Originally published in the March 14th issue of The Baltimore Sun

Polls on health care can be confusing. At last month's health care summit, Republicans repeatedly asserted that the majority is with them in their opposition to the president's health care reform plan. President Barack Obama asserted that majorities support all the major specific elements of the plan. Can they both be right?

It is true that in numerous polls, a plurality or a slight majority say that they are opposed to the health care plan. But it is misleading to imply that this means that the public is aligned with the Republicans. In a recent Newsweek poll, only 21 percent approved of how the Republicans are handling health care.

More important, several polls reveal that many of the people who oppose Mr. Obama's health care plan do so not because they fear it will go too far in changing the status quo but because they think it does not go far enough.

For example, similar to other polls, a Feb. 26-28 Ipsos/McClatchy poll first found that 41 percent said they favored the health care plan under consideration, while 47 percent were opposed. A follow-on question, though, found that many of those opposed to it (17 percent of the whole sample) did so because it did not go far enough. Only 25 percent aligned with the Republican position by complaining that it goes too far.

Rather than thinking of the public as divided along party lines, it is better to think of it as being like Goldilocks and the porridge. Twenty-five percent say the health care plan goes too far, 17 percent say it does not go far enough (some are still disappointed over the removal of the public option), while 41 percent say it is about right. Rather than being on one side of the spectrum, it appears that the proposed health care plan occupies the middle ground of the electorate.

This helps us understand how Mr. Obama can also be right when he says that the public supports most of the key elements of the plan. While many people are not satisfied with the plan overall, numerous polls have found that there does seem to be consensus about most of its key elements.

In a recent Newsweek poll, majorities supported insurance exchanges (81 percent); requiring insurance companies to cover people regardless of pre-existing conditions (76 percent); requiring most businesses to provide coverage (75 percent); and requiring all Americans to have health insurance, with the government providing subsidies for those who cannot afford it (59 percent).

A Kaiser Foundation poll found large majorities saying that it is at least somewhat important to close the Medicare "doughnut hole" (91 percent); expand the existing Medicaid program to cover more low-income, uninsured Americans (81 percent); limit future increases in Medicare payments to health care providers as a way to help pay for health reform (73 percent); and allow health insurers to sell health insurance across state lines (74 percent).

But this does not mean that the public is giving Mr. Obama the big "go ahead." It really bothers Americans that the bill is not more bipartisan. A March 3-8 Associated Press poll found 61 percent saying bipartisan support is very important. Sixty-eight percent said the president should keep trying to make a deal with the Republicans. Americans also like some of the Republican proposals. Kaiser found 79 percent saying that tort reform is important.

At the same time, Republicans should not be overconfident. The public is watching them warily. Ipsos/McClatchy found that only 36 percent think the Republicans are working hard to compromise, while 57 percent think they are deliberately avoiding compromise to obstruct the bill in any form.

At some point, the public may give up on bipartisanship. Because, as AP found, only 15 percent say they are content to leave the health care system as it is now.

Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, has conducted several major studies of U.S. public attitudes on health care. His e-mail is skull@pipa.org.

By Alvin Richman^*

Editor's Note:

With the post-election crackdown in Iran, a key question is to what degree Iranians are being effectively intimidated from expressing views that are at odds with the regime. This question is relevant to the regime's prospects for success or failure in its efforts to suppress dissent. It is also an important indicator, along with other trend measures, of whether surveys of the Iranian public continue to be valid. Very briefly, the present article finds only a modest decline in readiness to express dissenting views.

Overview -- Comparison of the findings from the early 2008 and late 2009 Iran surveys conducted by World Public Opinion (WPO) shows that the number of Iranians who consistently express very critical views of their government associated with Reformers has fallen by just four percentage points amidst the current repressive climate (from 17% to 13%), and the number expressing moderately critical views has fallen by six points (from 46% to 40%). During this period, the number of Iranians who consistently express positive views of their political system associated with Conservatives has risen by 11 points (from 36% to 47%). About one-fifth of these Conservatives (10% of the public) take a militant position against U.S. influence, and can be termed "Hardline Conservatives." The views of these several groups continue to diverge considerably on most public issues, with the notable exception that all groups mainly eschew Iran's development of nuclear weapons. Demographically, WPO's 2009 survey shows that Reformers tend to be younger, better educated and more likely to live in urban areas than Moderates and Conservatives.

Regime support groups -- Three separate opinion groups within the Iranian public were initially identified in analyses of World Public Opinion's 1-2/2008 survey, using the statistical clustering technique Latent Class Analysis on three different measures of support for the Iranian government.¹ Consistent with much ongoing analytical discourse inside and outside Iran, these three groups were labeled as Conservatives, Moderates and Reformers. The three groups differ sharply in how they view Iran's system of government. The same three groups were recreated on WPO's latest Iran survey (8/27-9/10/09),² as well as its early 2008 survey, using a simplified 7-point scale based on responses to the same three government support measures. All three of these measures, discussed below, tap the theoretical construct of "regime support," with Conservatives identified as those consistently supportive of the regime, Reformers consistently opposed, and Moderates having mixed views.

Respondents who answered all three questions (89% of the 8-9/09 survey sample) were located on a 7-point scale, ranging from 0 for those definitely opposing Iran's government on all three questions to 6 points for those definitely supporting the government on all three questions. Three groups of respondents are identified based on these scores -- Conservatives (5-6 points), Moderates (2-4 points), and Reformers (0-1 point) -- and their divergent views mirror the diversity of opinion among Iran's political elites. ³

Regime support measures -- The three major substantive groups within Iran's public are defined by their sharp and consistent divergence on these three WPO questions relating to support of the Iranian government ("regime support"): (1) Satisfaction with the Iranian election process ("very satisfied" given 2 scale points, "somewhat satisfied" -- 1 scale point, and "not very satisfied" or "not at all satisfied" -- 0 points); (2) Support for the government's right to censor destabilizing news (2 scale points) versus support for a free press (0 points); and (3) Trust in Iran's national government (trust "most of the time" -- 2 scale points, trust "some of the time" -- 1 point, and trust "rarely" or "never" -- 0 points). (See Table 1 for the exact wording and findings for each of these questions.) On each of these questions support for the regime declines sharply and progressively from the highest regime support (Conservatives) to the least regime support (Reformers). For example, the vast majority of Conservatives (91%) trust the Iranian government "most of the time," most Moderates (58%) trust it "some of the time," and most Reformers (65%) trust it "rarely" or "never" (see Table 1A).

The three groups show naturally sharp contrast on the question containing only two choices -- having either media freedom or government censorship. All Conservatives favor the government's right to censor potentially destabilizing news and all Reformers favor media freedom. Moderates favor media freedom over government's right to censor media by a 61-39 percent majority (Table 1B).

The three groups also differ considerably in their assessment of the process by which authorities generally are elected in Iran. Most Conservatives (64%) are "very satisfied" with the Iranian election process, most Moderates (61%) are "somewhat satisfied" with it, while the vast majority of Reformers (87%) are "not very" or "not at all" satisfied with the Iranian election process (Table 1C). The 11-point increase since 2008 in the number of Conservatives identified by our regime support scale is due mainly to changes in response on this question. The number of respondents saying they were "very satisfied" with the Iranian election process doubled between the 2008 (20%) and 2009 (42%) surveys.⁴ In contrast, the number of respondents who said they trust the Iranian government "most of the time" rose only 1 percentage point (from 55% to 56%), and the number who expressed support for government's right to censor the media rose 3 percentage points (from 60% to 63%) between the 2008 and 2009 surveys.⁵ Employed together these three regime support measures should gauge the size and positions of different Iranian factions over time more reliably than would a single measure.

