|
This
is the Eighteenth world audit report of the millennium, in
which we review the state of public corruption; current
practice in human rights; political rights; free speech; and
the overall state of the rule of law in 150 nations (all
those exceeding one million population). By reference to
these, we compile the world democracy table with its
subsidiary statistical tables. We recommend that readers
check out our methodology (button on left hand sidewalk of
democracy table) to make the most sense of these results and
the commentary below.
We also recommend readers who seek more in-depth, regular
information, to our sister website, www.newnations.com
This offers updated monthly analytical reports currently for
45 'nations in transition' (emerging or submerging); many
polemical, geopolitical 'special reports',all archived since
2002. www.geopolemics.com
is the u-tell-us blog for both newnations and worldaudit. It
also lists all current newnations country reports often at a
reduced length, as well as our ‘prescriptions’ relating
to some of the wide spread of geopolitical analysis we
offer. All
three sites interlink and are free.
|
WORLD
DEMOCRACY in January 2009
There are several
ways of looking at the nation states of our planet but this survey
is concerned only with the criteria of democracy – which we hold
to be Human Rights; Political Rights; Free Speech: Absence of
Corruption. We have been conducting this survey since 1997 and
numbers are adjusted during each year when new data become
available.150 nations, all those with populations in excess of one
million are included.
Our World
Democracy League tables explain our methodology.
What follows is a commentary
The major event in 2008 was the October election in the USA of a
president of mixed race, which after eight years of this nation
dragging along the bottom by many democratic criteria, gave a
great boost to the US’s failing credentials. Not only was this
president elected on the basis of being the best man for the job,
but also on a program that gives new heart to those who despaired
at a range of policies that the George W Bush administration
implemented, or failed to implement. The longest outstanding of
these problems is the Israel-Palestine conflict, for such it
remains. The USA for
six years of the GW Bush administration looked elsewhere whilst
Sharon was the force in the land. US policy was effectively
whatever Sharon wanted it to be! His mortal illness threw Israeli
domestic politics, already as complex as any in the world, into a
spin which is still….spinning.
Iraq,
despite a never-ending stream of White House directed ‘smiley’
propaganda, remains a disaster area both for the US and even more
for the long suffering Iraqis. The point that doesn’t seem to
have been widely understood in the USA is the one of its
shattering illegitimacy. They went into the country as an invading
army and have remained since as an occupying army. The invasion
was based on entirely spurious false information about
non-existent weapons systems. Additionally, the US government and
its media allowed their citizens (and troops), to believe that it
was Iraqi suicidal fanatics sent by Saddam, who used four
hi-jacked US passenger aircraft to attack the US on 9/11. It
was a frame-up! Fifteen of the nineteen fanatics that
died that day were in fact citizens of Saudi Arabia, but (happily)
no–one suggested taking revenge on them. The ‘after thought’
of a UN resolution on Iraq expired December 31st ’08,
and now IRAQ is a sovereign state once more. In theory, US and
coalition troops are now under Iraqi government orders – if you
care to believe that!
It has been fifty years since unfortunate Iraq was last in
a stable and peaceful situation. There may now be nearer to a
million than a half-million civilian deaths attributable to the
chaos unleashed by the invasion by the time that the US forces
leave, although the timing and manner of that leaving are still
red-hot issues which won’t be finally settled until a referendum
in 2009. The Iraqi parliament agreed to the three year extension
requested by the USA, but made a condition that there should be a
referendum in the first year of the agreement. The political
parties here are still religious-based with the Shia majority
split in different factions and the Sunni and Kurds sharing little
sense of nation, but much concern for the economic interests of
family, clan and tribe. Terrible acts of random violence are
perpetrated, almost on a daily basis usually by one religious sect
against the ordinary folk of another. Al Qaeda which is
ultra-orthodox Sunni, and seems to hate the Shia worse even than
the occupying Americans, is still leaving a trail of explosive
destruction, mostly now amongst civilians. Inevitably bombs being
non-selective, both Shia and Sunni are being destroyed, which is
causing some Sunni to turn against them.
