apa 2003 democratization scorecard
Post on 03-Apr-2018
219 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/28/2019 APA 2003 Democratization Scorecard
1/37
Background Papers 143
Assessing Democratization in SoutheastAsia: Towards Regional Grassroots
Empowerment
Aries A. Arugay
Christine Susanna TjhinHerman Joseph S. Kraft
Background1
Throughout the 20th
century, the world has witnessed dramatic
transitions of non-democratic countries into democratic ones in
various parts of Southeast Asia. The discourses over democracy
and/or democratization the ideals and the practice, the West and the
East/Asian, the universal and the particular have persisted quite
intensely amongst diverse parties of interest. Zealous scrutiny has
been mostly directed upon the presence of elections and the
institutionalization of some form of representative government in
each country. However, democracy is more than just elections and
political representation; it is about empowering the people andallowing them to make informed choices. If so, then what institutions
threaten or further people empowerment? How can the sustainability
of democratization that further empowerment be ensured?
These questions have been hovering around and have been
demanding answers and actions. The establishment of the ASEAN
Peoples Assembly (APA) in 2000 is a regional landmark that has
1The authors wish to thank the following people for their valuable contributions:
Carolina G. Hernandez from ISDS; from CSIS Hadi Soesastro, Tommi Legowo,
Nico Harjanto, Indra J. Piliang, I Ismanto, Medelina Hendytio, and other CSISresearchers, especially in the Department of Politics and Social Change; also all
participants of the Focused Group Discussion in Manila and Jakarta prior to this
assembly. Any lapses are solely the responsibilities of the authors.
-
7/28/2019 APA 2003 Democratization Scorecard
2/37
Background Papers144
paved the way for articulating such demand.2 The APA sessionsgenerated intense, rich, and stimulating deliberations, during which
an APA Action Plan for democratization assessment was proposed.
The key understanding is that the consolidation of democracy is a
complex and difficult process requiring widespread agreement on
the rules of the game. It was proposed then that watchdog activities
geared towards developing democracy promoting indicators and/or
democracy eroding indicators be formulated. All participants were
conscious that facing the critical period of democratic transition in
Southeast Asia, during which empowerment tends to be diluted, it is
vital to have a concerted, people-initiated, and in-depth assessment of
the progress of democratization in the region.
The assessment will serve as a catalyst for a comprehensiveregional empowerment initiative. The watchdogs should be equipped
with a proper regional framework and capacity to conduct
assessments that would strengthen democracy-enhancing factors and
erode threats to democracy. The main objective is to consolidate an
ongoing regional initiative through the establishment of a
democratiation assessment framework that could be:
1. A standard against which the practice and exercise ofdemocracy of the member-states of ASEAN, especially those
which claim to be democratic, can be compared;
2.
An instrument which would help make the advocacy of non-government groups in the region less rhetorical and subjective
thus facilitate or induce the responsiveness of governments to
their message;
3. A means that would assist in and strengthen networkingamong various democracy advocates by setting out more
clearly their immediate goals of pushing democratization
forward;
4. A conceptual contribution that advocates and supporters ofdemocracy in other regions could use in their own work;
2The 1
stAPA was held in Batam, Indonesia in November 24-26, 2000. Nearly 300
representatives of think tanks and NGOs, grassroots leaders, and activists fromvarious part of the region attended this historic event. The 2nd
APA followed on 30
August to 1 September 2002, and this time over 300 participants came to Bali,
Indonesia to contribute to the discourse.
-
7/28/2019 APA 2003 Democratization Scorecard
3/37
-
7/28/2019 APA 2003 Democratization Scorecard
4/37
Background Papers146
could undermine the traditional values embedded in diversecommunities around the world. The political twist emerged when
East Asian economies dramatically soared and slumped, during
which leaders and other interested parties in different Asian countries
threw in the rhetoric of Asian Values to explain both phenomena.
Sen defends the universality of democracy based on the argument
that people anywhere may have reason to see it as valuable.3
Democracy, with its intrinsic importance in human life, its
instrumental role in generating political incentives, and its
constructive function in the formation of values,4
is a necessity to all
people regardless of their cultural, ideological, or social backgrounds
to protect freedom, achieve justice, and ensure equality. The
particularistic notion of democracy has also flourished such as in theform of Asian-style democracy.
5The notion of the West
presenting the liberal and the East presenting the communitarian,
eventually, affects the development of illiberal notion of
democracy, where liberties such as freedom of speech, assembly,
and competition for political office are sharply limited and
government intervention in private interests may occur.6
Most disputes revolve around the issues of desirability or
practicability of the concept and not on actual attempts to decipher
the concept. Scholars have conceded to qualify it using adjectives,
which have contributed even greater confusion. The need for
conceptual clarification is shown by the remarkable proliferation ofdemocracy with adjectives.7
Most of these qualified notions of
democracy referred to fledgling democratizing nations, which have
not fulfilled the expectations of democracy observers on what a
democracy should have.
3Amartya Sen, Democracy as a Universal Value,Journal of Democracy 10 no. 3
(1999), p. 12.4Ibid.,p. 16.
5Steven J. Hood, The Myth of Asian-Style Democracy, Asian Survey 38 no. 9
(September 1998).6Ibid., p. 853.
7
David Collier and Steven Levitsky, Democracy with Adjectives: ConceptualInnovation in Comparative Research, World Politics 49, no. 3 (1997). Examples
are semi-democracies, pseudo-democracies, illiberal democracies, delegative
democracies, not institutionalized democracies, and electoral democracies.
-
7/28/2019 APA 2003 Democratization Scorecard
5/37
Background Papers 147
In retrospect, Whitehead suggests that what we need is afloating but anchored conception of democracy.8 The anchor-
metaphor is more or less appropriate to address that democracy at the
level of reality is relative to a spatial-temporal context yet at the
conceptual level there are some imperative variables within the
fundamental principles.
Democracy is usually defined as a set of governmental
institutions or processes, but people rarely stop to think what it is that
makes these institutions democratic. Thus, when these institutions are
used, as they frequently are, for undemocratic purposes, their
automatic association with democracy simply results in democracy
itself being given a bad name. It is therefore necessary to provide a
list of guiding principles, which are interrelated, that could help usdetermine the bounds of what is considered democratic. While these
principles are by no means exhaustive, democracy comprises of the
following principles, which underpin its norms and institutions.9
Mediating
ValuesDescription
Participation Democracy ultimately involves the assertion of citizensin having an active and determining role in crucial
political processes. Participation is an important elementof empowerment. Participation does not only comprise in
the casting of votes for the election of leaders held
periodically. It also consists of exerting activism inpolicy processes, involvement in NGOs and politicalparties, and other avenues. However, this must be
embedded in the assumption that rights to participateexist and citizens have the capacities and resources to
participate, and that the state provides venues or agencies
in which participation of citizens can be exercised.
