5 ms·

Democracy Distribution of the World

31 points by dedalus 15y ago

radagaisus 15y ago
Check out that tiny little green island in the middle east.
- Entlin 15y ago
  Well, democracy is not everything. If the majority of the electorate wants to fight wars, or repress a certain minority, then you've still got a problem there.
impendia 15y ago
Sobering that the U.S. only barely qualifies as a "full democracy". Also, how the hell did North Korea score 1.08? What do you have to do to score a zero?
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- archgoon 15y ago
  Near the bottom, there's a link to the Economist's report http://graphics.eiu.com/PDF/Democracy%20Index%202008.pdf http://graphics.eiu.com/PDF/Democracy%20Index%202008.pdf North Korea got 2.5 points on "Functioning Government". They aren't controlled by foreign powers, and they exert full control of their territory. That gives them a 2. Maybe they got a half point for the civil service. Also, a fair number of the points you get is the perception of the populace of their government. Depending on how Orwellian the country is, they can rank quite highly on those.
Misha_B 15y ago
I'd be interested to see a map that shows the countries by their current trends to or from democracy (would better replace that with "personal liberty") rather than the current state.
- hugh3 15y ago
  Unfortunately I suspect the error bars are so large and the rate of change so (usually) small that you'd either wind up just getting (a) noise or (b) whatever result you want to get.
yummyfajitas 15y ago
While the report doesn't provide much detail on the methodology, I'd suggest taking small variations with a grain of salt. There are quite a few criteria they use which have nothing to do with democracy. Some if their criteria actually go against democratic principles. For instance: Do ethnic, religious and other minorities have a reasonable degree of autonomy and voice in the political process? In a democracy, the majority may freely impose their will on minorities. That's what a democracy is all about. Women in parliament % of members of parliament who are women It doesn't make you less of a democracy if your voters hate women. Is there an effective system of checks and balances on the exercise of government authority? I.e., is there a non-democratic means of making sure 2 wolves and 1 sheep don't vote on dinner? Seems non-democratic to me. Many of the criteria are just people's preferences, e.g. what percentage of the population cares enough about politics to read about it every day or join a political party. http://graphics.eiu.com/PDF/Democracy_Index_2010_web.pdf http://graphics.eiu.com/PDF/Democracy_Index_2010_web.pdf
- ugh 15y ago
  You don’t use the definition of “democracy” most people use. That’s ok, an acknowledgment that more than your definition of democracy exists would be nice, though. My perception is that “democracy” is most often used to refer to democracy (following your definition), rule of law and human rights. Those three things contradict each other sometimes, all “democracies” have compromises to deal with those contradictions. (Protection of minorities and separation of powers are seen by pretty much everyone as essential features of democracies.) (Your point about checks and balances seems non-sensical, though. Checks and balances are not essential democratic features following your definition – they are more in the rule of law camp – but it strikes me as wrong to claim that they contradict democratic principles. You point about wolves concerns protection of minorities and checks and balances certainly don’t do that. The president and the legislative are both elected, judges are sometimes, too [checks and balances certainly don’t demand that judges not be elected, so you can’t blame it on checks and balances when judges are not elected], so I don’t really see how checks and balances are undemocratic.)
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
alex_h 15y ago
Sad that there are about twice as many authoritarian regimes as there are full democracies.
- hugh3 15y ago
  Maybe, but compare that to how the world looked one hundred or even twenty-five years ago and the progress has been remarkable.
tokenadult 15y ago
Two other international rankings with annual revisions that have been going on for a while are produced by nonprofit, nongovernmental organizations. 1) The Freedom House rankings of countries by freedom (both political and economic): http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=15 http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=15 2) The Transparency International rankings of perceived public corruption: http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2010/results http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/... (Both these websites use more of Flash Player than I would if I were running a website; sorry about that.)
rburhum 15y ago
"Constitutional" monarchies should loose points just on the simple merit of being a theocracy by definition. Yet, they are the most "democratic" on this list. Meh.
- RK 15y ago
  Theocracy?
- blahedo 15y ago
  A theocracy "by definition" involves God (or, more broadly, a religion). Constitutional monarchies do not, necessarily. Furthermore, at one end of the constitutional monarchy spectrum you have the monarch who is purely figurehead with only ceremonial and/or social responsibilities, and the monarchies with high scores in that list are fairly close to that end of the spectrum. (There are also some monarchies right down in the authoritarian end....)
- chris_j 15y ago
  First off, nitpick: I think you meant "lose" rather than "loose". Secondly, would you mind expanding on your point? I wasn't aware that a country being governed by a monarch implied a theocracy. Sure, you have countries like the UK where the monarch is both the head of state and the head of the established church but that link doesn't have to exist and the existence of that link doesn't necessarily imply any reduction in religious freedoms.
nandemo 15y ago
I wonder if a Political Science forum's discussion on web apps would have the same quality as politics threads on HN.
vorg 15y ago
The same countries near the top of this index are the same as those at the top of the Corruption Perceptions Index, i.e Scandinavia, Canada/Australia/NZ, Switzerland. See http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2010/results http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/... Any coincidence?