Iran
certainly has
some democratic institutions, a kind of ‘conditional’ range of
freedoms like the media (some people may be criticised and not
others), but the overlay of religious monopoly negates the
democratic effect – citizens can vote for any candidate they
like, but only the men approved by the senior priests can ever be
candidates. It is analogous as a voting system to that of the
former USSR where only party members could be candidates. There is
some hope that an initiative by the new US president (there have
been no talks between the US and Iran for thirty years), can
change the situation for the better. The present problem pivots on
the fact that the Iranians, who have signed the nuclear non-
proliferation treaty, are nevertheless suspected of seeking to
develop the capability of developing nuclear weapons, which they
deny. There are presidential elections to come in 2009 and this
petro-economy is suffering in terms of an oil price more than two
thirds down from its peak in mid-2008.
Russia
changed presidents in an election where opposition was efficiently
neutered. Vladimir Putin stayed in government, stepping down to
prime-minister, with his former aide Medvedev taking his place as
the new president. It is worth observing that Putin certainly had
it within his powers to obtain a constitutional amendment,
enabling his term of eight consecutive years to be extended
indefinitely, as many of the FSU presidents have done, but he
chose not to do that. Russia has enjoyed great increases in wealth
and some trickle-down has happened. With the dramatic drop in
world energy prices Russia’s headlong rush to riches has been
dramatically slowed down, indeed it’s petro-economy is under
great strain as the government tries to avoid a rouble
devaluation. But it is long term still going to be a major
supplier to much of Eurasia, and is a major player in the politics
of North, Central and to a lesser extent, East Asia.
It inevitably does badly in our league tables because it is
demonstrably falling short by all our main criteria –
corruption, political rights, human rights, freedom of the media,
impartial justice. In short, Russia does not yet enjoy the rule of
law. The new president on his inauguration talked of this
deficiency and we hope he will be able to create a system, which
enjoys international respect, which is not currently the case.
In east Asia, North Korea
continues to drag its feet – indeed there is no progress on
democracy at all. The main world spotlight on the ‘hermit
republic’ has been on their on-off dismantling of their nuclear
capability, although there has been some speculation on the
leadership succession. This is since the current tyrant, seen
through a thick security smokescreen, has for a while been
seriously ill. As we enter 2009, this nuclear dismantling is still
"on-off." South Korea
meanwhile, has joined Japan as an independent democratic country,
as well as an economic powerhouse.
China
has not been behaving well in regard to its Tibetan minority,
since it very successfully held the Olympic games in Beijing. It
has become abusive of the Tibetans, who principally are seeking
educational and religious autonomy – not independence - which
they know full well is not possible. From a masterly handling of
public relations around and before the Olympic games, the Chinese,
after having achieved so much much goodwill, have relapsed into
bullying mode, shrilly abusing the Tibetan spokesmen, presumably
for domestic consumption, accusing the Tibetans of being
‘entirely’ responsible for the break-down in talks, but
themselves keeping completely silent about what,
if anything, they are prepared to concede? The hypocrisy
of this posture is that it was a modern Chinese statesman who
invented the brilliant and subtle concept of ‘one nation
two-systems,’ which has been so successful in Hong Kong and
Macao, and is on offer to Taiwan. A version of this would seem to
be appropriate in the case of Tibet. China’s handling of the
Olympics earned them admiration and respect, and no doubt reminded
their ‘near abroad’ that they are the regional
‘heavyweight,’ but all such nations are also to a greater or
lesser extent, concerned to see whether China can or will
democratise.
Africa
remains the continent with the biggest democratic deficit.