Inclusion One core principle of democracy is that everybody is
regarded to be politically equal with one another in the
sense that everybody is to be treated as citizens
8Laurence Whitehead, Democratization: Theory and Experience (New York:
Oxford University Press, 2002), p. 6.9 David Beetham, Sarah Bracking, Iain Kearton, and Stuart Weir, The International
IDEA Handbook on Democracy Assessment (The Hague, Netherlands: Kluwer
Law International, 2001), p. 12.
-
7/28/2019 APA 2003 Democratization Scorecard
6/37
Background Papers148
MediatingValues
Description
regardless of differences in race, ethnicity, class, gender,
religion, language, and other cleavages. Democracyencourages plurality and diversity and manages them
without resorting to violent means.10 Democracy cannotexist if discriminatory infringements of rights exist.
However, democracy should also safeguard marginalized
sectors of society through the provision of affirmative
action policies to provide them equal status and
empowerment.
Represen-
tation
Given that direct participation in all governmental
processes cannot be realized due to time and space
constraints, the most sensible route is to provide themeans for representation. Those that have been delegatedto carry out the popular will should represent their
constituencies. Institutions should also represent the
social composition of the electorate both the majority
and minorities. Furthermore, they should also representthe main currents of public opinion.
Transpa-
rency
As democracy means that public institutions owe their
authority to the people, there should be means for them
to be open to their scrutiny. The people or their deputies
should be entitled to inquire into the performance and
workings of state institutions. Furthermore, informationregarding their operation and performance should be
accessible to the people and mass media.
Accounta-
bility
There can only be accountability if state institutions aretransparent and open. Accountability is important to
democracy since this may ensure that those deputized to
represent and carry out the popular will shall not deviate
from their mandate and functions. Accountability entailsthat they are answerable for their behavior and if
necessary, the provision and enforcement of sanctions formisdemeanors.
Respon-
siveness
Democracy requires that state institutions are accessible
to different sections of public opinion. Furthermore, they
10One of the reasons why plural societies also made the transition to democracy is
that the means in which conflicts based on social cleavages broke down in the
authoritarian regime.
-
7/28/2019 APA 2003 Democratization Scorecard
7/37
Background Papers 149
MediatingValues
Description
should also be ready to respond to the demands of
citizens in the processes of policy formulation andservice delivery.
Competi-
tion/Autho-
rization
One democracy scholar defined a democracy as a system
wherein parties lose elections. This means that a
democracy is a system where major political blocs are
given an equal chance to govern in a free, fair, andcompetitive process. Furthermore, the results of these
processes will not have legitimacy unless everyone
accepts them. Therefore, this principle means that
citizens are given meaningful choices of office holders
and/or the programs that they represent.
Solidarity Democracy also entails that regimes that are democratic
can rely upon the support and goodwill of other states.Scholars such as Held and Russetts democratic peace
thesis all advocate that democracies can form a
community of peace-loving nations. Solidarity can find
its expression when a democracy adheres to principles,norms, and laws agreed to by multilateral cooperative
institutions. Furthermore, it also consists of supporting
the democratic struggles of other countries.
These values are very simple to understand. Without citizen
participation, and the rights, freedoms, and the means to participate,the principle of popular control over government cannot begin to be
realized. The starting point, although not the entirety, of participation
is the authorization of public officials through free and fair electoral
exercises in which the outcome are public institutions (e.g.,
legislature, party system) that are representative of the different
strands of public opinion and interests.
The accountability of all public officials, to the public or other
authorized institutions (e.g., legislature, courts) is imperative to
ensure that they are treated as agents or servants of the people.
Accountability cannot be effectively exercised if there is no
transparency, or openness from government. Responsiveness to
public needs, through a variety of institutions through which thoseneeds can be articulated, is a key indication of the level of controlling
influence which people have over government. Finally, equality finds
-
7/28/2019 APA 2003 Democratization Scorecard
8/37
Background Papers150
expression in solidarity, which democratic citizens show to thosedifferent from them at home, and towards popular democratic
struggles abroad.11
These principles are also complex in the sense
that they are inter-related and even overlapping. Relevant institutions
may serve or realize more than one value.
Mechanisms and Institutions of Democracy - It appears that there has
been a fixation in making elections the quintessential attribute of
democracy. Such minimalist approach defined a democratic political
regime as to the extent that its most powerful collective decision-
makers are selected through fair, honest, and periodic elections.12
As
such, a country is deemed democratic so long as it passes this
electoral threshold. This makes authoritarian regimes, such as thoseof Marcos or Soeharto, qualified as democracies so long as they met
this procedural requisite. Election is a necessary but insufficient
condition for democracy. Dahl goes one step further by stressing that
these mechanisms must be embedded in a number of institutional
requisites: the election of government officials, free and fair
elections, an inclusive suffrage, the right of all citizens to run for
public office, freedom of expression, alternative sources of
information, andassociational autonomy.13
Similarly, Bollen defined it as the extent to which political power
of the elites is minimized and that of the non-elites is maximized.
Political power is reflected by both political rights the extent thatthe national government is accountable to the general population and
each individual is entitled to participate in the government directly or
through representatives andpolitical liberties the extent that the
people of a country have the freedom to express any political opinion
in any media and the freedom to participate in any political group.14
Beetham noted that there is a need to try to break the conventional
11Beetham, et al., The International IDEA Handbook, p. 12
12Joseph Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (New York: Harper,
1947), p. 269.13
Robert Dahl, Democracy and Its Critics (New Haven: Yale University Press,
1989), p. 221.14 Kenneth Bollen, Political Democracy: Conceptual and Measurement Traps, in
Alex Inkeles (ed.), On Measuring Democracy: Its Consequences and Concomitants
(New York: Transaction, 1991), p. 6.
-
7/28/2019 APA 2003 Democratization Scorecard
9/37
Background Papers 151
conception of democracy as the rule of the people down into somespecific core ideals: popular control andpolitical equality. Popular
control means the people having the right to a controlling influence
over public decisions and decision-makers. People are considered as
self-determining agents, who should have a say on issues that affect
their lives. The second principle is political equality meaning that
the people should be treated with equal respect and as of equal worth
in the context of such decisions. Everyone has an equal capacity for
self-determination, therefore an equal right to influence collective
decisions, and to have their interests considered when they are
made.15
Other democratic theorists heavily support this conception
used by this study.16
These two principles are nowhere fully realized; to the extent thatthey are, we can call a system of public decision making democratic.
