Democracy project

[myata]

There're several discussions about the prospects of democracy in the countries like Afganistan or Iraq. While revealing many interesting facts and ideas, the question of whether the regimes in such countries can be classified as democratic remains unanswered mostly due to conflicting interpretation of the term.

Here's a proposal that may help establish some rational framework for such evaluation (see bradco's post, On Democracy by Robert Dahl).

We can start with a set of criteria (e.g. 1441 and later posts) on which a country can be rated, e.g. on the scale 0-5 (the finer the scale, the more detailed knowledge of the country is necessary for a meaningful result). Any number of users can vote on any criteria (possibly after a brief discussion), but the extremeties on both ends are discarded. The resulting average rating is the country's score on that aspect of democracy. The sum of all scores yields its overall democracy rating.

Of course, any number will be meaningless without some reference framework. To establish it, we can define a short list of "etalon" states in each region of the democracy spectrum, e.g.:

- obvious dictatorship (would probably come round with 0 or close, so may not be that interesting)

- not really a democracy in common understanding;

- an aspiring democracy;

- an established democracy (Canada!)

All etalons must be accepted by consensus. By positioning the etalon states on the democracy scale (0-5!) we should be able to interpret any other countries's rating with respect to its claim to being a democracy.

Anyone interested?

[myata]

The proposed list of criteria:

1. Responsible, competent and functional government that extends its authority over all national territories and local territories of competence;

2. Free and independent press and information framework;

3. Representative and just lawmaking system;

4. Independent and competent legal system;

5. Civil society with free and independent groups and organizations watching and reporting functioning of the

government;

6. Population that is educated in understanding its rights and freedoms;

7. Legitimate system of delegation of authority on all levels of government (such as e.g., free elections);

8. Independent business environment

9. Setting the agenda

I'm not sure what exactly the last one means so it won't be rated on. Canada and China will be rated as etalons, on the scale 0 to 5, according to information available in the media. The number associated with the rating actually means a range of possible positions, e.g, "0" means bottom 10%, while 5 is top 20%. I'm not expert on either of the countries, so the rating will represent limitations of my knowledge as much as their "true" democracy standing. Still, it's worth a try.

Canada:

1: 4, 2: 5, 3: 4, 4: 5, 5: 5, 6: 5, 7: 5, 8: 5; Overall rating: 4.75

Notes: #1: in my view the system of government in Canada is needing better transparency;

#3: in my view, Canada would benefit from some form of proportional representation;

China:

1: 3, 2: 2, 3: 3, 4: 3, 5: 2, 6: 3, 7: 2, 8: 4; Overall rating: 2.88

Notes:

#1: government in China is less transparent, lack of independency and corruption are known issues;

#2: China imposes severe restrictions on what information can be delivered by the media;

#3: don't have much information on China's legislature but political independency is an obvious issue;

#4: same as #3;

#5: independent political and some religious groups are suppressed;

#6: political rights of population are suppressed;

#7: political and independent choices in elections are suppressed;

And here's my rating for Iraq (please feel free to comment):

1: 1, 2: 3, 3: 3, 4: 3, 5: 3, 6: 3; 7: 3; 8: 3; Overall rating: 2.75

Notes:

#1: Iraqi government does not have full control over the country, corruption is a known issue;

#2: media dominated by government and foreign sources;

#3: political and religious independency of the legislature is an issue;

#4: political and religious independency of the legal system is an issue;

#5: political and religious violence affects functioning of civil groups and organizations;

#6: population has little education in rights; political and religious violence;

#7: religious and tribal influence; violent environment; presence of foreign and local armed units;

#8: unstable business environment; infrastructure problems; corruption.

On the overall scale, Iraq rates below China, which is generally not considered to be a democracy. Hence,

Iraq cannot be a democracy either.

[myata]

It would be interesting to rate two other countries: 1) India, 2) Russia, which are big enough to generate pretty consistent (and sufficient) media image and also should provide further insight into what this word "democracy" actually means.

Criteria:

1. Responsible, competent and functional government that extends its authority over all national territories and local territories of competence;

2. Free and independent media and information system;

3. Representative and just lawmaking system;

4. Independent, competent and accessible legal system;

5. Civil society with free and independent groups and organizations watching and reporting functioning of the

government;

6. Population that is educated in understanding its rights and freedoms;

7. Legitimate system of delegation of authority on all levels of government (such as e.g., free elections);

8. Independent business environment

India:

1: 3, 2: 4, 3: 4, 4: 3, 5: 3, 6: 3, 7: 4, 8: 4; Overall rating: 3.5

Notes:

#1: transparency; security problems in some local regions (Kashmir);

#4: sporadic reports of political and/or religious interference in the legal system;

#6: large part of population is uneducated; remnants of cast system;

Russia:

1: 3, 2: 3, 3: 3, 4: 3, 5: 3, 6: 3, 7: 3, 8: 3; Overall rating: 3.0

Notes:

#1: weak government control in certain regions (Chechnya); lack of transparency and corruption;

#2: government control over main media channels; independent media suppressed via indirect means;

#3: independency of legislature from administrative power;

#4: administrative and political influence in the legal system; access to legal system;

#5: independent political, some religious and / or NGO groups suppressed via indirect means;

#6: large part of population is unducated in rights;

#7: elections are influenced via indirect means;

#8: government influence and/or control of business environment

This is interesting because India is generally accepted as a democracy, while Russia is not. This means that the division line of between the democracies and the rest of the world lies somewhere between 3.0 and 3.5 on the democracy scale.

[August1991]

Robert Dahl is one of those Left wing Americans who develops a theory to make the world a better place. Well, it just ain't so.

Myata, if you want to go down the path of arcane refinements and distinctions, go ahead and do the crossword puzzles. But I think you'll find at the end that the whole construction is entirely arbitrary. (I laughed at how you graded Russian and Indian society above. I found even more humourous your arbitrary choice of criteria.)

At issue is how we take collective decisions and for that, we have many ways. Governments are sometimes a useful institution. I arbitrarily (but usefully) define as a democracy any government with politicians who can be kicked out of power peacefully.

Bush Jnr will be gone in two years and no one knows who will replace him. Harper will have to face another election and no one knows if he'll win. Putin has stated that he'll choose his successor and keep a hand in anyway. Castro will be dictator until his death. Both Canada and the US are democracies. Russia is sort of not one. Cuba is certainly not a democracy.

All your other points are mere window-dressing.

[myata]

Without doubt, the best way to find out whether any particular country qualifies as, or graduated to being a democracy, would be to consult with yourself, or, at the least, a trusted proxy. However just in case none happen to be around, we humble ones need some guidelines which we in our simplicity can understand and interpret without the need to appeal to the lofty who may just be too busy with the matters of higher wordly order to answer our calls.

Without doubt your definition is the perfect one, it's just what in our simple minds it creates more questions than it answers: e.g. kicked out by who (and what if nobody seem to be keen on "kicking out"? or has to go to the streets to kick out? or if the kicked out is replaced by another one from the same group (it's usually called oligarchy) - would it too be a democracy)? See, we would have to constantly bother you on such unworthy matters.

Back to the topic though, on the second thought I agree that setting one numer as a democratic boundary is somewhat artificial. Instead there should be a band or range of "in transition", in which we'll see the countries with some democratic attributes, which are still on the way to achieving functioning and stable democracy. In my understanding, the lower boundary of this band should be around where Russia is now.