For great swathes of Africa, the concept of nationhood has just
not taken off, and power is used in the interests of tribe and
family. Our democracy league tables show the abysmal performance
of most African states (see the African Union sidebar listing 45
African states). South Africa which was a leader in the earlier
democratic surge within the African continent, relapsed, as
readers of our newnations monthly reports will have observed. It
has been a sad and deteriorating story revolving around big time
corruption and the African ‘Big Man’ concept - of being above
the law, and the scramble for power. The good news is that the
monolithic ANC (a 75% majority in parliament), once a shining
example of a liberation party with a ‘rainbow’ racial policy,
is to be challenged by a breakaway from within its own ranks.
It’s good news, because this offers choice to the overwhelming
number of African voters who have such a strong emotional
commitment to the historic ANC. Zimbabwe continues to confound all
conventional precepts about the behaviour of nation states and
here again the problem is with the personality of the country’s
Big Man and his loyal adherents that will not admit of change,
even though their country is well down the tubes.
Europe
is easily the regional leader in democratic terms
with 24 of the first 37 nations in our two top tables. Of these 37
nations, all designated as fully democratic, the Europeans in
terms of human rights; political rights & media freedom
achieve high scores. It is in the area of corruption that major
weaknesses appear, Countries like Romania and Bulgaria are
completely unhorsed by institutional corruption. Even Italy and
Greece have regrettable corruption scores. It
was corruption which was the undoing of the UK (14) which
sadly took a dive of 5 places, previously
(9), largely due to the bribery surrounding billions of pounds
worth of weapons exports, to Saudi Arabia which the executive in
government had done its best to cover-up, but failed to achieve.
Normally an established democracy like the UK prides itself on
improving its democratic standing in the world but this result
makes it hard for the UK to preach to new entrants to the EU for
example, about standards in public life. UK is a signatory to the
OECD Anti-bribery Convention where nations explicitly agree to
criminalise the bribery of any foreign public official. The UK has
so far failed to reconcile its behaviour with its OECD membership.
Within Europe it is the Scandinavians that consistently do best by
all criteria, along with the Dutch and the Swiss and this has been
consistently the case since our world audit surveys commenced in
1997.
*********************************************************************
About our Four
Divisions
The opportunity to cast a vote is quite meaningless unless there
are transparently honest elections, with genuine voter choice of
parties and people. We are confident that all of the thirty seven
countries listed in our First
and Second Divisions conduct themselves in that way. In the Third
Division – thirty six countries, we could not generalise
thus and of the seventy seven nations listed in our Fourth
and last Division – that’s half the nations in the world - we
would suggest that no more than a handful of these conduct their
electoral process on any such criteria, or even attempt to do
so.
This is misuse of democracy as a ‘cosmetic convenience.’ It
comes down to this question for nations outside
the rule of law.Do genuine impartial observers witness the
events in all its key stages, and what is their judgement? In
2008, several of the FSU countries led by Russia
all notably undemocratic, were diminishing the role of the
respected and experienced electoral observers from the OSCE
by substantially reducing the numbers that they will permit to
attend. In Russia’s presidential election in 2008 the 400
OSCE observers who monitored their last major elections, were to
have been reduced down to the ludicrous number of 70. In this, the
largest nation on earth, that is less than one each for the 89
federated republics and territories, some of them the size of
France or Germany. Unsurprisingly the OSCE decided
not to send any observers at all to give any assessment, and opted
out of the whole shady business. The
imprimatur of the OSCE cannot and should not be easily given if
their reasonable judgement of what it would take to adequately
monitor any national election is treated, as in this case, with
scorn. However, mighty Russia now ranks as 133d for
democracy in the world,and that says it all.
But America too in its imperial mode, has used democracy as a
cosmetic convenience. Leaving aside how the
votes were counted in Florida in the 2000 presidential
election It is clear that the
Iraqi elections under American tutelage were basically no more
than a nationwide adult population census, as between’
parties’ of Sunni, Shia and Kurds, whose policies at any
time, were whatever their leaders said they were! They could be
seen in practice to be about acquiring as big a slice of the
national cake as possible for their religious / ethnic
constituencies, with any Iraqi national interest far back down the
line.