Additional issues, besides the regime support measures, on which Iranian Conservatives, Moderates and Reformers diverge are discussed in the text below. These include other questions relating to Iran's domestic institutions (e.g., opinions regarding President Ahmadinejad and the Supreme Leader) and perceptions of the U.S. government. Several instances of "partial divergence" will also be examined, in which two of the groups share fairly similar views on an issue, but these views differ sharply from those of the third group. An example of partial divergence is opinion of the American people, in which Conservatives and Moderates are both closely divided, while a large majority of Reformers have a favorable opinion. Then, several issues are examined in which the views of the three groups converge, including minority support within all groups for Iran's developing nuclear weapons and the widespread belief within all groups that a U.S. objective is to maintain control over Middle East oil resources.

Click here to continue reading the full report

¹Latent Class Analysis (LCA) segmented the sample statistically into relatively homogeneous groups based on respondents' answers to the three questions relating to support for the Iranian government. Additional information about this analytical approach is contained in an earlier article co-authored with David B. Nolle and Elaine El Assal, "Iranian Public Is Not Monolithic: Iranians Divide Over Their Government But Unite on Forgoing Nuclear Weapons," World Public Opinion.org., 5/18/09.

²This survey is based on telephone interviews with a sample of 1,003 Iranians. More than four-fifths of Iranians have landline telephones in their households. About half of the households contacted (52%) refused to be interviewed.

³A number of scholars have written about the major political factions among the Iranian elites (see, for example, the works of Shahram Chubin, Akbar Ganji, Ray Takeyh, and Sanam Vakil), but comparable empirical analyses of the major political divisions in representative national surveys of the Iranian public are rare.

⁴This increase between the 2008 and 2009 surveys is due to the increased percentage of Conservatives (from 38% to 64%) and Moderates (from 12% to 28%) who said they were "very satisfied" with the Iranian election process. None of the Reformers were "very satisfied" on either survey; in fact, about nine-tenths of Reformers expressed dissatisfaction on both surveys.

⁵Reference to the number of respondents here refers to the 89% of the sample who responded to all three regime support questions on the 2009 survey, and to the 70% who did so on the 2008 survey, and thus who could be scaled and categorized as either Conservative, Moderate or Reformer. Five other questions, besides the three regime support measures, were asked on both the 2008 and 2009 surveys. Two of these show distinct shifts, although not nearly as great as the 22-point change in very satisfied with the election process noted above: Favorable opinion of the U.S. government rose nine percentage points between 2008 and 2009 (from 8% to 17%). Also, perception that a U.S. goal is to maintain control over Middle East oil resources fell eight points (from 87% in 2008 to 79% in 2009). However, on three other trend questions, as well as two of the three regime support measures discussed above, changes in response between the 2008 and 2009 surveys were only three percentage points or less.

WPO Dataset for Download (SPSS Format)
GlobeScan Dataset for Download (SPSS Format)

Indications of fraud in the June 12 Iranian presidential election, together with large-scale street demonstrations, have led to claims that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did not actually win the election, and that the majority of Iranians perceive their government as illegitimate and favor regime change.

An analysis of multiple polls of the Iranian public from three different sources finds little evidence to support such conclusions.

The analysis conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland (PIPA), was based on:

•  a series of 10 recently-released polls conducted by the University of Tehran; eight conducted in the month before the June 12 election and two conducted in the month after the election, based on telephone interviews conducted within Iran
•  a poll by GlobeScan conducted shortly after the election, based on telephone interviews conducted within Iran
•  a poll by WorldPublicOpinion.org (managed by PIPA) conducted August 27--September 10, based on telephone interviews made by calling into Iran

The study sought to address the widely-discussed hypotheses that Ahmadinejad did not win the June 12 election and that the Iranian people perceive their government as illegitimate. It also sought to explore the assumption that the opposition represents a movement favoring a substantially different posture toward the United States. The analysis of the data found little evidence to support any of these hypotheses.

Steven Kull, director of PIPA, said, "Our analysis suggests that it would not be prudent to base US policy on the assumption that the Iranian public is in a pre-revolutionary state of mind."

On the question of whether Ahmadinejad won the June 12 election, in the week before the election and after the election, in all polls a majority said they planned to or did vote for Ahmadinejad. These numbers ranged from 52 to 57% immediately before the election and 55 to 66% after the election.

Steven Kull comments, "These findings do not prove that there were no irregularities in the election process. But they do not support the belief that a majority rejected Ahmadinejad."

The analysis did reveal factors that could have contributed to the impression that Ahmadinejad did not win. University of Tehran polls show that in the first few weeks of the campaign his support dropped precipitously and he did not enjoy majority support in the city of Tehran. But in the week before the election, his support recovered outside the capital.

Going into the election 57% said they expected Ahmadinejad to win. Thus it is not surprising that, in several post-election polls, more than seven in ten said they saw Ahmadinejad as the legitimate president. About eight in ten said the election was free and fair.

The polls did reveal some reservations about the government. Less than a majority expressed full confidence in the Guardian Council (42%) and the Ministry of the Interior (38%). While over eight in ten said they were satisfied with the current system of government, in June less than a majority (49%) said they were very satisfied and this number dropped to 41% in July.

However none of the polls found indications of support for regime change. Large majorities, including majorities of Mousavi supporters, endorse the Islamist character of the regime such as having a body of Islamic scholars with the power to veto laws they see as contrary to sharia.

To address the possibility that the data collected within Iran may have been fabricated, PIPA compared the patterns of responses, including within subgroups, in data collected inside Iran to those collected by calling into Iran from the outside. Steven Kull comments, "The patterns of responses at many levels are so similar, whether the data was collected inside Iran or by calling into Iran, that it is hard to conclude that these data were fabricated."

Another concern is that Iranian respondents were not answering candidly out of fear of some type of reprisal for making statements in support of the opposition or critical of the regime, particularly in the post-election environment. As noted above, on some questions majorities expressed views that were less than fully laudatory of the government.

Still there was the fact that after the election, the numbers expressing support for Mousavi diminished suggests that some self-censoring may have been occurring. Thus PIPA put special emphasis on analyzing the responses of those who felt bold enough to say that they voted for the opposition on the assumption that they would be frank on other issues as well. While Mousavi supporters are less affirmative of the legitimacy of the regime than the public as a whole, still a majority says that they believe that Ahmadinejad is the legitimate president and affirm the Islamist nature of the regime.

Some analysts have suggested that if the opposition were to gain power this would lead to fundamental changes in the Iranian posture toward the US. Focusing on those respondents who said they voted for Mousavi, as an approximation of the opposition,
PIPA found that a majority were ready to negotiate with the US on a number of issues, while the Iranian public as a whole was more divided. However, Mousavi supporters, like the general public, were quite negative in their views of the US government and were strongly committed to Iran's nuclear program.

A majority of Mousavi supporters did favor diplomatic relations with the US, and were ready to make a deal whereby Iran would preclude developing nuclear weapons through intrusive international inspections in exchange for the removal of sanctions. However, this was equally true of the majority of all Iranians.

Questionnaire with Findings, Methodology (PDF)

As the European Union implements a new treaty aimed at helping member countries work together, and as President Barack Obama prepares to receive a Nobel Prize awarded partly for his efforts at international cooperation, a WorldPublicOpinion.org poll of people in 21 nations around the world finds that publics in 14 of them think their governments should be more ready to cooperate with others to achieve mutual gains.

Opening ceremonies of the 15th United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark (Photo: UNFCCC)

However, in six nations more people demur and say that their government tends to be too willing to compromise and is often taken advantage of.

The release of the poll's findings come at a time when international cooperation figures prominently in the news. World leaders are gathering in Copenhagen to consider cooperative options for addressing climate change. In Europe, the new Lisbon Treaty took effect on Tuesday which is meant to draw European countries into a more highly integrated union.

President Obama, meanwhile, will receive the Nobel Peace Prize on Dec. 10, which he won largely for taking a more cooperative stance with the rest of the world. And indeed the poll found that in 15 of 19 nations the US is now seen as generally cooperative.