Democracy is not an all-or-nothing state of affairs, but a matter of
degree to which these two principles are realized in practice. The
essence of this conception of democracy is to free this concept from
the trap of conceptual and methodological reductionism and
convenience by arguing that it implies more than procedures for
government but also includes substantive rights.17
Democratization as a Process: Stages, Actors, and Typologies
The path to the goal of democracy and how a particular countrytreads this path is highly significant. Particularly, the trends,
tendencies, and inclinations of the democratization process in real
life, together with its pace and cadence needs to be tracked such that
progress (or regression) towards the target could be analyzed. While
democratization may be relative and must consider dimensions of
15David Beetham, Key Principles and Indices for a Democratic Audit, in David
Beetham (ed.), Defining and Measuring Democracy (London: Sage Publications,1994), p. 28.16
Amongst others: Axel Hadenius, Democracy and Development (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 7-9 and Michael Saward, Democratic
Theory and Indices of Democratization, in Beetham (ed.), Defining andMeasuring Democracy, pp. 8-11.17
M. Kaldor and I. Vejvoda, Democratization in Central and East Europe,International Affairs 73, no. 1 (1997), p. 67.
-
7/28/2019 APA 2003 Democratization Scorecard
10/37
Background Papers152
time and the evolution of a countrys history and culture, thoseworking to establish or consolidate new democracies and those
seeking to renew established ones are engaged in a similar enterprise,
share similar values, and confront similar problems, although some
of these may indeed be more acute than others.
Stages of Democratization Shin conceptualized:four stages of
democratization: (1) decay of authoritarian rule; (2) transition; (3)
consolidation; and (4) maturing of democratic political order. As a
complex historical process, these stages are very much empirically
overlapping. In a logical sequence, democratization may run in a
smooth path starting from the disintegration of the authoritarian
regime and the emergence of the new democratic system, through theconsolidation of that regime, to its maturity. However, the process is
not that linear or rational in actual application.18 Some democracies
abort as soon as they emerge, while others erode as much as they
consolidate.19
Typologies - To explain patterns of democratization, one needs a set
of ideas and explanatory generalizations related to them. A large
number of such explanations exist. Most of them relate to or form
part of one of general types of theoretical approaches:
1.
TheMODERNIZATION
approach (1960searly 1970s)emphasizing a number of social and economic requisites
either associated with existing liberal democracies or
necessary for successful democratization. Democracy is
inexorably related to a countrys socio-economic
development or level of modernization. The more democratic
countries with high sustainability had consistently higher
levels of socio-economic development based on his indicators
18Doh Chull Shin, On the Third Wave of Democratization: A Synthesis and
Evaluation of Recent Theory and Research, World Politics 47 (October 1994), p.
143.19 Larry Diamond, The Globalization of Democracy: Trends, Types, Causes, and
Prospects, in Robert Slater et al. (eds.), Global Transformation and the ThirdWorld(Boulder: Lynne Reinner, 1992).
-
7/28/2019 APA 2003 Democratization Scorecard
11/37
Background Papers 153
than the more authoritarian countries.20 Aside frommodernization and political culture being the preconditions of
democracy, the third one is the social structure of society
(specific classes and groups making up the society).21
Criticisms against this approach abound.22
2. The TRANSITION (or agency) approach (late 1970s-early1990s) emphasizing political processes and elite initiatives
and choices that account for moves from authoritarian rule to
liberal democracy. It sees democracy as created by conscious,
committed actors, providing that they possess a degree of
luck and show willingness to compromise.23
Thus, democracy
20Seymour Martin Lipset, Political Man (London: Heinemann, 1960), p. 31 and
Seymour Martin Lipset, Some Social Requisites of Democracy, American
Sociological Review 53, no. 1 (March 1959). Likewise, Rostow identified a lineal
path for economic development along defined stages. These stages are:
traditional society, the pre-take-off society, and take-off, the road to maturity, andthe mass consumption society. See Walt Rostow, The Process of Economic
Growth (Oxford: Clarednon Press, 1960). Other scholars followed Lipsets seminal
work identifying other key requisites. Almond and Verba contended that the
institutions and patterns of action in a political system must be congruent with the
political culture of the nation. Attitudes and values of individual citizens must becompatible with a democratizing country. See Gabriel Almond and Sidney Verba,The Civic Culture (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963). Also see GlenysBabcock, Getting to Democracy, in Gayle Fraser (ed.), Behind the Headlines
(Toronto: Canadian Institute for International Affairs, 1996), p. 5.21In his historical account of the roots of democracy and dictatorship, Barrington
Moore concluded that a vigorous and independent class of town dwellers has beenan indispensable element in the growth of parliamentary democracy no
bourgeois, no democracy. See Barrington Moore, Jr., Social Origins of
Democracy and Dictatorship: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern
World(Boston: Beacon Press, 1966), pp. 430-431.22
Criticisms: (1) Authoritarianism, not democracy, seemed to be the more likely
concomitant of the highest levels of modernization. This was proven in Guillermo
ODonnells analysis of the process of industrial modernization where an
authoritarian form of rule was deemed to be necessary to be imposed by the rulingelite to counter popular resistance; (2) A fixed model or law about democracy
cannot be formulated since the preconditions are seen as correlations and not
causes. Hence, preconditions only set the stage for democracy. They form the
scene on which the actors play. See Georg Sorensen, Democracy andDemocratization (Boulder: Westview Press, 1993), pp. 26-28.23
Jean Grugel, Democratization: A Critical Introduction (New York: Palgrave,
2002), p. 56.
-
7/28/2019 APA 2003 Democratization Scorecard
12/37
-
7/28/2019 APA 2003 Democratization Scorecard
13/37
Background Papers 155
conducive to the development or consolidation of thedemocratic regime. Thus, the term democratic
consolidation arises.
As such, it represents the recent trend in the study of
democratization. Diamond took a different view of
democracy as a continuum and a process rather than a system
that is simply either present or absent. Even the most liberal
of democracies fall short of the ideal. They may have serious
flaws in their guarantees of personal and associational
freedom. Completing a transition from authoritarian rule to a
democratic regime is not a cause for self-congratulation.
There should be continuous democratic development through
the strengthening of democratic institutions, fairer and moreopen political competition, wider and broader political
participation, and more accountability and responsiveness by
elected officials. Thus, the fate of the democratization process
is open-ended.
The elements of liberal democracy emerge in various
sequences and degrees, at varying paces in the different
countries. Corollary to this, democratic change can also move
in different directions. Just as electoral democracies can
become more democratic more liberal, constitutional,
competitive, accountable, inclusive, and participatory so
they can also become less democratic more illiberal,abusive, corrupt, exclusive, narrow, unresponsive, and
unaccountable. There is no guarantee that democratic
development moves only in one direction.26 Richard Sklar in
his concept of a developmental democracy argued that a
better way to understand how democracy works is to
disaggregate it into different parts and to regard it as a
developing idea whose meaning is enriched by
contributions from all cultures and nations.27
He used this
concept to characterize the survival of democratic spaces in
authoritarian systems.
26Diamond,Developing Democracy, pp. 17-19.
27Richard Sklar, Developmental Democracy, Comparative Studies in Society
and History 29, no. 4 (1987), p. 686-714.
