw the gentleman floating around Freedom House, the headquarters of the Peoples’ Progressive Party, a day or two before the elections. I could never find out what he was doing there, but by that time, he, too, must have recognized that the PPP was sweeping the polls and that his 47% prediction for the PPP/C was “old hat.”

The balance of power at the global level is undergoing some significant changes, both politically and in the economic sphere as well. The days when the United States virtually ‘ruled the roost’ is gradually becoming a thing of the past. New centres of power are emerging that are not only threatening the hegemony of the United States as an economic power, but are also rocking the political edifice of the once powerful superpower.

Such is the weakening stance of the United States that Venezuela under the leadership of Hugo Chavez is openly challenging the hegemony of the US in the western hemisphere. At a meeting of the UN General Assembly, Chavez went as far as to openly refer to US President George Bush as a “devil”, something that few leaders would dare to utter. Similar acts of defiance were made by the leaders of Iran and North Korea, both of whom have shown scant regard for the United States in terms of their determination to pursue nuclear energy programmes.

Internally, the Bush administration has been under intense pressure by the opposition Democrats over recent reports by the United Nations and the CIA, which both of which concluded that global security has not improved since the so-called war on terror initiated by the George Bush administration following the September 11 attacks.

Venezuela, regarded as the arch-enemy of the United States, is now vying for a post in the United Nations Security Council and is almost assured of the support of the majority of Latin American and Caribbean countries, despite strong admonitions by the United States. Should Venezuela secure a seat, it would most likely upset the apple cart in the UN Security Council which for too long remained under the sway of the United States and other western powers.

At the economic level, the greatest challenges are forthcoming from the so-called BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia India and China). These countries are gradually emerging as economic giants and are making their mark on the international stage.

China in particular has within the past few years shown robust economic growth to a point where the economy is now suffering from what is referred to as overheating. This is quite a paradoxical situation especially in view of the rather sluggish rate of economic growth in some of the more advanced economies including the United States of America.

India has also been growing at an impressive level over the past years and together with China is now regarded as the “Asian Giants,” having overtaken countries such as Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore, hitherto described as the “Asian Tigers.” What is interesting about these countries is that they have managed to lift their economies without reliance on capital injections from the Bretton Wood institutions, in particular the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Of course, the mere size of these economies with huge internal markets make them less vulnerable in terms of dependence on capital injections from the multinational financial institutions.

Brazil and Russia have shown significant levels of economic growth over the past few years. Unlike China and to a lesser extent India, the benefits of growth have not filtered down to the ordinary people, resulting in extremely high levels of inequity and skewed income distribution favouring the rich. Indeed, Brazil is now regarded as the country with the highest levels of income disparities despite having attained near superpower status.

One must therefore commend the Chinese model of development which remains largely state-controlled despite significant foreign investment in nearly all sectors of the economy. Because of this control, the Chinese government is in a position to distribute the wealth created in a more equitable manner and in so doing narrow the income gap between the rural and urban workers.

It is to the credit of China that it was able to impact substantially in the reduction of global poverty by raising the living standards of millions of Chinese to acceptable standards which is in sharp contrast to many other developing countries in Africa and Asia.

China is today expanding its reach to all parts of the world, including Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean. The Chinese have been investing in the energy sector in several oil producing countries including Venezuela, in a desperate attempt to solve its growing demand for fuel to drive its massive development programmes. Indeed, the escalating prices for oil on the world market are linked in no small way to the increasing demand for fuel by China. The same is also true of other raw materials, including steel products and cement.