31 points by dedalus 15y ago

radagaisus 15y ago

Check out that tiny little green island in the middle east.

Entlin 15y ago
Well, democracy is not everything. If the majority of the electorate wants to fight wars, or repress a certain minority, then you've still got a problem there.

impendia 15y ago

Sobering that the U.S. only barely qualifies as a "full democracy". Also, how the hell did North Korea score 1.08? What do you have to do to score a zero?

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
archgoon 15y ago
Near the bottom, there's a link to the Economist's report http://graphics.eiu.com/PDF/Democracy%20Index%202008.pdf http://graphics.eiu.com/PDF/Democracy%20Index%202008.pdf North Korea got 2.5 points on "Functioning Government". They aren't controlled by foreign powers, and they exert full control of their territory. That gives them a 2. Maybe they got a half point for the civil service. Also, a fair number of the points you get is the perception of the populace of their government. Depending on how Orwellian the country is, they can rank quite highly on those.

Misha_B 15y ago

I'd be interested to see a map that shows the countries by their current trends to or from democracy (would better replace that with "personal liberty") rather than the current state.

hugh3 15y ago
Unfortunately I suspect the error bars are so large and the rate of change so (usually) small that you'd either wind up just getting (a) noise or (b) whatever result you want to get.

yummyfajitas 15y ago

While the report doesn't provide much detail on the methodology, I'd suggest taking small variations with a grain of salt. There are quite a few criteria they use which have nothing to do with democracy. Some if their criteria actually go against democratic principles. For instance: Do ethnic, religious and other minorities have a reasonable degree of autonomy and voice in the political process? In a democracy, the majority may freely impose their will on minorities. That's what a democracy is all about. Women in parliament % of members of parliament who are women It doesn't make you less of a democracy if your voters hate women. Is there an effective system of checks and balances on the exercise of government authority? I.e., is there a non-democratic means of making sure 2 wolves and 1 sheep don't vote on dinner? Seems non-democratic to me. Many of the criteria are just people's preferences, e.g. what percentage of the population cares enough about politics to read about it every day or join a political party. http://graphics.eiu.com/PDF/Democracy_Index_2010_web.pdf http://graphics.eiu.com/PDF/Democracy_Index_2010_web.pdf

ugh 15y ago
You don’t use the definition of “democracy” most people use. That’s ok, an acknowledgment that more than your definition of democracy exists would be nice, though. My perception is that “democracy” is most often used to refer to democracy (following your definition), rule of law and human rights. Those three things contradict each other sometimes, all “democracies” have compromises to deal with those contradictions. (Protection of minorities and separation of powers are seen by pretty much everyone as essential features of democracies.) (Your point about checks and balances seems non-sensical, though. Checks and balances are not essential democratic features following your definition – they are more in the rule of law camp – but it strikes me as wrong to claim that they contradict democratic principles. You point about wolves concerns protection of minorities and checks and balances certainly don’t do that. The president and the legislative are both elected, judges are sometimes, too [checks and balances certainly don’t demand that judges not be elected, so you can’t blame it on checks and balances when judges are not elected], so I don’t really see how checks and balances are undemocratic.)
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]

alex_h 15y ago

Sad that there are about twice as many authoritarian regimes as there are full democracies.

hugh3 15y ago
Maybe, but compare that to how the world looked one hundred or even twenty-five years ago and the progress has been remarkable.

tokenadult 15y ago

Two other international rankings with annual revisions that have been going on for a while are produced by nonprofit, nongovernmental organizations. 1) The Freedom House rankings of countries by freedom (both political and economic): http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=15 http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=15 2) The Transparency International rankings of perceived public corruption: http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2010/results http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/... (Both these websites use more of Flash Player than I would if I were running a website; sorry about that.)

rburhum 15y ago

"Constitutional" monarchies should loose points just on the simple merit of being a theocracy by definition. Yet, they are the most "democratic" on this list. Meh.

RK 15y ago
Theocracy?
blahedo 15y ago
A theocracy "by definition" involves God (or, more broadly, a religion). Constitutional monarchies do not, necessarily. Furthermore, at one end of the constitutional monarchy spectrum you have the monarch who is purely figurehead with only ceremonial and/or social responsibilities, and the monarchies with high scores in that list are fairly close to that end of the spectrum. (There are also some monarchies right down in the authoritarian end....)
chris_j 15y ago
First off, nitpick: I think you meant "lose" rather than "loose". Secondly, would you mind expanding on your point? I wasn't aware that a country being governed by a monarch implied a theocracy. Sure, you have countries like the UK where the monarch is both the head of state and the head of the established church but that link doesn't have to exist and the existence of that link doesn't necessarily imply any reduction in religious freedoms.

nandemo 15y ago

I wonder if a Political Science forum's discussion on web apps would have the same quality as politics threads on HN.

vorg 15y ago

The same countries near the top of this index are the same as those at the top of the Corruption Perceptions Index, i.e Scandinavia, Canada/Australia/NZ, Switzerland. See http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2010/results http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/... Any coincidence?