-
7/28/2019 APA 2003 Democratization Scorecard
14/37
Background Papers156
By using the latter approach, the history and evolution ofindigenous institutions as a product of country-specific experiences
are very much appreciated. This means that for example, while
democracy entails participation, there may be many ways in which
this is translated in a country given its history and experience. This
endeavor is sensitive to the fact that while most countries in the
world have embarked on the process of democratization; gaps
continue to exist between democratic aspirations and democratic
practice.28 Thus, a proper assessment of the state of democracy in
any country should account for the existence of democracy deficits
actual differences from the ideals and realities of democracy.29
The
identification of democracy deficits is significant in this democracy
assessment since it will identify where significant reforms and policyinterventions are to be made. Furthermore, this will treat the
processes of democratization as open-ended or works-in-progress
28In some cases, democracy may be considered to have diminished by the absence
of one or more of its formal attributes such as political contestation or civil
liberties. In others, while formal attributes are in place, there is a lack of
substantive democracy as the regime is pervaded with political corruption,clientelism, or the absence of a culture of participation. Oftentimes, elected
governments are unaccountable to the electorate that voted them into officebecause of the flawed process of elections. There are also instances where real
power does not lie with the democratic regime but elsewhere either with themilitary or multilateral aid institutions. See Robin Luckham et al., Democratic
Institutions and Democratic Politics, in Sunil Bastian and Robin Luckham (eds.),Can Democracy Be Designed? The Politics of Institutional Choice in Conflict-torn
Societies (London: Zed Books, 2003), pp. 22-23.29
Using Sklars concept of a developmental democracy, Diamond also arrived at asimilar conclusion when he argued that all democracies (even the well-established
ones) fall short of democratic ideals. He prescribed that continuous democratic
development is a challenge for all countries, whether new or established. In
Diamond, Developing Democracy, pp. 18-19. Democracy deficits may exist on
three fronts: (1) in formal constitutional and political arrangements thiscomprises the absence of laws, regulations, and formal institutions guaranteeing
the arrangements; (2) in substance or practices of power this consists of the lack
or shortcomings of formal democratic institutions because of countervailing norms
or practices; and (3) in the spaces for democratic politics while democraticinstitutions are important, they need to be embedded in the larger context of
participation and empowerment. Thus, democratic institutions and democratic
politics need to go together in any democratic regime.
-
7/28/2019 APA 2003 Democratization Scorecard
15/37
Background Papers 157
meaning that spaces for improvement and further democratizationexist.
Democracy Assessment by IDEA & the Freedom House: A
Comparison
This attempt to assess the process of democratization in Southeast
Asia is cognizant of other similar attempts. Suffice to say this
assessment was built upon both the strengths and limitations of
existing instruments, mainly the ones by International IDEA and
Freedom House. This section will discuss them briefly and explain
how helpful they are in this endeavor.
Democracy Assessment by the Freedom House (FH): Scope,
Methodology, and Outcomes
Freedom House (FH) was first established in 1941 during the Nazi
expansion in World War II. The institution focuses on the issues of
freedom and the advancements of human rights. After the collapse of
Nazism, FH shifted its attention to the new challenges of
communism. Throughout the 1970s to the 1990s, FH added activities
on election monitoring, annual assessment on democracy and
freedom throughout the world. One of its most prominent reports isthe Freedom in the World Survey, which was initiated in 1972,
slightly prior to the so-called third-wave of democratization.30
Scope - Through its Freedom in the World Survey, FH evaluates
democratization in 192 nations and 18 related and disputed
territories. FH has long employedliberal democracy as the basis of
its assessment. In 2003, however, FH began to assign the designation
of electoral democracy with a few minimum standards. Since the
1970s, the survey has supplied annual assessments ofpolitical rights
that enable people to participate freely in the political process and
civil liberties that enable people to freely develop opinions,
30Adrian Karatnycky, The 30
thAnniversary Freedom House Survey: Libertys
Advances in a Troubled World,Journal of Democracy (14) (1), 2003.
-
7/28/2019 APA 2003 Democratization Scorecard
16/37
Background Papers158
institutions, and personal autonomy without interference from thestate.31 FH draws its primary standard from the Universal
Declaration on Human Rights, not a culture-bound view of
freedom. In the introduction, FH states that it does not rate
governments or government performanceper se, but rather the real-
world rights and freedoms enjoyed by individuals as the result of
actions by both state and non-governmental actors. The survey team
does not base its judgment solely on the political conditions in a
country or territory (e.g., war, terrorism), but on the effect that these
conditions have on freedom.
Methodology - Freedom in the World Survey uses freedom as the
overarching theme. The team comprises of seven core team membersin New York with nine outside consultant writers. The survey is
derived from primary data (e.g., opinions of human rights activists,
journalists, political figures, traditional/religious figures,
representatives of the private sector, union movements, and
academics) and secondary data from a vast range of published
materials from other human rights organizations reports, and
regional newspapers and journals.
There will be a review of each report on a comparative basis in a
series of regional discussions involving the analysts and regional
academic experts. After the review, there were cross-regional
assessmentsin which those involved try to ensure comparability andconsistency. The team also made comparisons with previous results
and intensively scrutinized any major numerical changes. There were
regional academic advisors who reviewed some of the country essays
as well. An advisory committee on methodological issues was
established to regularly update the methodological approach based on
the evolving ideas about political change and civil liberties.
FH generated a set of political rights and civil liberties checklist.
The political rights checklist comprised of three subcategories
31The basic assumption is that At a minimum, a democracy is a political system
in which the people choose their authoritative leaders freely from among
competing groups and individuals who were not designated by the government.Freedom represents the opportunity to act spontaneously in a variety of fields
outside the control of the government and other centers of potential domination.
Source: Freedom House website: http://www.freedomhouse.org.
-
7/28/2019 APA 2003 Democratization Scorecard
17/37
Background Papers 159
electoral process, political pluralism and participation, andfunctioning of government each with 10 questions. The civil
liberties consisted of four subcategories freedom of expression and
belief, associational and organizational rights, rule of law, and
personal autonomy and individual rights each with 15 questions.
Outcomes - Each question gets from 0 to 4 raw points. The total raw
scores (TRS) in each checklist correspond to 2 final numerical
ratings (political rights rating and civil liberties rating) of 1 to 7.
Based on these 2 ratings, each country is categorized as Free (1
2.5), Partly Free (3 5.5), and Not Free (5.5 7).
FH has achieved a certain notoriety as a pro-U.S. NGO.
Criticisms were raised against FH for being biased in its assessmentof the developing countries. In 2001, in the Committee of NGOs of
the United Nations Economic and Social Council, a number of
country representatives expressed complaints against Freedom
House, which holds a consultative status in the Committee.32
Table 1. Summary of FH Rating Processes
R = Ratings TRS = Total Raw Scores (from individual questions)
POLITICAL RIGHTS
CHARACTERISTICS
R
(TRS)STA
TUS
R
(TRS)
CIVIL LIBERTIES
CHARACTERISTICS
Come closest to the idealssuggested by the political
rights checklist.
1
(0-5)
1
(0-7)
Come closest to the idealssuggested by the civil liberties
checklist.
Political rights are less freethan rate 1. There are
factors that weaken the
quality of freedom.