On average across all nations surveyed, 55% of those polled believe that their leaders "should be more ready to act cooperatively to achieve mutual gains." Thirty-nine percent of those polled say their governments tend to be "too willing to compromise and are often taken advantage of."

The poll shows the highest levels of support for greater cooperation are among Turks (81%), Egyptians (76%), and Nigerians (73%). Palestinians are also among the highest (69%), a positive indicator for potential Middle East peace negotiations.

Publics calling for greater cooperation also are found in the largest and most powerful countries, including Americans (54%), Chinese (63%), Russians (54%) and Indians (59%). Though Indians favor greater cooperation, only 42 percent of Pakistanis say the same.

Interestingly, the most distinct cluster of nations with low numbers calling for greater cooperation are in the EU. Less than half feel their government should be more cooperative in Britain (31%), Poland (34%), France (43%), and Germany (47%). This may be because they feel that they are already cooperative enough, especially in the context of the EU and in their relations with the United States.

Very large numbers feel that their country tends to be too willing to compromise and is often taken advantage of in Mexico (63%) and South Korea (71%). This may be due to their close relationship with the United States in which America clearly plays the dominant role.

Large majorities favor greater cooperation in Hong Kong (72%) and Macao (60%), but only 42 percent feel that way in Taiwan.

WorldPublicOpinion.org conducted the poll of 20,349 respondents in 21 nations that comprise 64 percent of the world's population. This includes most of the largest nations--China, India, the United States, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Russia--as well as Mexico, Chile, Germany, Great Britain, France, Poland, Ukraine, Kenya, Azerbaijan, Egypt, Turkey, Iraq, Pakistan, the Palestinian territories, and South Korea. Polling was also conducted in Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau. Not all questions were asked to all nations. The margins of error range from +/-3 to 4 percentage points. The surveys were conducted across the different nations between April 4 and July 9, 2009.

WorldPublicOpinion.org, a collaborative project involving research centers from around the world, is managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland.

Assessment of US Cooperativeness

Asked to assess whether the United States is generally cooperative in its relations with other countries, publics in 15 of the 19 nations said that the US is generally cooperative, with an average of 59 percent saying that it is cooperative and 30 percent saying it is not.

"Clearly President Obama has turned the tide in the image of the US as a leader in the world. When Obama called for greater cooperation at the UN, most people saw the US as ready to carry its share of the water," comments Steven Kull, director of WPO.
The only nations to say that the US is not cooperative all have Muslim majorities: Egypt (62%), Iraq (58%), Pakistan (54%), and Turkey (45%). Interestingly, the governments of all four of these nations have close working relations with the US.

Assessment of China's Cooperativeness

Asked to assess whether China is generally cooperative, views are more mixed but still predominantly positive. Eleven nations rate China as cooperative, seven as not cooperative, and one is divided. On average, 53% say they think China is generally cooperating with other countries, and 35% say they do not think so.

China's overall cooperation with other nations draws a positive response from a majority of respondents around the world. Outside China, the strongest support came again from Pakistan, where 94% say they think China is cooperative, followed by Azerbaijan with 89% and Ukraine with 81%. The strongest negative response was from South Korea, where 68% of respondents do not think China is cooperative, followed by Great Britain with 66% and France with 63%. Sixty-one percent of Americans say China does not cooperate.

In China, 63% of those polled on the mainland say their government should be more open to international cooperation.

A new poll of 15 nations, most of them in the developing world, finds that majorities of the people canvassed want their governments to take steps to fight climate change, even if that entails costs. People signaled they would support public measures to limit greenhouse gas emissions and step up adaptation measures. For example, respondents would support higher fuel efficiency standards for cars, preserving or expanding forests, and extending funding to vulnerable countries so they can develop hardier crops suited to more severe climates.

"The poll's findings shed light on global attitudes at a particularly important moment: the run-up to the conference on climate change to be held December 7-18 in Copenhagen. Hearing from people in the developing world offers a new lens on this issue," says Katherine Sierra, World Bank Vice President for Sustainable Development.

Carried out by WorldPublicOpinion.org and commissioned by the World Bank, the poll questioned 13,518 respondents in 15 nations-- Bangladesh, China, Egypt, France, India, Indonesia, Iran, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Russia, Senegal, Turkey, the United States, and Vietnam.

Other key findings include:

•   Public concern about climate change is high worldwide, but it's generally higher in developing countries.
•   Publics, particularly in developing countries, believe climate change is already having negative effects.
•   In most countries, wealthy and poor alike, large majorities are willing to pay to fight climate change.
•   Support for increased adaptation funding to poor countries is widespread worldwide

"It is encouraging indeed to see strong across-the-board support for committing to emissions limits in both developed and developing nations, since behavior change and attitudes will help determine whether we succeed or fail in addressing this global issue," says Marianne Fay, World Bank Chief Economist for Sustainable Development and Co-Director of the World Development Report 2010: Development and Climate Change.

Ms Fay explained that the poll was commissioned as a follow-up to the recently released WDR. The aim was to gain a better understanding of how the recommendations of the Report to invest substantially and immediately to manage climate change ("Act now, act together, and act differently") resonate in a cross-section of countries.

In the low-income country of Vietnam, for example, 98% say their government should commit to limiting emissions as part of a deal, and 93% support the same course in the absence of a deal. At the other end of the wealth spectrum, the people of France express 97% support if an agreement is reached at Copenhagen, and 87% if no agreement emerges.

Majorities in 14 of 15 countries are willing to pay to fight global climate change. In each country, the poll asked people whether they were willing to bear higher prices for energy and other goods, as part of taking steps to fight climate change. These price increases were calculated as 0.5% and 1.0% of each country's per capita GDP, and then described to respondents as defined monthly amounts in local currency. Majorities in six countries--China (68%), Vietnam (59%), Japan (53%), Iran (51%) and Mexico (51%)--say they are willing to pay 1%. In addition, majorities in an additional eight countries are willing to pay between 0.5% and 1.0%.

Majorities in most countries also support measures that would raise costs for energy and transportation.

Majorities in all countries support "limiting the rate of constructing coal-fired power plants, even if this increases the cost of energy." In China, which is highly reliant on coal, 67% support this measure. On average across all countries polled, 68% support the idea (31% strongly) and 26% oppose it (8% strongly).

Similarly, majorities in 12 countries support "gradually increasing the requirements for fuel efficiency in automobiles, even if this raises the cost of cars and bus fares." Majorities in 11 countries support "gradually reducing government subsidies that favor private transportation, even if this raises its cost." Majorities in all countries polled support "preserving or expanding forested areas, even if this means less land for agriculture or construction."

The poll also asked about helping poor countries adapt to the effects of climate change. Fourteen majorities and one plurality say their countries "should contribute to international efforts to help poor countries deal with these climate-induced changes." Many developing countries (such as Vietnam, Indonesia, Kenya, and Senegal) express more than 90% support for acting in solidarity with other countries facing problems like their own.

WorldPublicOpinion.org operates as a collaborative project involving research centers from around the world that is managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland. The margins of error for each country range from +/-3 to 4 percentage points. The surveys were conducted across the different nations in September and October 2009.

The World Development Report can be downloaded by visiting: http://www.worldbank.org/wdr2010
The World Bank's climate change blog is at: http://blogs.worldbank.org/climatechange

Alternative WPO link for: Full Report, including questionnaire with full findings (PDF)

Many of the results in the digest are surprising, and they challenge long-held stereotypes about attitudes toward world order and international cooperation, both in the United States and abroad. This digest represents a compilation, analysis, and synthesis of existing polling data, rather than new survey research. Its value added lies in its comprehensive coverage of major issue areas, as well as its juxtaposition of global and U.S. attitudes toward each area. Getting a clearer picture of what citizens in the United States and abroad want is important for policymakers, because public attitudes will shape prospects for effective multilateral cooperation in the twenty-first century. Read an overview of the project.