Credulity is anyway strained to believe in these fully formed
‘political parties,’ that came in from exile in foreign parts
with the invading army, already with their ‘leaders,’ from
the unpromising base of more than 40 years of ruthless, single
party political monopoly by the Baath party that squelched all
glimmerings of opposition! The one unquestioned Iraqi
leader is the shi-ite Ayatollah al-Sistani, who would not engage
with the American invaders at all, but neither would he become
involved in politics. Another who had remained in Saddam’s Iraq,
in danger of his life throughout, is the young shi-ite cleric and
political leader Moqtada as Sadr, who has a mass following.
The way the Iraqi election was framed, regrettably guaranteed that
secular parties would come nowhere, so as has happened, quarrelsome religious sects and political power have become contiguous.
That
is clearly to be the way of the future for this country.
WHAT KIND OF CHOICE?
What kind of decision is possible for a democratic citizen, when
the only available choice is between either a repressive military
government, or a religious party seeking to turn the clock back to
the seventh century. Egypt and Algeria were both recent examples
of such a stark choice. Iran's version of conducting elections is
that all candidates in the ballot have to be pre-approved by the
religious ‘Guardians’ (just as in the USSR all candidates had
to be members of the Communist Party), and this religious
authority answers only to other religious, and ultimately,
(presumably at the end of time) to God. The criterion these
‘Guardians’ use is something they describe as ‘Religious
Authority’’. If you don’t have it, forget it – and they
decide!
The
political right to vote is only meaningful in transparently honest
elections, with a genuine voter choice of parties and people.
The stakes are obviously very high in national elections and at
any level power undoubtedly tends to corrupt. But the more
developed democracies have a higher duty to make certain that
elections are fair, and honestly reflect the will of the people
who have recorded their vote. We observe that most but not all
mature democracies, ensure that the administration of the
electoral process is out of the control of party political
officers.
SEPARATION OF POWERS
The right to vote in a fair contest, with all safeguards in
place is indeed a pre-requisite of democracy but
in itself is only one component. Without the depth of the other
key democratic criteria, as these examples illustrate, it is
meaningless. This is why ‘Democracy from the barrel
of a gun’ is not achievable, but it was the basic theory of the
neocons - that military invasion should
be followed by implementing an elected government and the rule of
law. The following tests should be applied to the example, say of
Iraq, to determine the validity of the Neocon argument, which claims to have turned Iraq into a democracy .
The
essentials to create a platform for democratic choice are by
implementing all of the following:
Justice for all:
uncontaminated by political or other special interests, clan
loyalties or bribes; with judges at all levels independent of the
nation's executive arm.
Freedom of Speech: as exemplified by media activities - and
we value Nathan Sharansky's town-square test proposed by Condi
Rice as a meaningful test of free speech. "If a person cannot
walk into the middle of the town square and express his or her
views without fear of arrest, imprisonment or physical harm, then
that person is living in a ‘fear society’.“
Human Rights: expressed by the absence of arbitrary arrest
and confinement; the superiority of due process, the illegality of
torture - and to avoid semantic hair-splitting, similar abusive
"maltreatment".
Public Corruption: most nations have laws against
corruption but only in genuine democracies are these enforced
against the bigger players - and
not always then. This was shown by the recent British
example of arms sales to Saudi Arabia, which had an investigation
of big-time corruption arbitrarily shut down by UK government
fiat. Arms sales around the world have probably accounted for more
bribery in more countries, than any other kind of international
transaction – and probably will in the future .
Additionally, the lawmakers and relevant decision-makers of all of
the major western democracies that sustain armaments industries
are subject to the attentions of 'lobbyists', whose stock in trade
is to offer a variety of inducements for public money to be spent
with their arms industry clients. There is a massive scandal
ongoing in South Africa involving corruption charges against Jacob
Zuma, who as the newly elected President of the ANC had otherwise
every expectation of assuming the nation’s top job when the 2009
elections are held. Zuma is seeking to stop the trial, so
now the separation of powers between the judiciary and the
politicians in South Africa, acknowledged to be the continent’s
leading nation (ranking 41 in our world tables), is itself on
trial.