2
(6-11)
2
(8-16)
Have deficiencies in 3 or 4 aspectsof civil liberties, but are still
relatively free.FREE
Same conditions as rate 2,
but with damaging3
(12-17)
3
(17-25)
Are in at least partial compliance
with virtually all checklist
32Related representatives with various complaints and concerns are: Cuba,
Peoples Republic of China, Sudan, Russian Federation, India, Germany, Bolivia,France, Algeria, and Chile. The Committees membership consists of 19 countries
in total. Source: UN Press Release NGO/432,
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2001/ngo432.doc.htm.
-
7/28/2019 APA 2003 Democratization Scorecard
18/37
-
7/28/2019 APA 2003 Democratization Scorecard
19/37
Background Papers 161
Malaysia 5/4/PF
4/5/PF
4/5/PF
4/5/PF
4/5/PF
4/5/PF
5/5/PF
5/5/PF
5/5/PF
5/5/PF
5/5/PF
Singapore4/5/P
F5/5/P
F5/5/P
F5/5/P
F5/5/P
F5/5/P
F5/5/P
F5/5/P
F5/5/P
F5/5/P
F5/4/P
F
Brunei7/6/N
F7/6/N
F7/6/N
F7/5/N
F7/5/N
F7/5/N
F7/5/N
F7/5/N
F7/5/N
F7/5/N
F6/5/N
F
Myanmar7/7/N
F7/7/N
F7/7/N
F7/7/N
F7/7/N
F7/7/N
F7/7/N
F7/7/N
F7/7/N
F7/7/N
F7/7/N
F
Vietnam7/7/N
F7/7/N
F7/7/N
F7/7/N
F7/7/N
F7/7/N
F7/7/N
F7/7/N
F7/6/N
F7/6/N
F7/6/N
F
Cambodia6/6/N
F4/5/P
F4/5/P
F6/6/N
F6/6/N
F7/6/N
F6/6/N
F6/6/N
F6/6/N
F6/5/N
F6/5/N
F
Laos7/6/N
F7/6/N
F7/6/N
F7/6/N
F7/6/N
F7/6/N
F7/6/N
F7/6/N
F7/6/N
F7/6/N
F7/6/N
F
Regular quantification of performance with a fixed standard as
FH has presented is tempting. It gives room to present perceptible
comparative assessments among different countries. Criticismsagainst the FH approach are manifold. Most would be a mishmash of
the following arguments:
1. The sparse attention of the quantitative approach to thequality of the data on democracy;
2. Severely restricted conceptual usefulness by including certainattributes that would be more relevant to other concepts;
3. The limited checklist functions of the abundant componentsunder two assessment foci (political rights and civil rights)
that disabled proper assessment on performance and inter-
relations of those components;
4. Partiality or arbitrariness in translating qualitativejudgements into quantitative measures;
5. Western standards of excellence as standard ofmeasurements;
6. Pensiveness of the aggregation of qualitative judgments intoa single score.
33
33For more detailed explanations, see Joe Foweraker and Roman Krznaric,
Measuring Liberal Democratic Performance, Political Studies 48 (2000), pp.
759-787; Gerardo L. Munck and Jay Verkuilen, Conceptualizing and MeasuringDemocracy, Comparative Political Studies 35, no. 1 (February 2002), pp. 5-34;
and David Beetham, Assessing Democracy at Home and Abroad, unpublished
paper.
-
7/28/2019 APA 2003 Democratization Scorecard
20/37
Background Papers162
The main concerns here are moreover the lack of transparent andparticipatory approach in performing the assessment, which is
certainly in contrast to APAs empowerment objective.
Democracy Assessment by International IDEA (IDEA): Scope,
Methodology, and Outcomes
The IDEA was created in 1995 and composed of both government and
non-governmental organizations. It claims a global reach in ownership
and scope and independent of specific national interests. IDEA states
that it is in the context of a general commitment to the norms of
democracy, but of worries about their practical realization, that the
idea of democracy assessment should be located.34
Scope - IDEA developed a framework that gives the opportunity to
assess democracy to the people themselves. The methodology has
been developed from Democratic Audit at the University of Essex.
Teams of assessors in eight countries drawn from every region of the
world have used this methodology to conduct pilot assessments of
their own democracies.35
IDEA claims several distinctions from existing assessments: First,
the clarity of principles. Rather than offering a checklist of items, the
method derives the institutions and criteria for assessment in a
systematic manner from basic democratic values and principles.Second, the framework provides a comprehensive overview of the
essential features of democracy. Third, it affords flexibility as country
experts are able to determine their own standards and comparators for
assessing progress or the lack of it in their own selection of appropriate
evidence, according to their countrys specific situation. Fourth, the
people are provided with the opportunity to assess their countrys
34Sources: International IDEA website, http://www.idea.int and Beetham, et al.,
The International IDEA Handbook,p. 11.35
The countries are Bangladesh, El Salvador, Italy, Kenya, Malawi, New Zealand,
Peru, and South Korea; and in each of these countries, the teams have concludedtheir own democracy assessments. David Beetham, Sarah Bracking, Iain Kearton,
and Stuart Weir, The State of Democracy: Democracy Assessments in EightNations Around the World. (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2001).
-
7/28/2019 APA 2003 Democratization Scorecard
21/37
Background Papers 163
democracy, rather than outsiders sitting in judgment upon it. Lastly,the framework can be used by both old as well as new democracies. 36
Table 3. IDEA Framework
I. Citizenship, Law
and Rights
II. Representative
and Accountable
Government
III. Civil Society
and Popular
Participation
IV. Democracy
Beyond the State
1.0. Nationhood andcitizenship
Is there public
agreement on a
common citizenshipwithout discrimination?
5.0 Free and Fairelections
Do elections give the
people control over
governments and theirpolicies?
10.0 The media in ademocratic society
Do the media operate in
a way that sustains
democratic values?
2.0 The rule of law andaccess to justice
Are state and society
consistently subject to
the law?
6.0 Democratic role ofpolitical parties
Does the party system
assist the working ofdemocracy
11.0 Politicalparticipation
Is there full citizen
participation in public
life?
3.0 Civil and political
rights
Are civil and political
rights equally
guaranteed for all?
7.0 Government
effectiveness andaccountability
Is governmentaccountable to the
people and thei r
representatives?
12.0 Government
responsiveness
Is government
responsive to the
concerns of its citizens?
4.0 Economic andsocial rights
Are economic andsocial rights equally
guaranteed for all?
9.0 Minimizing
corruption
Are public officials,elected or appointed,
free from corruption?
13.0 Decentralization
Are decisions taken at
the level ofgovernment, which is
most appropriate for
the people affected?
14.0 Internationaldimensions of
democracy
Are the country's
external relations
conducted inaccordance with
democratic norms,
and is it itself freefrom external
subordination?
The main focus of a democracy assessment, then, is to answer the
apparently simple question: "How democratic is our country and its
government?" Yet this question in turn raises others: How do we know
exactly what we should be assessing, and by what criteria should we
judge it as democratic? IDEAs way to answer these questions is by
36Ibid., p. 11.
-
7/28/2019 APA 2003 Democratization Scorecard
22/37
Background Papers164
stressing its standing on a conception of democracy that begins with aset ofprinciples or "regulative ideals". Only then would be considered
the institutional arrangements and procedures through which these
principles are realized.