Read the full report (PDF 12MB)

VIEW BY TOPIC:

World Order
United States or World

International Institutions
United States or World

Violent Conflict
United States or World

Terrorism
United States or World

Nuclear Proliferation
United States or World

The Environment
United States or World

Energy Security
United States or World

The Global Economy
United States or World

Economic Development
United States or World

Human Rights
United States or World

Originally published on openDemocracy

To a Kremlin analyst in 1968 America may have looked similar to the way that Iran looks to some American analysts today. Large-scale demonstrations to protest the Vietnam war and disrupt the Democratic convention in Chicago may have led to some to conclude that the long-awaited collapse of capitalism was close at hand. Indeed some demonstrators called for the overthrow of the system, some were explicitly pro-communist, and some government leaders portrayed the demonstrators as a threat to the American way of life. But if Kremlin analysts had come to those conclusions, they would have been wrong.

And if they had called for the Soviet Union to pursue a confrontational approach to the United States on the basis that this would hasten its demise they would have been misguided.

Today some call for the United States to refrain from negotiating with Iran on the basis that the recent demonstrations are a sign that the Iranian system is cracking. It is better, they say, to increase the pressure on an already stumbling government whose people have turned against them; the government that is likely to replace it will be much more accommodating. They too are misguided.

A new WorldPublicOpinion.org poll of Iranians--conducted by native Farsi speakers calling into Iran, thus bypassing any possible government controls--reveals that large majorities continue to support the Iranian system.

Naturally this raises the question of whether people are answering honestly in an autocratic environment where people are being imprisoned for protesting against the government. But we can focus just on those who were brave enough to say that they did vote for the opposition candidate Mousavi. Presumably they are being frank in response to other questions as well.

What we find is that those who openly support Mousavi are different from others. Unlike the others a majority of Mousavi supporters that the press should be completely free from government controls (59%) and that Iran's relations with the west have worsened under Ahmadinejad (57%).

As compared to others, Mousavi supporters are far more likely to say that the election was not free and fair, that they do not have confidence in the election results and that the Ahmadinejad is not the legitimate president of Iran.

However a modest majority of Mousavi supporters says the opposite.

More important, they express support for the Iranian system. Fifty-three percent say that a body of religious scholars should have the right to overturn laws they believe are contrary to the Koran. Two thirds say they trust the government in Tehran to do the right thing at least some of the time. Majorities say they have some confidence in the Guardian Council (55%) and the President (62%).

Furthermore, even if these people were to have a powerful influence over Iranian foreign policy it would not signal a transformation of US-Iranian relations. Only 35 percent say they trust Obama, and majorities have pernicious assumptions about US goals such as the belief that the US is hostile to Islam (68%). Like the rest of the sample, less than half say they oppose attacks on US troops in Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf.

Perhaps most significant, only 43 percent say they would be ready to give up enriching uranium in exchange for removing sanctions.

This does not mean that all the news is bad. Three quarters of Mousavi supporters, like two thirds of all Iranians polled, would be willing to preclude developing nuclear weapons--either through stopping enrichment or allowing unlimited inspections--in exchange for sanctions.

Similarly three quarters of Mousavi supporters, like two thirds of the whole sample, would support Iran establishing diplomatic relations with the United States.

These numbers do not say what the Iranian government will or will not be willing to do in a negotiation, but they do tell us something about the normative environment that exists in Iran today.

Altogether they suggest that an alternative strategy of refraining from negotiation in the hope that the Iranian government is profoundly weakened from internal dissent is unlikely to be any more promising than if a similar strategy had been tried by Moscow in 1968.

As the UN General Assembly prepares to debate a proposal calling for nations to take action against the defamation of religion, majorities in 13 of 20 nations polled around the world support the right to criticize a religion.

On average, across all countries polled, 57% of respondents agree that "people should be allowed to publicly criticize a religion because people should have freedom of speech." However, an average of 34% of respondents agree that governments "should have the right to fine or imprison people who publicly criticize a religion because such criticism could defame the religion."

The issue of whether freedom of speech should extend to discussions of religion has stirred considerable controversy in recent months. The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), a group of 56 Muslim nations, is championing a proposed U.N. resolution that calls on all nations of the world "to effectively combat defamation of all religions and incitement to religious hatred in general and against Islam and Muslims in particular."

Of the seven nations where most people agree with that criticism of religion should be prohibited five have overwhelmingly Muslim populations -- Egypt (71%), Pakistan (62%), Iraq (57%), Indonesia (49%), and the Palestinian territories (51%). Another two -- India (59%) and Nigeria (54%)-- have historically been plagued by sectarian violence.

The resolution was passed by the U.N. Human Rights Council in March and is expected to come before the General Assembly before the end of 2009. Similar resolutions have gained the rights panel's approval since 1999 and have been passed by the General Assembly since 2005.

Human rights advocates and several Western governments, including the United States, oppose the resolution, saying it restricts freedom of expression and could be used to curb religious freedoms rather than protect them. This week, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said the United States "will stand against discrimination and persecution. But an individual's ability to practice his or her religion has no bearing on others' freedom of speech. ... Differences should be met with tolerance, not with the suppression of discourse."

Zamir Akram, a representative of the OIC, defended the resolution earlier this month, saying that the organization "attached great importance to the exercise of freedom of belief and expression, but the exercise of this right carried with it duties and responsibilities, including the need to fight against hate speech."

WorldPublicOpinion.org conducted the poll of 18487 respondents in 20 nations. This includes many of the largest nations--India, the United States, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Russia--as well as Mexico, Chile, Germany, Great Britain, France, Poland, Ukraine, Kenya, Azerbaijan, Egypt, Turkey, Iraq, Pakistan, the Palestinian territories, and South Korea. Polling was also conducted in Taiwan and Hong Kong. The margins of error range from +/-3 to 4 percentage points. The surveys were conducted across the different nations between April 25 and July 9, 2009.

Support for the right to criticize religion is strongest in the United States, with 89%, compared to just 9% support for government restrictions. Chile is next with 82% support, followed by Mexico (81%), Britain (81%), Germany (76%), Poland (68%), Azerbaijan (67%), France (66%), Russia (61%), South Korea (59%), Turkey (54%), Kenya (54%), and Ukraine (53%). In addition, 68% of Taiwanese and 81% in Hong Kong agree the ability to criticize religion should be a right.

Though the strongest supporters of restrictions on criticism of religions are in Muslim countries a separate poll by WPO in 2008 showed that overwhelming majorities said it is at least somewhat important for people to have the right to express any opinion, including criticism of the government or religious leaders. This included Indonesia (94%), the Palestinian territories (94%), and Egypt (80%) -- Iraq and Pakistan were not included in the survey. In fact, clear majorities in every one of the 20 nations included in that poll took the same position, ranging from 69% in India to 98% in the United States.

However the 2008 poll also asked whether governments should have the right to prohibit certain political or religious views from being discussed, and Indonesia (55%) was one of only three countries where a majority answered in the affirmative. Kenya (67%) and Thailand (63%) did so as well. Egypt was evenly divided, 49% yes and 49% no, while more people in the remaining 16 countries said governments should not have such a right.

The two non-Muslim countries where majorities responded to the recent WPO poll by saying governments should be able to fine or imprison people for criticizing religions are India and Nigeria. Both were founded in the 20th century with borders that were drawn by former colonial powers in a way that encompassed a variety of religions, including a large Muslim minority. And both have since experienced periodic spates of sectarian violence that have frequently involved Muslims. This suggests that their support of government restrictions may stem not from a popular push to defend Islam -- Muslims make up roughly half of Nigeria's population but just 13% of India's -- but from a broadly shared desire to maintain order by curbing criticism of religions.

