Democracy : from degree to type . Two indexes

1. Democracy: fromdegreetotype.Twoindexes Pietro Besozzi Jacopo Gandin

2. FH is a non-profit, nonpartisan organization, that provides, from 1972, an annual evaluation of the state of freedom in the world. FH measures the level of freedom in 193 states by using two broad categories: political rights (PR) and civil liberties (CL). Freedom House I

3. Political rights enable people to participate freely in the political process, including the right to vote freely for distinct alternatives in legitimate elections, compete for public office, join political parties and organizations, and elect representatives who have a decisive impact on public policies and are accountable to the electorate. Political Rights (PR)

4. Civil liberties are rights in freedom that protect an individual from the government of the nation in which he resides. Civil liberties include freedoms of expression and belief, associational and organizational rights, rule of law, and personal autonomy without interference from the state. Civil liberties (CL)

5. FH checklist contains 10 questionsabout PR, grouped under threeheadings: electoralprocess, politicalpluralism and partecipation, functioningofgovernment and 15 questionsaboutCLgrouped under fourheadings: freedomofexpression and belief, associational and organizationalrights, ruleoflaw, personal autonomy and individualrights. How FH measures freedom?

6. Foreachof the 25 questions, a country can receivefrom0 to 4 points. The points are added up for PR and CLseparately and thentranslated, in stepsof 5 for PR and in 6 forCL, into a score, where 1 is the best and 7 is the worst. In the finalstep, scores are combined and averaged and thenconvertedinto a classificationof the countryas FREE (F) = (1 - 2,5) PARTLY FREE (PF) = (3 - 5) NOT FREE (NF) = (5.5 - 7) How FH measures freedom? II

8. The polity project codes all those country which were indipendent in 2002 with a population greater then 500.000. It has a democracy and an autocracy score Its data are broadly used in order to face research projects about democracy, peace and stability across countries. Polity

9. Eachcountryhas a levelofdemocracy score thatgoesfrom 0 to 10 based on scoresfor: the competitivenessfor the recruitment (2 points) openessof executive recruitment (2 points) constraints on chief executive (4 points) competitivenessofpoliticalpartecipation (3 points) Democracy score

10. The same system is valid also for the autocracy score that goes from 0 to 10. Like the democracy, also the autocracy is based on the same criteria plus regulation of political partecipation. The more one country is autocratic, the more points it obtains. Autocracy score

11. The Polity conceptual scheme examines concomitant qualities of democratic and autocratic authority in governing institutions. The final classification, using the combined scores, is divided into 3 main categories: democracies between +7 and +10 inchoerent policies between -6 and +6 and autocracies between -7 and -10 Polity's Classification

12. An example: Spain

13. Freedom House I • Freedom House isanindexpointing out freedom, notdemocracy. • Anyway, in 1997 itwasintroduced a definitionofelectoraldemocracies. • In ordertobelongtothiscategory, a state musthavesatisfiedfourcriteria: • A competitive multipartypolitical system • Universal adultsuffrage for all citizens • Contestedelections- secret and secureballot- no massive voterfraud-representativeresults • Access of major politicalpartiesto the electorate.

14. Freedom House II • Since 2007 the indexhadpointed out some requirements for a state tobeclassifiedasanelectoraldemocracy: itmust report a score of at least 7 points out of 12 on the followingthreequestions: • Is the head ofgovernment or otherchiefnational authority elected through free and fair elections? • Are the national legislative representatives elected through free and fair elections? • Are the electorallaws and framework fair? • In some casesit can happenthat a state satisfies all the requirements, butfailstofitwith the fourcriteria.

15. Freedom House III • ThisphenomenonwasdefinedbyGoertz (2006) “concept-measureinconsistency”. • In thisunlikelycasespoints are adjusted in orderto match the designationpreferredbyFreedom House. • Anyway, whenthesesituationsoccur, itisconsideredbetterif a case satisfies the fourdefinitioncriteriaratherthan the threequestions.

16. Freedom House IV • Freedom House data are oftenusedbyscholarstoprovide a classificationof regime types. Eighteendifferentclassificationhavebeenmade up. • Theseclassificationsfollowtwodistinctcriteria: 1) translating PR scoresinto a dichotomyof regime types 2) summing or averaging the combined PR and CLscores. • The thresholds for a regime tobeconsidereddemocratic are: 2 pointsaccordingto 1) and 5.5 accordingto 2).

17. Polity I • From Polity index don’t emerge necessary conditions for democracy, that on the contrary is considered a variable. • Doorenspleet (2000, 2005) pointed out a sort of “minimum conditions” of democracy, referred to each Polity criterion that must be satisfied. • In this way the types of regime don’t come from the translation into type of a certain degree, but from a systematic qualitative evaluation of indicators. • The absence of voting rights evaluation criteria pushed Doorenspleet to introduce a measure of inclusiveness.

18. Polity II • ScholarsreadPolity data in a slighter way thanFreedom House ones. Theybuilt up sixteeninterpretationtypes, bothtakinginto account just democracyscores and building up a combined scale. • Some scholarsfixed the thresholdtodemocracy at six, other at seven. • More in general, people usingPolity data take the score representingdifferencebetweendemocracy and autocracylevel.

19. Polity III • In case ofusing the combinedindex, the thresholdfor a countrytobeconsidereddemocraticisveryslack, goingfromminustwoto plus seven. • Accordingtotheseclassifications, anyimportanceisgivento the level zero as a wathershedbetween fair and unfairelectoralregimes. • In any case, there are manydifferences on the parametersaboutdemocraticlevel, accordingto the purpose the scholarwouldachieve.

20. Measuresofdemocratization in Africa I • The paperprovidesanempiricalexampleofhowmuch a differentinterpretationofindexescouldaffect the researchoutcomes. • Itisdrawnfrom the work bySchlosser (2008) thatdivided regime types in threedifferentgroups: • Polyarchies • Praetorianregimes (with the presenceofcivilwars) • Authoritarianregimes

21. Measuresofdemocratization in Africa II • Tofind out thisclassification, Schlossercreated a combinationamong some indexes’ outcomes: • Freedom House PR and CLscores • Vanhanen’s democracyindex • World Bankindicatorfor voice and accountability • Polity’ s democracy score • Indicatorofgrosshumanrightsviolationsfrom the Political Terror Scale

22. Measuresofdemocratization in Africa III • In ordertoexplainevery regime, Schlossershown the correlationbetweendemocracyscores and sixvariables, thenreducedtotwo in ordertounderline the differencesbetweenpolyarchies and other regime types. • Thesevariables are: • Percentageofpopulationemployed in agriculture (1999) • Losersacceptingresultsfrom the polls • The correlationislookedwith relation tothreedifferentindexes: FH PoliticalRights score, FH combined score and Polity score. A differentthresholdtodemocracyistakenforeveryindex.

23. Different Outcomes I

24. Different Outcomes II

25. Different Outcomes III

26. Conclusions • Wehavetriedtopresent the mainindexesformeasuring the qualityofdemocracies: Freedom House and Polity, showing the variablestakeninto account tobuild up theseindexes • Afterwards, wehaveshownhowdifferentwaysofusingindexes, relatedwithdifferentinterpretationsofscores, can leadtounconsistentresearchoutcomes.