Although these arrangements and procedures form the subject of
our assessment, the criteria against which they are to be assessed are the
core principles themselves and the mediating values of accountability,
representativeness, responsiveness, and so on.
Methodology - Democracy is a matter of degree: of the extent to
which the democratic principles and mediating values are realized in
practice. What counts as a good degree, or an appropriate comparator,
will be considered below. For the moment it is sufficient to emphasizethat democracy is a continuum, and that the questions for assessment are
phrased comparatively. In terms of data sources, IDEA relies on various
kinds of data, both qualitative and quantitative.
Typically they are structured in terms, first, of the legal position;
then of how effectively the law is implemented in practice; then any
positive or negative indicators which are relevant to the question. For
each of the questions, the assessor answers could span a range which
includes very high, high, middling or ambiguous, low, and very low.
The full assessment framework contains first the democratic criteria (or
search questions) that are used to systematize the assessment process
and then the full four-column framework itself.
Outcomes - IDEA does not have a collective calculation of all the
indicators to produce an overall score. Its perspective is that it would
rather treat the assessment as the identification of progress or the lack
of it in specific areas of democracy. It has yet to embark on
systematic comparative assessments. It only went as far as pilot-
testing the framework in eight diverse democracies, none of which
was in the Southeast Asian region.
The principles behind the assessment devised by International
IDEA are shared by this endeavor. The notion of the ability of
societies themselves to assess and evaluate the processes of
democratization to empower themselves is very much recognized.The flexibility in the assessment enables a similar project on
Southeast Asia to take into account the nuances of both the region
-
7/28/2019 APA 2003 Democratization Scorecard
23/37
-
7/28/2019 APA 2003 Democratization Scorecard
24/37
Background Papers166
participation and inclusion. Such guarantee is imperative fordemocratization to progress. The obligations to provide and sustain
such assurance are bestowed upon state institutions and apparatuses.
To ensure political equality and prevent the state from misusing its
power, there has to be a mechanism that is reflected in the second
component institutions of representative and accountable
government. Key principles that define this component are
representation, transparency, accountability, responsiveness, and
competition.
The third component a civil or democratic society is inspired
mostly by the principle of authorization that advocates proactive and
responsible participation of the people. From these three components,
a thematic approach is used in pinpointing key derivatives mostrelevant to the Southeast Asian context. There are ten themes that are
indicative of the most critical contemporary issues in the
democratization process in Southeast Asia. These themes are
certainly neither exhaustive nor rigid in application. The ten themes
may well be overlapping in reality, yet the categorization can be
helpful for academic purposes.38
More elaborate illustrations are as
follows:
A. A guaranteed framework of equal citizen rights includesaccess to justice and the rule of law, as well as the freedoms
of expression, association and assembly, and basic economicand social rights to enable citizens to exercise these freedom
effectively.
The following themes are epitomes of the ideas embedded in the
first component:
Common citizenship - As democracy is characterized not by subjects,
but by citizens, empowerment indispensably includes that all
members of the society are ensured of a common and fully inclusive
38We deliberately excluded two distinct themes the international dimensions and
the economic and social indicators for now. We appreciate the importance ofthese elements for the development of democratization everywhere. Then again, at
this preliminary stage, for the sake of having focus and considering the limited
time and space, we wish to focus on domestic political development first.
-
7/28/2019 APA 2003 Democratization Scorecard
25/37
Background Papers 167
citizenship. Citizenship lies at the heart of the principle of democracythat all are held politically equal regardless of differences in gender,
culture, ethnicity, race, and other distinctions.
Civil and political rights - Most authoritarian regimes collapse
because of the demands from the people to be afforded civil and
political rights. This was seen as the start of the democratization
process as each citizen is now granted protection from political
violence from the state. Democratizing regimes exert efforts to
observe and promote the rights of expression, movement,
association, and assembly, and institutionalize both sets of rights by
incorporating them into their constitutions and other statutes. A
functioning independent human rights commission is also critical. Atthe non-state level, this theme also concerns the emerging human
rights movements and other organizations.
B. Institutions of representative and accountable governmentinclude free and fair elections to provide the means for
popular choice and control over government, and also
procedures to ensure the continuous accountability of
officials, elected as well as non-elected, to the public. The
themes are:
Free and fair elections- As the main mechanism of theauthorization, elections should be seen as a political process that
upholds popular control of leaders and the equal participation of all
citizens in it. They should be competitive, free, egalitarian, clean,
decisive, and inclusive. Generally, the process should be embedded
in an impartial framework of laws and regulations that conform to
international standards accepted by all significant stakeholders.
Democratic political parties - Political parties provide the framework
for representation and are indispensable for fashioning diverse
identities, interests, and preferences into laws, appropriations, and
governments. Political parties through their statements, structure,
leadership, etc., should reflect a genuine commitment to democraticprinciples. As intermediaries between the electorate and those that
-
7/28/2019 APA 2003 Democratization Scorecard
26/37
Background Papers168
are elected, parties should have the ability to respond to the interestsof their constituents.
Civil-military relations The supremacy of civilian authority gives
democratically elected governments unquestioned authority over all
policy arenas, including defining the goals and overseeing the
organization and implementation of national defense with competent
knowledge on security matters. The military shall be confined to
matters of national defense and international security and
governmental structures exist to enable civilian officials to exercise
effective oversight and control.
Governmental transparency and accountability - One of the coreprinciples of democracy that has enticed people across the world is
its promise that those who are the objects of political power should
also participate in some capacity as agents in the exercise of that
power. Other elements include independence (separation of power),
continued responsiveness, and horizontal accountability e.g.,
legislation, checks and balances, anti-graft agencies and
transparency.
Rule of Law - Rule of law (related to principles of constitutionalism)
pertains to the subjection of government actions and decisions to a
set of laws and regulations of general applicability regardless ofstatus and other distinctions. This theme also concerns the ability of
the government to administer fair and equal access to justice to its
citizens. Thus, the judiciary must also be independent and given
adequate resources to function effectively. This also includes the
reforms instituted in the criminal justice system in order to grant each
individual a fair, speedy trial, and due process.
Decentralization - Democratizing regimes are also seeking to
empower local units of governance through granting them sufficient
autonomy. At the basic level, this involves subjecting local
government to electoral contestation. Furthermore, this process
involves the gradual lifting of their dependence on centralgovernment and affording them the opportunity to determine their
own affairs. Empowering local governments includes granting them
-
7/28/2019 APA 2003 Democratization Scorecard
27/37
Background Papers 169
enough leeway to generate their own resources and the power todetermine how to dispense these resources. Furthermore, it also
includes giving them power to craft policies that suit their conditions.