In Nigeria, that is borne out by the fact that Muslims and Christians respond almost identically to the poll question. Fifty-four percent of Christians and 53% of Muslims favor government restrictions, while 45% of Muslims and 43% of Christians say criticism of religion should be allowed.

With President Barack Obama on his way to meet his Chinese counterpart in Beijing for talks on global climate change and a range of other issues, a poll by WorldPublicOpinion.org shows that publics in more than half of 20 nations disapprove of the way China and the United States are dealing with global warming.

(Photos: Pete Souza/White House Photo, Office of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom)

The poll asked respondents to grade China and the US on several dimensions. China gets poor marks for how it handles human rights--on average 52% say China does not respect human rights while just 36% say it does. The US does better, with 50% saying it is respectful and 38% it is not.

People around the world regard both superpowers as cooperative, but they also see both countries, especially the US, as using the threat of military force to coerce other nations.

Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao are expected to focus on climate change, economic concerns, and nuclear issues related to Iran and North Korea when they meet Nov. 16 and 17. The climate change question is of particular importance in the run-up to December's conference in Copenhagen, where 192 countries will attempt to conclude a new treaty on climate change. All eyes will be on China, the world's leading emitter of greenhouse gases, and the United States, which long held that distinction.

The WPO poll, conducted during April and May, finds that people in 11 nations disapprove of how [China] is "dealing with the issue of climate change." Clear majorities in six nations -- France (74%), Britain (73%), Germany (72%), the United States (69%), South Korea (69%), and Egypt (58%) -- are disapproving, along with pluralities is five other nations. Only in Pakistan (93%), Nigeria (69%), Kenya (64%), and Indonesia (55%) do majorities approve.

Likewise, majorities in six nations disapprove of the US handling of global warming--Egypt (68%), Britain (65%), France (62%), Pakistan 62%), Turkey (56%), and Germany (56%) --, as do pluralities in five. Nigeria, Kenya, South Korea, India and Indonesia are the only countries where majorities express approval.

Across the 20 nations polled, approval of China's record on climate change is somewhat lower than for the US. On average, 34% approve of China (42% disapprove) while 39% approve of the US (41% disapprove).

WorldPublicOpinion.org conducted the poll of 20,349 respondents in 20 nations that comprise 63 percent of the world's population. This includes most of the largest nations--China, India, the United States, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Russia--as well as Mexico, Chile, Germany, Great Britain, France, Poland, Ukraine, Kenya, Azerbaijan, Egypt, Turkey, Iraq, Pakistan, and South Korea. Polling was also conducted in Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau. Not all questions were asked to all nations. The margins of error range from +/-3 to 4 percentage points. The surveys were conducted across the different nations between April 4 and July 9, 2009.

WorldPublicOpinion.org, a collaborative project involving research centers from around the world, is managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland.

Throughout the poll, some groups of countries consistently favored one superpower and were critical of the other. Most notably, people in most Muslim countries gave China positive ratings and the US negative ratings. Among European countries, the US tended to rate high and China low. Kenya and Nigeria hold consistently positive views of the two superpowers, and Turkey has consistently negative views of both.

China and the United States are both seen as cooperative. Asked "if you think each is or is not generally cooperative with other countries," an average of 59% responded positively with regard to the US, and 53% for China.

On a nation-by-nation basis, the US is judged cooperative by 15 nations and not cooperative by four nations. China is seen as cooperative by eleven nations and uncooperative by seven.

At the same time many nations see these big powers as using "the threat of military force to gain advantages." This is especially true of the US: all nations polled, including the US itself, sees the US this way--on average 77%.

Views of China are less sharp: on average 46% say China does the same, while 41% say it does not. Ten nations say China uses military threats, eight say it does not. Among its neighbors majorities see China as threatening in South Korea (75%), and India (54%) and views are divided in Indonesia.

An area in which people around the world judge China considerably more harshly than the United States is respect for human rights. Majorities in nine countries say China does not respect human rights -- especially France (88%), Germany (88%), South Korea (87%), the US (86%), Britain (86%), and Poland (80%). However, seven, say China does respect human rights: especially Pakistan (91%), Nigeria (77%), and Kenya (67%).

The United States respects human rights in the view of 12 nations, especially. Majorities who disagreed were found in 6 nations, especially the Muslim nations of Pakistan (79%), Turkey (70%), Egypt (68%), and Iraq (60%), but also Mexico (61%).

Asked overall whether China or the US "is playing a mainly positive or negative role in the world" views are mixed. On average the split is dead even for the US, with 40% of respondents overall seeing a positive role and an identical number seeing a negative one. The overall positive response for China is higher, 44%, but still short of a majority, while 34% respond negatively.

Only in Kenya, Nigeria and South Korea do clear majorities say that both China and the US play a positive role in the world. A Majority in Turkey sees both superpowers playing negative roles.

Despite tense relations, Taiwanese views of China are not as negative one might expect. Large majorities believe China uses the threat of military force to gain advantages (70%) and does not respect human rights (76%). However slightly more than half (51%) say that China is playing a mostly positive role in the world. The same number agrees that China is mostly cooperative with other countries in the international arena.

Publics in China's special administrative regions of Hong Kong and Macau have very favorable views of Chinese policies. Overwhelmingly majorities agree that China is playing a mainly positive role in the world (81% Hong Kong, 81% Macau) and that China usually cooperates with other countries (85% Hong Kong, 89% Macau). Roughly two-thirds of both publics reject any notion that China uses its military power to intimidate other countries (68% Hong Kong, 69% Macau). A slight majority in Macau (51%) and a plurality in Hong Kong (45%) support China's actions in combating climate change.

The exception is on human rights. A large majority in Hong Kong (62%) say China is not respectful of human rights while views in Macau are mixed with many declining to answer.

Funding for this research was provided by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Calvert Foundation.

Twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, a new BBC World Service global poll finds that dissatisfaction with free market capitalism is widespread, with an average of only 11% across 27 countries saying that it works well and that greater regulation is not a good idea.

In only two countries do more than one in five feel that capitalism works well as it stands--the US (25%) and Pakistan (21%).

The most common view is that free market capitalism has problems that can be addressed through regulation and reform--a view held by an average of 51% of more than 29,000 people polled by GlobeScan/PIPA.

An average of 23% feel that capitalism is fatally flawed, and a new economic system is needed--including 43% in France, 38% in Mexico, 35% in Brazil and 31% in Ukraine.

Furthermore, majorities would like their government to be more active in owning or directly controlling their country's major industries in 15 of the 27 countries. This view is particularly widely held in countries of the former Soviet states of Russia (77%), and Ukraine (75%), but also Brazil (64%), Indonesia (65%), and France (57%).

Majorities support governments distributing wealth more evenly in 22 of the 27 countries --on average two out of three (67%) across all countries. In 17 of the 27 countries most want to see government doing more to regulate business--on average 56%.

The poll also asked about whether the breakup of the Soviet Union was a good thing or not. While an average of 54% say it was a good thing, this is the majority view in only 15 of the countries polled. An average of 22% say it was mainly a bad thing, while 24% do not know.

Among former Warsaw Pact countries, most Russians (61%) and Ukrainians (54%) believe the breakup of the Soviet Union was a bad thing. In contrast, four in five Poles (80%) and nearly two-thirds of Czechs feel the disintegration of the USSR was a good thing (63%).

The results are drawn from a survey of 29,033 adult citizens across 27 countries, conducted for BBC World Service by the international polling firm GlobeScan, together with the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland. GlobeScan coordinated fieldwork between 19 June and 13 October 2009

GlobeScan Chairman Doug Miller says: "It appears that the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 may not have been the crushing victory for free-market capitalism that it seemed at the time--particularly after the events of the last 12 months."

"Some features of socialism, such as government efforts to equalise wealth, continue to appeal to many people around the world," comments Steven Kull of PIPA.

