apa 2003 democratization scorecard

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.


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.


3/37


4/37


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.


5/37


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.


6/37


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.


7/37


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


8/37


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.


9/37


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.


10/37


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).


11/37


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.


12/37


13/37


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.


14/37


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.


15/37


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.


16/37


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.


17/37


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.


18/37


19/37


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.


20/37


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).


21/37


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.


22/37


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


23/37


24/37


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.


25/37


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


26/37


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


27/37


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


28/37


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


29/37


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


30/37


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:


31/37


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.


32/37


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


33/37

Background Papers

CM


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


34/37


CM


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


35/37

Background Papers

CM


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


36/37


CM


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


37/37


apa 2003 democratization scorecard

Documents