We assert that the term democracy is abused and improperly used,
unless obligatory high standards are at least the objectives
genuinely striven for, and that nations so described can be seen
to make a clear effort to achieve these interlocking institutions
of democracy.
By way of illustration, all of the above key democratic criteria
are brilliantly exemplified in the nations that habitually lead
this democracy table.
THE LEADERS
The top nations in this survey, with little to choose between
them, remain: Denmark
(1), Sweden (2), Finland (3), New Zealand (4), Switzerland (5),
Netherlands (6), Norway (7). Looking back to the turn
of the millennium, indeed to our founding in 1997 eleven years
ago, it was even then these same countries in a slightly different
arrangement. Congratulations to the peoples and governments of all those enlightened
countries. The very specific democratic criteria set out
above are amply demonstrated in all of them. Most people who have
ever visited them would probably agree that these 'stats' will
reflect the anecdotal experience of being there. They
are mature democracies – the real thing!
Visitors may indeed look on them as countries enviable for what
they have achieved. Given their consistency of excellence they
are, because they exist perhaps, the very models that the world
needs.
The top 29 nations in this survey (our First division) remain
there. UK’s drop from 9th to 14th place
has Australia now at 9th, Germany 10th,Belgium
and Ireland co-equal 11th and Austria at 13th.
The
USA (of George W Bush) remains at 15th.
so this is the pre-Obama benchmark
The British
Commonwealth excluding UK, scores well in Division 1, with New
Zealand (4), Canada (7), Australia (9)
The Second Division of eight, all regarded as fully democratic
includes the top two Africans, Mauritius (32) and Ghana (35), and
the top two Asians, Japan (30), and South Korea (33), with Taiwan
top of Division 3 at (38).
The leading Africans are Mauritius (32), and Ghana (35), which
have passed Botswana (40), South Africa (41). with Namibia
close at (43).
Leading East Asia are Japan (30), South Korea (33), Taiwan (38).
South and South East Asia has Third Division India up front at
(48), with Singapore (74) now leading Division Four. Latin America
has Chile and Uruguay both (21), Costa Rica (24) and Panama (37) -
all of these classed as full democracies.
North America reads: Canada (7), USA (15) and Mexico (62).
Europe accounts for twenty three of the twenty nine in Division 1;
and in Division 2, two out of eight
SOME SIGNIFICANT POINTERS
Of the European Union’s twenty seven members, Luxemburg, Malta
and Cyprus are beneath the one million population threshold for
this survey. With the exception of Romania (52), in the Third
Division and Bulgaria in the Second at (36), they are all in the
first Division.
Israel (31), whatever it may or may not do to its near neighbours,
has in terms of its own democratic criteria justified remaining in
the second division, which puts it at the top of middle-eastern
nations. The prime minister here has been openly the subject of a
criminal investigation, which is an event that everyone knows
just, would not happen in a non-democratic nation. In the context
of Israel's neighbours and regional adversaries excluding the
beleaguered Palestinians, the Jordanians are at (80), Egypt (98),
Saudi Arabia (116), Iraq (130). Syria is (138) as is also Iran.
THE FORMER SOVIET UNION
Two of the 'colour revolutionaries' both continue to do better
than nearly all their FSU category but Georgia (86) is back to
Division Four due to a deterioration in political rights, whilst
Ukraine is (70) in the Third.
They had both previously moved up to Division Three from the
ultimate democratic wastelands of Division Four. Ukraine is now
better than halfway in the world rankings, which apart from the
Balts, is unique amongst FSU nations.