Participating Countries

Note: In Brazil, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Egypt, Mexico, Panama, the Philippines, and Turkey urban samples were used. Please see the Methodology for further details.

Detailed Findings

Europeans say they feel the disintegration of the USSR was a good thing, with very large majorities in Germany (79%), the UK (76%), and France (74%) feeling this way. The strongest consensus is in the US, where 81% say the end of the Soviet Union was mainly a good thing. Major developed nations like Australia (73%) and Canada (73%) also hold the same view.

Outside the developed West the consensus is much less strong. Seven in ten Egyptians (69%) say the disintegration of the Soviet Union was mainly a bad thing. Views are divided in India, Kenya, and Indonesia as to whether it was a good or a bad thing, with many also saying they do not know.

Despite sharing a similar perspective on many key issues, French and Germans disagree sharply when it comes to free market capitalism. In France, 47% feel that its problems can be solved by regulation and reform whilst nearly as many think that it has fatal flaws (43%). In Germany, however, there is very little support (8%) for a different economic system, with nearly three in four (74%) feeling that free market capitalism's problems can be addressed by regulation and reform.

Latin Americans are particularly enthusiastic about a more active role for government in running the economy, with around nine in ten supporting more redistribution of wealth in Mexico (92%), Chile (91%), and Brazil (89%). Support for redistributing wealth more evenly is lowest in Turkey (9 %)--but those who do not support a greater role for government in this area are also in the majority in India (60%), Pakistan (66%), Poland (61%), and the US (59%).

The proportions wanting to see government be more active in regulating business are highest in Brazil (87%), Chile (84%), France (76%), Spain (73%), China (71%), and Russia (68%). Only in Turkey (71%), does a majority think their government should do less to regulate business. However, there is more widespread opposition elsewhere, including the Philippines (47% oppose), Pakistan (36%), Nigeria (32%) and India (29%).

The direct ownership or control of industries by government is generally more controversial, with large numbers opposed to it in, not only the US (52%) but also Germany (50%), Turkey (71%), and the Philippines (54%).

In total 29,033 citizens in Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Egypt, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, the Philippines, Poland, Russia, Spain, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America were interviewed face-to-face or by telephone between 19 June and 13 October, 2009. Polling was conducted for BBC World Service by GlobeScan and its research partners in each country. In 9 of the 27 countries, the sample was limited to major urban areas. The margin of error per country ranges from +/-2.2 to 3.5 per cent, 19 times out of 20.

Questionnaire with Findings, Methodology (PDF)

A poll by WorldPublicOpinion.org finds that most people in 17 of 21 nations surveyed say their government should abide by international law and reject the view that governments are not obliged to follow such laws when they conflict with the national interest.

(Photo: Jeroen Bouman/International Court of Justice)

Most respondents in two out of three nations polled are also confident that the International Court of Justice, also known as the World Court, would treat their country fairly and impartially, the WPO poll shows.

The poll, conducted in 21 nations from around the world asked respondents which of two statements is closest to their own view. The first statement said, "Our nation should consistently follow international laws. It is wrong to violate international laws, just as it is wrong to violate laws within a country": the second said, "If our government thinks it is not in our nation's interest, it should not feel obliged to abide by international laws."

On average, across all nations polled, 57% said that their country should put a higher priority on international law than national interest.

WorldPublicOpinion.org conducted the poll of 20,202 respondents in 21 nations that comprise 64 percent of the world's population. This includes most of the largest nations--China, India, the United States, Indonesia, Nigeria, and Russia--as well as Mexico, Chile, Germany, Great Britain, France, Poland, Ukraine, Kenya, Azerbaijan, Egypt, Turkey, Iraq, Pakistan, the Palestinian territories, and South Korea. Polling was also conducted in Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau. Not all questions were asked to all nations. The margins of error range from +/-3 to 4 percentage points. The surveys were conducted across the different nations between April 4 and July 9, 2009.

WorldPublicOpinion.org, a collaborative project involving research centers from around the world, is managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland.

Support for abiding by international law is strongest in China, where 74% of those polled on the mainland say their government should abide by international law, while just 18% say the national interest should take precedence.

Belief in the primacy of international law was also strong in the United States Europe, Africa and the rest of the Far East. Seventy percent of Germans, 69% of Americans, 68% of Taiwanese, and 65% of Kenyans and Nigerians put international law ahead of their national interest.

The only nations where a majority says the national interest justifies violating international law were Pakistan, where 56% give priority to their national interest and 38% favor compliance with international law, and Mexico, 53% to 44%. Each has a longstanding alliance with the United States that has been marked over the years by significant concessions to Washington, which may suggest that the people of the two nations are wary of international commitments that are not to their benefit.

Also, views are divided in Turkey and the Palestinian Territories on this question.

Confidence in the World Court, which adjudicates cases involving international law, is also widespread. The court, which is based in The Hague and began operations in 1946, is the principal judicial body of the United Nations and consists of 15 justices from around the world.

Respondents in 20 nations were asked if there were a case involving their country, "how confident are you that the Court's decision would be fair and impartial?" Most respondents in 13 nations say they would be somewhat or very confident, while five countries say they are not very confident or not confident at all.

On average 54% say that they would be at least somewhat confident that the Court would be fair, while 36% express a lack of confidence. Majorities also express confidence in Taiwan (54%), Hong Kong (58%), and Macau (65%).

Steven Kull, director of WorldPublicOpinion.org, comments: "It appears that publics around the world show a fairly strong internationalist orientation. Most favor subordinating national interest to international law and are ready to trust the World Court to be impartial."

Confidence in the world court is strongest among Kenyans, where 79% say they are confident a case involving their country would be decided freely and fairly. Seventy-four percent of Germans are confident, 73% of Poles, 67% of Egyptians, and 66% of Nigerians.

Majorities express a lack of confidence in the court in five nations, in most cases by modest majorities--South Korea (59%), Mexico (53%), the Palestinian territories (52%), Turkey (51%), and Indonesia (51%).

It appears that people in nearly all nations have a tendency to underestimate the support for international law among their fellow citizens. Respondents were asked whether they think their own support for consistently abiding by international laws is greater or less than that of the average citizen in their country. If people as a whole were estimating their fellow citizens correctly, those saying that others are more supportive would be equal to those saying others are less supportive.

However, in 14 of the 16 nations asked this question, plus Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau, many more said that they were more supportive of abiding by international law than said they were less supportive. On average, 48% said they were more supportive, while just 28% said they were less supportive.

Kull comments, "Clearly people are underestimating how ready others are to consistently abide by international law. People tend to think they are above average."

A new poll conducted by WorldPublicOpinion.org (WPO) together with the Brookings Institution finds that over the last year, as the health care debate has intensified, a bipartisan consensus that the government is responsible for ensuring access to health care has fractured. Nonetheless, a majority of the public still says the government is responsible, and there is bipartisan support for numerous key reform proposals, including a limited public option, new constraints on the health insurance industry, tort reform, and cross-state purchasing.

In 2008, asked whether the US government "should be responsible for ensuring that its citizens can meet their basic need for health care," 77% said that it should be, including clear majorities of all parties. However, the new WPO/Brookings poll finds that Republican support for the proposition has dropped from 55% support to 29%, while a 67% majority now rejects this view. Overall, support has dropped 17 points, but 60% still say that government is responsible.

Despite this disagreement at a broad level, there is bipartisan support for a number of specific proposals.

On the public option, when asked whether the government should provide insurance to all who want it, 57% are in favor, but a majority of Republicans are opposed (65%). However, asked about a more limited public option available only to those who cannot get health insurance from an employer, public support rises to 75%, including 59% of Republicans.

A proposal that the government require insurance companies to accept every applicant for coverage enjoys overwhelming support. Overall, 82% backed such a reform, including 90% of Democrats, 80% of independents and 73% of Republicans.