C. A civil or democratic society includes free and pluralisticmedia of communication, and civic associations, consultative
processes, and other forums necessary to ensure popular
participation in the political process, and to encourage
government responsiveness to public opinion and the more
effective delivery of public services. The themes are:
Independent and free media - The media, whether mainstream or
alternative, have been a potent force in divulging the ills andproblems of authoritarian regimes and in mobilizing democratic
forces. Independence can be manifested in the opening of media to
private ownership. Media must not be subjected to state intimidation
and violence. The media performs an indispensable role of
communication of information to citizens and a watchdog role,
monitoring governmental actions and decisions and exposing
possible wrongdoings.
Popular Participation - As democratization implies empowerment,
there should be spaces afforded to citizens in order to participate in
major political processes that go beyond elections through provisionsin major laws and regulations. This can also be seen in the freedom
that the state provides for citizens to join and participate in voluntary
associations whether they are social movements, NGOs, civic
associations, etc. This sphere of civil society must be given the
means to influence government and policy processes. Participation
must also be open to disadvantaged groups, particularly women.
The ten themes will be assessed through three dimensions: legal,
institutional, andperformance. The legal dimension highlights the
legalization of elements relevant to the themes. For example: On the
Common Citizenship theme Are there any legal provisions on
common and universal citizenship that value differences of citizens
background (ethnic, religion, gender, etc)? The institutionaldimension pinpoints whether or not there are institutions and
mechanisms that ensure the implementation of the relevant legal
-
7/28/2019 APA 2003 Democratization Scorecard
28/37
Background Papers170
instruments. The performance dimension elaborates the extent towhich the provisions of legal instruments and the presence of
institutional elements actually influence democratization within the
context of that particular theme. We gathered some guiding points
and assemble a matrix to help the assessment process at this initial
process. (See Matrix 1).
Initial Validation and Trial Application of the Framework: The Case
of Indonesia and the Philippines
During the process of building the proposed framework, two Focused
Group Discussions (FGDs) were held in Manila (29-8-2003) and
Jakarta (9-9-2003). The main purpose is to involve multiple parties inscrutinizing and contextualizing the proposed framework against the
conditions of each country. The team invited representatives from
NGOs, academe, political parties, and government. The process and
results of both FGDs are actually similar.
Initially the discussions centered around the questions of
conceptual foundation and comprehensiveness of the proposed
framework. The first involved defining principles relevant to
individual countries and the whole region. The latter involved
additional themes to the existing ones, amongst others: suggestions
on economic and social themes and international relations themes on
democratization to be included in the framework. The economic andsocial themes are related to the proper basic resources (basic needs,
income, education, etc) to enable all people to contribute to the
democratization process. The international relations theme involves
how foreign policy and international relations have supported the
process. These suggestions have been noted; but then again, the
current focus of the framework would remain at domestic political
aspects.
The most dynamic discussions were the specific current events
that had been unfolding in each country with regard to the
contemporary democratization process whether they are supportive
of or threatening to democracy. The inputs are related to issues of the
anti-terrorism campaign, gender mainstreaming, decentralization,violence and conflicts, corruption, responsible media, and civil
-
7/28/2019 APA 2003 Democratization Scorecard
29/37
Background Papers 171
society, etc. These inputs would be incorporated into the trialapplication of the framework provided in this concept paper.
However, considering the limited time and space, we start by
highlighting 6 themes from the matrix (common citizenship, free and
fair elections, democratic political parties, civil-military relations,
governmental transparency and accountability, and decentralization)
and briefly illustrate some major issues relevant to those themes.
The main purpose of this trial application, which was to test the
applicability and flexibility of the proposed framework based on the
context of individual countries, has been achieved. As the country is
gearing up for the 2004 elections, during which Indonesia will have
its first direct presidential elections and the initial functioning of the
bicameral legislative system, the framework has been particularlyuseful in pinpointing how the development of the legal, institutional,
and performance fronts are not necessarily balanced.
During the last three years, especially during the Megawati
period, numerous laws and other legal instruments were enacted and
they flaunted the governments intention for further reform. There
were also some new institutional structures, for the purpose of
activating those legal foundations. But there are many drawbacks in
the actual performance. On the legal front, inconsistencies between
laws exist. Some of the laws are contradicted or not supported by the
existing by-laws at the lower level of governance. Some regulations
established by a particular government institution are in conflict withthe ones established by other peer institutions, not to mention the fact
that some of the legal instruments put the more dominant
institutions/parties in the government into a more advantaged
position.
Similar cases can be noted in the Philippines. While it has been
more than 17 years since the redemocratization process started
with the Aquino transition regime, severe limitations and deficits on
the performance of democratic institutions can be seen. While the
country had generally adapted into laws and institutions the various
principles of democracy like representation and accountability, they
are frequently pervaded by the culture of impunity, particularism,
and patronage. While provisions for the participation of citizens arevery much recognized, they are not implemented or certain informal
-
7/28/2019 APA 2003 Democratization Scorecard
30/37
Background Papers172
norms had the tendency to obscure the democratic intentions of suchlaws and institutions.
This framework proves to be helpful in illustrating both the
similarities and the differences in the two cases. While the two
countries apparently experience the same deficits in terms of the
implementation of laws and the performance of institutions, the
framework also provides the flexibility required in explaining the
likely factors that contribute to the outcomes. The trial application
has not yet provided an all-inclusive and very comprehensive
assessment on each country and has not yet involved a greater
regional perspective. Thus, it is still unable to present a full overview
of a regional assessment. It serves only to stimulate regional public
debate and planning for future development at the APA 2003.
Subsequent Validation at the ASEAN Peoples Assembly 2003
Both the proposed framework (Matrix 1) and results of the trial
application were presented at a panel at APA 2003 in Manila.
Representatives of diverse grassroots elements throughout the region
attended the panel and contributed to the rigorous discussion.
Amongst the primary concerns is the extent to which the proposed
framework can examine the overall culture of democracy.
The discussion during the panel re-highlighted the importance of
having such assessment as part of bottom-up regional initiatives thatwould strengthen grassroots empowerment. Interests have grown
from representatives of other countries in Southeast Asia and some
have already expressed their intention to be involved in this
initiative.
Conclusion: Towards a Comprehensive Regional Empowerment
APA 2003 has again opened greater opportunities for regional
empowerment through the potential of having wider participation for
a comprehensive regional democratization assessment. However,
there are challenges as these initiatives unfold. The key relevantchallenges are:
-
7/28/2019 APA 2003 Democratization Scorecard
31/37
Background Papers 173
1. Establishing wider participation of the people (local andregional),
2. Maintaining transparency and independence in conducting theassessments,
3. Consistently coming up with and effectively communicatingconstructive inputs and/or initiatives to ASEAN member-
states government and people, and
4. Keeping the sustainability of these assessment andempowerment initiatives.
This initiative should be recognized as a work-in-progress, as the
debates on democratization and empowerment should ultimately
involve the participation of more citizens in the region. As such, thisinitiative will be flexible in terms of the inputs and insights of
relevant stakeholders in the region that would be facilitated by future
endeavors.