Of the three 'Baltics': Estonia (16) and Lithuania (26), seem
firmly lodged in the First Division, whilst Latvia’s rating is
(39) within view of Division Two. It follows that these three are
still the highest-ranking former Soviet republics - far ahead, as
are Ukraine (70) and Georgia (86) - of their enforced former
'mother' Russia, itself way down at (133). The other FSU republics
(ahead of Russia) are Mongolia, "the unofficial 16th FSU
republic" at (54), Moldova (104) Armenia (104), Kyrgyzstan
(124). Kazakhstan (130), which has now moved above Russia
Below Russia which is now co-equal with Tajikistan at
(133), further down the FSU component of the democracy table, are:
Azerbaijan (135), Belarus (145), Uzbekistan (147), Turkmenistan
(149).
TYRANNIES, DICTATORSHIPS - THE 'FEAR SOCIETIES'
At the far end of the 'league tables', few will be surprised to
see that out of the 150 total, bringing up the rear amongst others
are Myanmar (150) and Libya (143) supposedly ‘reformed’ –
but with a way to go. Sudan (138), Zimbabwe (145) and Uzbekistan
(147), Somalia (147). Turkmenistan way down at (149) has been
under new management during 2007 but these 2008 figures reflect no
democratic change). As we continue to
follow their story in newnations.com,
it does not look promising.
But
even worse than all of these, almost certainly, is North Korea.
Although ranked as (75) this is an anomaly, because it is a
society not so much closed as sealed. So much so, that it has not
been possible to rate them for corruption. Apart from the UN whose
primary function there is the distribution of food aid, there are
only a few embassies and we know of no other permanent
international representations, nor are there foreign businesses
‘in country’ – some of the necessary prerequisites of
scoring corruption. We have no doubts however that they are
amongst the most corrupt nations that we list. It could be said
without exaggeration, that to have a Macao bank account is almost
a badge of rank in the nation’s hierarchy. We have long reported
this country each month in newnations.com (all currently available
or in the archives), so our judgement below, albeit not a
statistical one, is this:
We
have to stick with our methodology and so suggest that North Korea
be regarded as the ‘unofficial’ least democratic nation in the
world.
Belarus now at (145), is Europe's only 'last ten' listing. This
former soviet republic excoriated as Europe's last dictatorship,
plus Myanmar and Zimbabwe, make it onto Secretary of State
Condaleezza Rice's list of 'outposts of tyranny'. At her Senate
confirmation hearings in January '05, when naming her six
'outposts of tyranny' - (the others are Cuba, Iran and North
Korea) – she
said: "we cannot rest until every person living in a fear
society has won their freedom." Of course oil
politics prevented her from naming the likes of Saudi Arabia
(116), and at that time Uzbekistan (147) hosted a US military base
- but no more. It would be simple without Foggy Bottom’s many
diplomatic constraints, to run up a list of twice or more her
number of ‘fear societies. Division Four of our Democracy league table lists half of the world's
nations, seventy-seven of
them, including by any criteria a large and easily identifiable
selection of 'fear societies,' although there are some benign
dictatorships
We await the new Secretary of State, presumably Hilary Clinton, to
hear her take on world democracy.
UNQUESTIONABLY FREE
This latest democracy audit tells that there are thirty seven
(down from forty countries in 2006), now listed in our First and
Second Divisions, regarded therefore as unquestionably free. Not a
lot in anybody's terms, only a quarter of the 150 states listed
here, but happily we can report continuing progress. In the longer
term we do observe upwards mobility. As recently as the beginning
of the century, back in 2001, there were then only fourteen
nations in the First Division, now it is twenty nine. The Second
Division, just five years ago numbered twenty-two, but now stands
at eight, mostly looking capable of promotion.
More comparisons with 2001 show that UK (14), was then in the
second division at (15), as was Germany (10) - then 16th, but at
that time USA (15) was ahead of all the larger countries, standing
in 2001 at (11). That of course was before the post 9/11 changes
in civil society and big unresolved questions about human rights
and press freedom, together with a growing gap between government
and governed.