Government regulation of malpractice suits against doctors has the support of a more modest majority--55%-- but is also backed by individuals from both major parties, including 64% of Republicans and a 50% plurality of Democrats.

Cross-state purchasing of insurance is likewise strongly supported by large majorities of Americans across the partisan spectrum. Two-thirds (65%) support changing the rules, including 69% of Republicans, 64% of Democrats, and 61% of independents.

More broadly there is also strong bipartisan consensus that the government is doing a poor job ensuring that Americans can meet their basic health care needs. Sixty-six percent said the government is doing not doing this well, including majorities of Republicans (58%), Democrats (67%) and independents (74%).

The question of whether waste, fraud and abuse can be cut from the health care system without denying people the treatment they need has stirred considerable debate. However, an overwhelming 3 in 4 Americans believe it can be done, including majorities of Republicans (79%), Democrats (78%), and independents (72%).

As debate over health care reform rages in Congress, half of all Americans report that they are getting increasingly alienated. Asked how they were responding to the debate, only 24% percent say the debate is drawing them closer to the Democrats' ideas, and just 21% say they are drawing closer to the Republicans' ideas. Fifty percent say they are less supportive of both sets of ideas.

Steven Kull, director of WPO comments, "The current partisan debate seems to be alienating many Americans and fracturing the public consensus on the role of government in health care. The good news is that among the public, Republicans and Democrats are still able to find common ground on specific reforms."

Four in five (79%) expect that if health care reform is enacted, their taxes will go up.
However, only those who think their taxes will increase a lot tend to oppose reform proposals. For instance, on a generally available public option, those who think their taxes will go up a little are strongly supportive (81%) as does a majority of those who think their taxes will go up somewhat (53%). Only among those who expect their taxes to go up a lot, is a majority opposed (73%).

Americans express anxiety about health care reform. Asked to choose between two statements 53% chose "I'm afraid that government action will only make our health care system worse" while just 44 % chose "I'm confident that government action can improve our health care system."

William Galston, senior fellow in Governance Studies at Brookings, observes that "While many Americans support specific reform proposals, this support is compromised by an underlying lack of confidence in government."

The poll of 1400 Americans was fielded from September 26, 2009 to October 5, 2009. It was conducted using the web-enabled KnowledgePanel®, a probability-based panel designed to be representative of the U.S. population. Initially, participants are chosen scientifically by a random selection of telephone numbers and residential addresses. Persons in selected households are then invited by telephone or by mail to participate in the web-enabled KnowledgePanel®. For those who agree to participate, but do not already have Internet access, Knowledge Networks provides at no cost a laptop and ISP connection. Panelists receive unique log-in information for accessing surveys online and are contacted by an email inviting them to participate in a study. More technical information is available at http://www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp/reviewer-info.html.

The size of the sample answering each question varied, though all had over 800 respondents. The margin of error varied from +/- 2.6 to 3.5 percentage points.

Questionnaire with Findings, Methodology (PDF)
WPO Dataset for Download (SPSS Format)

A new WorldPublicOpinion.org poll finds that two-thirds of Iranians would favor their government precluding the development of nuclear weapons in exchange for the lifting of international sanctions against Iran.

Nantanz uranium-enrichment plant outside Tehran (NASA photo)

Only one-third would be ready to halt enrichment in exchange for lifting sanctions. However, another third, while insisting on continuing enrichment, would agree to grant international inspectors unrestricted access to nuclear facilities to ensure that that there are no bomb-making activities.

The WPO poll also finds that six in 10 Iranians believe that economic sanctions, imposed by the United States and the United Nations over fears that Iran's nuclear program might produce an atomic weapon, are having a negative impact. Seven in 10 say they believe sanctions will be tightened if Iran continues its current nuclear program.

Steven Kull, director of WPO, comments: "Though most Iranians are feeling the bite of economic sanctions and expect them to tighten, only a third are willing to negotiate away the right to enrich uranium. However, two-thirds are willing to make a deal that would preclude the development of nuclear weapons."

While the Iranian government has consistently said that it does not aspire to have nuclear weapons, the International Atomic Energy Agency has said that Iran has not been fully cooperative in regard to inspections of its program. Also while President Ahmadinejad in an interview with NBC News aired Sept. 17t said that Iran does not need nuclear weapons, he refused to say categorically that Iran will never develop them.

Kull adds, "For Iran to preclude the development of nuclear weapons through unrestricted access for inspectors would represent a significant step."

WPO conducted the poll of 1,003 Iranians across Iran between Aug. 27 and Sept. 10, 2009. The margin of error is 3.1%. Telephone surveys were conducted by a professional survey organization calling in from outside Iran. WPO, a collaborative project involving research centers from around the world, is managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland.

Asked to what degree sanctions have had a negative impact on Iran's situation, 60% of respondents to the WPO poll say there has been at least some negative impact, with 23% saying there has been a lot. Thirty percent say there has had only a little impact (15%) or none (15%).

Iranians are also pessimistic about sanctions in the future. If Iran continues enriching uranium, 70% expect sanctions to be increased. Only 19 percent say they will not be increased.

Concerns that Iran's nuclear program was not simply for energy but that Iran was working to develop nuclear weapons grade material emerged early in the decade. In 2005 the International Atomic Energy Agency declared Iran to be in violation of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, primarily for failure to provide information and access to the IAEA. In response, the United States and the United Nations increased existing sanctions against Iran.

Nonetheless most Iranians favor persisting with enrichment. Asked whether they would favor an agreement whereby the current sanctions would be removed and Iran would continue its nuclear energy program but agree not to enrich uranium, only 31% favor the idea, while 55% are opposed and 14% do not give an answer.

Even among those who say they voted for opposition candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi in the presidential election, 51% are opposed to agreeing to give up enriching uranium, while 43% favor the idea.

Those who did not support such a deal were asked whether they would favor another deal that would lift sanctions and allow Iran to continue uranium enrichment, but would grant international inspectors unrestricted access to all Iranian nuclear facilities to make sure that it is not making an atomic bomb. Thirty-four percent (of the whole sample) say they would favor such a deal, while 22% are opposed.

This means that a total of 65% express a readiness to make one or another deal that would prevent Iran from making a nuclear weapon.

Most Iranians do not want a nuclear weapon, apart from the question of sanctions. Fifty-eight percent say they do not want to develop an "atomic bomb," including 3% who oppose the nuclear program altogether. However 38% say they do favor developing an atomic bomb.

Iranians also express a readiness to enter into direct negotiations with the United States. Sixty-percent favor, while 30% oppose "full, unconditional negotiations" between their government and the United States. This may stem in part from growing confidence in Iran's ability to withstand pressure. Fifty-seven percent say that over the past four years Iran has become better able to stand up to foreign pressure.

This study was conducted with support from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Calvert Foundation.

A new WorldPublicOpinion.org poll of Iranians finds that six in 10 favor restoration of diplomatic relations between their country and the United States, a stance that is directly at odds with the position the Iranian government has held for three decades. A similar number favor direct talks.

However, Iranians do not appear to share the international infatuation with Barack Obama. Only 16 percent say that have confidence in him to do the right thing in world affairs. This is lower than any of the 20 countries polled by WPO on this question in the spring. Despite his recent speech in Cairo, where Obama stressed that he respects Islam, only a quarter of Iranians are convinced he does. And three in four (77%) continue to have an unfavorable view of the United States government.

"While the majority of Iranian people are ready to do business with Obama, they show little trust in him," says Steven Kull, director of WPO.

At the same time, there are some signs of softening. Trust in Obama is three times higher than the 6 percent of Iranians who expressed confidence in George W. Bush in a 2008 WPO poll. Unfavorable views of the United States government are down 8 points from the 85 percent unfavorable views in 2008 (WPO).

On Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the survey finds that eight in 10 Iranians say they consider him to be the country's legitimate president. Ahmedinejad, who will visit the United States on Tuesday and address the UN General Assembly, was the focus of large-scale protests in Tehran after opposition supporters disputed the validity of his reelection in June.