-
7/28/2019 APA 2003 Democratization Scorecard
32/37
Background Papers174
Matrix 1. APA Proposed Framework for Democratization Assessment
CM
PTHEMES LEGAL DIMENSION INSTITUTIONAL DIMENSION PERFORMANCE DIMENS
Common
Citizenship
Provision (Prv.) on common &universal citizenship & a pluralsociety (related to issues of
ethnicity, religions, gender, class,
social status, etc).
Prv. on the recognition of the statusof
minority/dominated/marginalizedgroups
Prv. for peaceful resolution ofcommunal conflicts
Creation of relevant institutionsand/or mechanisms to handle issuesre dominated/marginalized groups
within a plural society (related to
e/r/g/c/ss,etc).
Mechanisms established to resolvecommunal conflicts
Presence & extent ofcommunal conflicts &violence
Presence & extent ofdiscrimination ondominated/marginalized
groups
Presence & extent of spestatus accorded to specia
cases related tominority/dominated/mar
zed groups
FrameworkforEqualRightsofCitizens
Civil & Political
Rights
Prv. on the protection of citizensfrom political violence or the
physical violation of their person
Prv. on the freedom of expression Prv. on the freedom of association
& assembly
Ratification of the ICCPR
Creation of an independent humanrights commission
Establishment of an office of apublic defender of human rights
Effectiveness of human rcommission to monitor
human rights observance
Number & extent of extrjudicial killings
Number & extent of polmistreatment
Presence & extent ofcensorship
-
7/28/2019 APA 2003 Democratization Scorecard
33/37
Background Papers
CM
PTHEMES LEGAL DIMENSION INSTITUTIONAL DIMENSION PERFORMANCE DIMENS
Free & Fair
Elections
Prv. on elections as the mainmechanism for the transfer of
power from citizens to leaders
Prv. on the guarantee of universaladult suffrage
Prv. on the accessibility &openness of elections to various
political forces
Prv. on representativeness inParliaments (related toe/r/g/c/ss,etc)
Establishment of an independentelectoral authority which oversees
free and fair elections
Impartiality of the electoralauthority to various candidates &
parties
Integrity of the electoral processthat ensure representativeness &
transparency
Presence & extent of eleprotests
Voter turnout Diversity & range of cho
that reflect main politica
cleavages
Presence & extent of eleviolence & fraud
Institution
sofRepresentation
&
Ac
countability(1)
Democratic
Political Parties
(PP)
Prv. on the independence of PPfrom state intervention & control
Prv. on state funding of PP Prv. on by-laws of PP for internally
democratic, legal procedures &representativeness in PP (related to
e/r/g/c/ss,etc)
Prv. on by-laws of PP that fosterdiscipline & accountability amongofficials & members
Establishment of a stable andrepresentative party system
Efficacy of PP to represent theirconstituents
Capacity to expand their functions& constituencies
Presence of clear & accountableprograms or platforms
Percentage of the nationvote on executive &legislative of PP
Significant changes ofgovernment through the
change in the compositioparties
-
7/28/2019 APA 2003 Democratization Scorecard
34/37
Background Papers176
CM
PTHEMES LEGAL DIMENSION INSTITUTIONAL DIMENSION PERFORMANCE DIMENS
Civil-Military
Relations
Prv. on supremacy of civilianauthority over the military
Prv. on the insulation of themilitary from the civilian
bureaucracy
Prv. on the accountability of themilitary for possible neglect or
abuse of its powers
Civilian leadership of the defenseestablishment with authority on
defense policy and budget making
Established civilian competence onmatters of national security &
defense
Extent of the representativeness ofthe military r of the composition of
the society at large
Presence & extent of milcoup detat
Presence & extent of milpersonnel (both active &inactive) appointed to th
civilian bureaucracy
Extent of militaryinvolvement in providin
internal security
Extent of militaryprofessionalism
InstitutionsofRepresenta
tion&Accountability(2)
Governmen-tal
Transpa-rency
& Accountabi-
lity
Prv. on the accountability of publicofficials
Prv. on the periodic accounting ofthe wealth & assets of public
officials
Prv. on the presence of an code ofethical conduct for public service
Prv. on the sanctions for possiblemisdemeanors or abuses ofdiscretion
Prv. on the freedom of informationon the performance, actions, &
decisions of government
Establishment of independentinstitutions of accountability
Independence & impartiality ofthese institutions
Adequacy of resources to fulfiltheir mandate
Willingness & capacity to exerciseoversight
Level of public perceptiothe lack of accountabilit
Performance of institutioaccountability (disposal
Number & extent ofsanctioned public officia
-
7/28/2019 APA 2003 Democratization Scorecard
35/37
Background Papers
CM
PTHEMES LEGAL DIMENSION INSTITUTIONAL DIMENSION PERFORMANCE DIMENS
Rule of Law
Prv. on the independence of thejudiciary from legislative &
executive control
Prv. for equal & secure access tojustice
Prv. for legal aid to possibleindigent citizens
Establishment of a criminal justicesystem
Impartiality & equitable treatmentof the penal system
Capacity of penal system toaccommodate inmates both incustody & those that are convicted
Status of judicial docketclogged (# of pending ca
& the average year to
dispense cases)
Performance of the publattorneys office
Decentraliza-tion
Prv. on the devolution of powers &functions of the central to the localgovernments
Prv. on the autonomy of localgovernments to do planning &
budgeting
Prv. on the subjection of localgovernments to electoral
contestation (executives &
councils)
Extent of control over resources oflocal governments
Presence of training & education oflocal government units
Establishment of the means forgreater representation &
participation of various interests in
local governance
Presence & extent ofconstraints on localgovernments in the exerc
of their powers & functi
Presence & extent ofcooperation among localgovernments with local
??communities &
associations in theformulation &
implementation of policy
-
7/28/2019 APA 2003 Democratization Scorecard
36/37
Background Papers178
CM
PTHEMES LEGAL DIMENSION INSTITUTIONAL DIMENSION PERFORMANCE DIMENS
Independent &
Free Media
Prv. for the independence of mediafrom state control & influence
Prv. on the private ownership ofmedia
Accessibility of media to the public Ability & willingness of media to
represent various streams ofopinions & perspectives
Ability & willingness of media toact as a governmental watchdog
Presence & extent of theharassment & violence
against media
Presence & extent ofgovernment censorship o
media
Extent of the limitationspress freedom
CivilorDem
ocraticSociety
Popular
Participation
Prv. for the existence of civilsociety or NGOs and othervoluntary institutions independent
of the government
Prv. on their participation in policyprocesses
Prv. on their active engagementwith state actors
Willingness & extent of citizenparticipation in NGOs and othervoluntary institutions
Presence of clear constituencieswhich they represent
Extent of participation of differentelements of civil society (related to
e/r/g/c/ss,etc)
Ability of NGOs and othvoluntary institutions tocontribute critical inputs
the policy formulation
process
Extent of democratic intprocedures of NGOs and
other voluntary institutio
Extent of constraints &limitations on civil socie
participation
Extent of the diversity ofunding sources
-
7/28/2019 APA 2003 Democratization Scorecard
37/37
Background Papers 179
top related