MID-TABLE…and
below
The Third Division lists thirty-six countries comparing with the
thirty-seven of the first two divisions, which are held to be
unquestionably free. Third Division countries in our reckoning are
on the cusp - 'free'… but! It is a qualified freedom that is
fragile, limited perhaps by the inefficiencies of sheer size and
underdevelopment like Brazil (53), where in places serfdom still
exists and the rule of law is not universal. India (48) is in many
ways admirable for having, not without flaws, maintained its
elective democracy and independent justice system, but it is also
where the most horrendous religious riots have frequently broken
out, and where rule at provincial and local levels is in some
places in the hands of gangsters. Many of the nations listed in
this division appear to be emerging from the direst poverty, but
nevertheless emerging….! Most have never had any tradition or
experience of democracy and others seem to be achieving this
incrementally. Nations at the top end of this group are obviously
getting a lot of necessary things right, so that the goal of
unqualified freedom and justice for ALL of their citizens, is now
at least within reach. This is grounds for optimism!
DIVISION FOUR
Division Four includes seventy-seven nations, more than a half of
all those nations of the world with more than a million
population. Many former communist - and all five of the continuing
communist nations are here - also most of the African and Arab
states. There are few if any disappointments in expectations,
except the usual one for us, Singapore (74) now leading Division
Four. This rich and almost totally corruption-free small state is
literally an island of tranquillity, a safe and stable society
with many admirable facets. It has a good sense of civic duty and
played an outstandingly generous role helping its neighbours
during the regional Tsunami crisis. Yet, the political process is
deeply flawed, when measured by the same democratic criteria
applied to all the nations in our survey. Opposition politicians
get short shrift in numerous underhand ways and the media is a
state poodle, largely self-censoring, but apt to be punished by
losing government advertising income, if they step out of line.
These two factors are the antithesis of democracy, which accounts
for the low marking. It has been described as a benign
dictatorship, not that of an individual but of a party. It is all
the more puzzling because for historical and ethnic reasons, the
government party is monolithic, does an excellent managerial job
and is never likely to be seriously challenged in elections. It is
hard to see now that the cold war is over why they feel they need
to maintain these negative features, in an otherwise admirable
society. In the jargon - why don't they loosen up? This is not at
all an evil society and really does not belong in the company of
many of the delinquents in this division.
There are a massive amount of the world's states, many listed
here, where life is not only blighted by poverty but also by the
misery caused by political cliques arrogating all power to
themselves and exploiting the rest of the citizenry, 'to the last
squeeze'. Slavery
still exists as UN reports tell us. The unacceptable treatment of
women as fundamentally inferior, unequal before the law, based on
'tradition', 'religion,' or other codes invented by men, are
normally, if not exclusively to be found in this lower half of the
table. Democracy really cannot just be a male preserve in the 21st
century. Sadly, just as some economies are not emerging,
but in truth submerging, many states are politically not in
transition at all, but rigidly in stasis where power holding is
concerned.
There are prosperous, rich, and very rich states here. The UAE at
(77), like Singapore (74) is now very close to the tipping point
separating Division Four from the rest. Kuwait at (79), Malaysia
(82) have been moving up. Saudi Arabia is at (116). If they would
separate the powers of the courts from the administration, allow
for an early version of a free press, grant basic civil and human
rights, then they would quickly advance up these Democracy tables,
even without an unimpaired free vote.
THE NGO'S
The statistics in our tables tell the barebones story,
(necessarily this is amplified by the well informed individual
national reports of the major NGO's that we include in our
individual World Audit Country Report pages) These include: The
unique Amnesty on human rights; the truly excellent pioneer of
NGO’s, Freedom House covering political rights, press freedom
and civil liberties; the International Commission of Jurists, with
their 'Attacks on Justice'; and the invaluable Human Rights Watch
- right there and ready to speak out on just about every case that
matters. For monthly analytical reports on nations 'in
transition,' and a current geopolitical overview we offer our own
www.newnations.com
BEYOND SHAMING?