WorldPublicOpinion.org (WPO) conducted the poll of 1,003 Iranians across Iran between Aug. 27 and Sept. 10, 2009. Interviewing was conducted by a professional survey organization located outside Iran which used native Farsi speakers who telephoned into Iran (8 in 10 Iranian households have a telephone line). The margin of error is 3.1 percent. WPO, a collaborative project involving research centers from around the world, is managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland.

The Iranian government has opposed restoration of full diplomatic relations with the United States since 1979, when the Islamic Revolution toppled the US-backed regime of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi and ties were severed over Iran's takeover of the US Embassy in Tehran.

However, WPO finds 63 percent of Iranians polled say they favor restoration of diplomatic ties. Only 27 percent are opposed.

Asked if they favor or oppose full, unconditional negotiations between the governments of the two countries, 60 percent say they do. Thirty percent are opposed.

Obama is not viewed warmly by most Iranians, the poll indicates. Some 71 percent have little or no confidence that Obama will do the right thing regarding world affairs. Many also question his attitude toward Islam, with 59 percent saying he does not respect the religion and just 25 percent saying he does.

Iranians show high levels of mistrust in the United States. Eight in ten say the United States seeks to weaken and divide the Muslim world (unchanged from 2008). Three in four say the United States has the goal of imposing American culture on Muslim society.

But there are also some positive signs. While most Iranians continue to believe that it is not really a goal of the United States to bring about an independent Palestinian state, the number believing that it is a goal has doubled from 12 to 25 percent--suggesting that Obama's efforts to stop Israeli settlements may be having some impact.

Also attitudes toward the American people are largely positive, with 51 percent of those polled expressing favorable feelings toward Americans (13 percent very favorable).
Asked about the prospect of "Iran cooperating with the US to combat the Taliban operating in Afghanistan near Iran's border," a substantial 43 percent favor doing so, while 41 percent are opposed.

While one in four (26%) Iranians say they support attacks on US troops in neighboring Afghanistan (26%) half (49%) are opposed (41% strongly)--perhaps due in part to past friction between Iran and the Taliban.

Most Iranians express acceptance of the outcome of the Presidential election. Eighty-one percent say they consider Ahmadinejad to be Iran's legitimate president, and 62 percent say they have a lot of confidence in the declared election results, while 21 percent say they have some confidence. Just 13 percent say they do not have much confidence or no confidence in the results. In general, eight in 10 (81%) say they are satisfied with the process by which authorities are elected, but only half that number (40%) say they are very satisfied.

Among the 87 percent of respondents who say they voted in the June presidential election, 55 percent say they voted for Ahmadinejad. Only 14 percent say they voted for Mir Hossein Mousavi, the leading opposition candidate, and 26 percent refused to answer. Asked how they would vote if the election were held again, overall 49 percent say they would vote for Ahmadinejad, 8 percent for Mousavi, 13 percent say they would not vote, and 26 percent would not answer.

"The extremely high number of people refusing to answer questions about their voting preference--something not found in response to any other questions--suggests that people have some discomfort with this topic," says WPO's Kull. "Thus these findings on voting preference are not a solid basis for estimating the actual vote."

Eight in 10 say Ahmadinejad is honest but slightly less than half - 48 percent -- say he is very honest. Asked about the institutions that make up the government of the Islamic republic, large majorities express at least some confidence in major institutions. The president is viewed most favorably, with 84 percent of respondents expressing a lot (64%) of or some (20%) confidence.

Overall most Iranians express support for their current system of government. Nine in ten say they are satisfied with Iran's system of government, though only 41 percent say they are very satisfied. Six in ten approve of the system by which a body of religious scholars has the capacity to overturn laws they deem contrary to the Koran, while one in four express opposition. A modest majority (55%) says that the way the Supreme Leader is selected is consistent with the principles of democracy, though three-fifths say they are comfortable with the extent of his power.

Funding for this research was provided by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Calvert Foundation.

A new WorldPublicOpinion.org poll of 24 nations from around the world finds a widespread perception of a serious lack of political tolerance. Large majorities perceive that people in their nation are not completely free to express unpopular views, that opposition parties do not get a fair chance to express their views and try to influence government decision, and that legislators have limited freedom to express views that differ from their political party.

The poll, sponsored by the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) and released in conjunction with International Democracy Day, also finds overwhelming support throughout the world for the principle that diversity of political expression should be allowed, and support for democracy more broadly.

WorldPublicOpinion.org conducted the poll of 21,285 respondents in 24 nations that comprise 64 percent of the world's population. This includes most of the largest nations--China, India, the United States, Indonesia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russia and South Africa--as well as Argentina, Chile, Mexico, Germany, Great Britain, France, Israel, Poland, Azerbaijan, Ukraine, Kenya, Egypt, Turkey, Iraq, the Republic of Korea, and Palestine. The margins of error range from +/-2 to 4 percentage points. The surveys were conducted across the different nations between April 4 and June 30, 2009. Not all questions were asked in all nations.

A statement on the global poll, issued by IPU President Theo-Ben Gurirab is available at www.ipu.org/dem-e/idd/statement09.pdf.

When asked how free they think people are to express unpopular views in their country, without fear of being harassed or punished, in no nations does a majority of people say they are completely free. On average across all nations polled, just 24 percent say people in their country are completely free to express unpopular political views, 42 percent that they are somewhat free, and 30 percent that they are not very free.

Asked how often opposition parties get "a fair chance to express their views and try to influence government," in only 4 out of 21 nations do majorities say "most of the time." On average only 37 percent say "most of the time," while nearly six in ten say "only sometimes" (38%) or "rarely" (20%).

Asked how often members of the legislature "feel free to express views that differ from the official views of their own political party," in only one country does a majority consider that legislators feel free most of the time, while in 20 out of 23 nations, a majority says legislators feel free only sometimes or rarely. On average, only 28 percent say that legislators feel free to express divergent views most of the time while more than two out of three say only sometimes (37%) or rarely (29%).

These perceptions of a lack of political tolerance are in sharp contrast to overwhelming support for the freedom to express diverse views. Asked "How important do you think it is for people to be free to express unpopular political views, without fear of being harassed or punished?" majorities in all nations say such freedom is very or somewhat important. On average 86 percent say this freedom is important, and 58 percent call it very important.

"Around the world we find a remarkable consensus that a diversity of political views should be tolerated, together with a widespread perception that such diversity is not fully tolerated in society in general, or even in the functioning of legislatures," comments Steven Kull, director of WorldPublicOpinion.org.

The poll also found strong support for democracy in general. Asked "How important is it for you to live in a country that is governed democratically?" majorities in all 24 nations say it is very or somewhat important. In no country do those calling this unimportant exceed about one in four. On average across all nations polled, 90 percent say it is important to live in a democratically governed country, and 67 percent say it is very important.

People who support greater political tolerance are also more apt to support democracy. Among those who say it is very important for people to be free to express unpopular political views, 80 percent said it is very important to live in a country that is governed democratically, but this drops to 48 percent among those who say such freedom is just somewhat important and to 41 percent among those who say it is not important at all.

Though none of the nations polled have parity in gender representation in their national legislatures, views are mixed on whether women are fairly represented. On average across all countries polled, a modest majority of men think women are fairly represented, but a plurality of women think they are not. In 12 nations a majority says that women are fairly represented (as does a plurality in one more); in eight nations a majority says they are not.

There is also wide variation in perceptions of how fairly ethnic, religious or national minorities are represented in national legislatures, though overall views lean in the direction that minorities are not fairly represented. Asked how fairly "minorities, including ethnic, religious, or national minorities" are represented in the national legislature, eight nations have a plurality or majority saying that they are fairly represented. Ten nations say they are not fairly represented and five nations are evenly divided.