All of these, together with Transparency International, who have
justly achieved recognition for their penetrating surveys of
corruption, make life just a little less comfortable for the many
major actors worldwide who are the power holders and beneficiaries
of malfeasance. And for those far more numerous observers that
would prefer not to see, it becomes less easy just to look away. Many
of the perpetrators are certainly beyond shaming, but they and
their families and cronies sometimes go out well-funded into the
world, and given the power they control in their own countries,
they seek amongst other things, 'respect'. The world should know
at least who and what they are, and offer to each exactly that
degree of 'respect', which they deserve. .
THE MINI-TABLES
Our Democracy league tables also include mini-tables extrapolating
the statistics of member states from the EU; NATO; OECD; G8;
ASEAN; APEC; AFRICAN UNION; ARAB LEAGUE; and the nations of LATIN
AMERICA. They illustrate the great wildernesses of democratic
deficit, as well as the regional connection between economic
success and thriving democracy.
The league table of the Index of Economic Freedom is included on
this site but not factored into the divisional rankings, because,
although we are clear that it is not unrelated, it cannot 'per se'
be a measurement of democracy. That we perceive to be assessed in
terms of human rights, political rights, corruption and free
speech.
In our economic groupings alongside the democracy table, the EU,
OECD, G8, ASEAN, APEC, as with the Index of Economic Freedoms
- and check out our two top divisions - it jumps off the screen
that strong economies are good for democracy and vice-versa.
Similarly, the absence of public corruption, as demonstrated by
Transparency International, seems an essential precondition for
economic success and democracy. What is not yet clear is the
question as to whether the economy of a country needs to first be
successful enough to pay it's public servants properly, and thus
avoid the most obvious cause of corruption - officials arbitrarily
helping themselves? Or, does it just come down to a matter of
honest leadership and draconian penalties for all ranks of corrupt
transgressors, eventually leading to national prosperity?
However that
might be, it would be a myopic individual indeed who could not see relevance
across the majority of nations, between advanced or retarded
economies, and the equivalent in democracies. The extreme strains
which many economies are now experiencing, is hardly likely to
advance the cause of democracy. We have to hope it doesn’t set
back the progress that has been made.
THE MOST
SUCCESSFUL DEMOCRATIC MODEL?
The statistics are not without their curiosities. A steady 8 of
the top 10 nations are constitutional monarchies even if some only
technically so, from which it might be deduced that this is the
most successful democratic model yet devised by man? In fact, on
reflection, one may observe that it has taken many centuries of
gradual maturity for those nations that could do so, to fashion
the numerous compromises to be made. That very process in an
accelerated form could be seen to be at work in the late 20th
century in Spain (20), a nation that earlier in that century saw
more than its fair share of horrors before settling for a
constitutional monarchy. The phenomenon may be worth studying
because of its demonstrated success in the ‘old countries’,
partly for the grand compromise that includes allowing the
hereditary principle to determine the (nominal) Head of State, a
critical factor of which is that "everybody knows " that
substantive power remains vested in the people and their elected
representatives.
It seems clear that the essential part of any established
democracy is the concept of 'accountability' - the chance for
citizens to dismiss their government if they fail adequately to
perform, or to 'behave'. Europe, which contains many nation states
of differing sizes and has by far the largest proportion of
democracies, witnesses annually the holding of many free
elections. It surprises nobody when a change of government is the
outcome.
By contrast, with most of our seventy seven Division Four
countries, what would really surprise (and delight), would be ANY
genuinely free and fair election, certified as such by respected
independent international monitors - let alone a resulting change
of regime.
The ultimate test of genuine accountability is the ability if
needs be, for the citizens of any country "to throw the
rascals out."
Apart from regular statutory elections, in parliamentary systems
this at the extreme can be brought about by votes of "no
confidence". In a fixed term presidency, only impeachment can
seemingly achieve that objective. But to keep matters in
perspective only about half of the world’s national rulers are
within the democratic process – the rest are more or less
immovable, except by the passage of time, or violent intervention.
At this time, the 'accountability disparity' continues to be wide
indeed!
|
