assessing overview web

8/6/2019 Assessing Overview Web

1/33

Assessing the Qualityof Democracy

An Overview of theInternational IDEAFramework


2/33


3/33

EditorTodd Landman

ContributorsDavid BeethamEdzia CarvalhoStuart Weir

Assessing the Qualityof Democracy

An Overview of theInternational IDEA

Framework


4/33

International Institute or Democracy and Electoral Assistance 2008

International IDEA publications are independent o speci c national or politicalinterests. Views expressed in this publication do not necessarily represent the viewso International IDEA, its Board or its Council Members.

Applications or permission to reproduce or translate all or any part o thispublication should be made to:

International IDEA SE -103 34 StockholmSweden

Graphic design by: Santngelo Diseo

Printed by: Bulls GraphicsCover illustration Alberto Ruggieri/Illustration Works/Corbis/Scanpix

ISBN 978-91-85724-44-4


5/33

5

Contents

Setting the scene 7

Assessing democracy 9Te approach 9Te ramework 10

Experiences o applying the ramework 13Te steps involved in carrying out an assessment 16Democracy assessment outputs 17

Assessing or re orm 18Summary 22Notes 23

Appendix. Te search questions 25

Annex. About International IDEA 31


6/33


7/33

7

Setting the scene

Democracy is the predominant orm o government in the world to-day. While or the greater part o world history democracy has been arecent phenomenon,1 successive waves o democracy throughout the20th century have meant that by the new millennium more countriesare now governed through democratic than through non-democrat-ic orms o rule. Various attempts to enumerate democracies in the

world agree that more than 60 per cent o all countries today have inplace at least some minimal orm o democratic institutions and pro-

cedures.2

Te Community o Democracies lists more than 100 coun-tries and the United Nations International Con erence on New orRestored Democracies (ICNRD) has grown in depth, breadth andimportance since its inauguration in 1988 as a orum or global dem-ocratic development. Increasingly, governmental, intergovernmentaland non-governmental organizations emphasize that democracy is anend in itsel , as well as an important means to other ends such aseconomic development, poverty reduction and greater protection o internationally recognized human rights.3

Tere have been many explanations or the remarkable growth, spreadand pace o democratization. Internal explanations ocus on majorsocio-economic trans ormations; mobilization by social movementsand civil society organizations; class alliances, challenges and revolu-tions (coloured or otherwise); and elite agreements and concessions.External explanations ocus on de eat o the incumbent regime in war;the role o contagion rom democratization processes in neighbouringstates; the di usion o democratic values through processes o globali-

zation; and various orms o international intervention, including sup-port or civil society groups and nascent political party organizations;state building; institutionalization; and the speci cation o criteria orappropriate and acceptable orms o democratic rule.

Assessing the Quality of Democracy:An Overview of the International IDEAFramework


8/33

Assessing the Quality of Democracy: An Overview of the International IDEA Framework

8

A crucial element in mapping, explaining and encouraging thisgrowth in democracy has been the need or valid, meaning ul and re-liable ways to measure and assess democratic progress and the quality o democracy itsel . Scholars and practitioners have adopted a number

o strategies to measure democracy, including categorical measures(democracy vs non-democracy), scale measures (e.g. a rating on a 1to 10 scale), objective measures (e.g. voter turnout and party share o the vote), hybrid measures o democratic practices, and perceptionso democracy based on mass public opinion surveys. In certain in-stances, measures have been developed or particular needs and thenused or other purposes, while in others general measures o democ-racy have been developed or a wide range o application by the aca-demic and policy community (e.g. the Polity data set developed by

the University o Maryland). Te quest or comparability and broadtemporal and spatial coverage, however, has meant a certain sacri ceo these measures ability to capture the context-speci c eatures o democracy, while the turn to good governance, accountability andaid conditionality among leading international donors has createdadditional demand or measures o democracy that can be used orcountry-, sector- and programme-level assessments.

In response to these many developments and the proli eration o de-

mocracy measures, the International Institute or Democracy andElectoral Assistance (International IDEA) has developed an alternativeramework or democracy assessment that moves away rom country ranking and external judgement towards an approach o comprehen-sive assessment based on national assessment teams led by governmentsor civil society and academic institutions. Te ramework combinesa commitment to the fundamental principles o democracy, mediat-ing values related to these principles, and a comprehensive range o questions about democratic per ormance. Tere is scope in the rame-

work or using existing measures while at the same time incorporatingmuch more context-speci c in ormation on the quality o democracy that can then be linked to domestic processes o democratic re orm.Its use across new and old democracies around the world as diverse asMongolia and Italy, Bangladesh and Kenya, and Peru and Australiahas shown that it works, and demand continues or the ramework tobe applied in new and challenging contexts.

A ter numerous applications o the assessment ramework in no ewer

than 20 countries, International IDEA, along with Democratic Au-dit in the United Kingdom (UK), the Human Rights Centre at theUniversity o Essex in the UK, and the larger State o Democracynetwork, has thoroughly revised the ramework into a new hand-


9/33

International IDEA

9

book, entitled Assessing the Quality of Democracy: A Practical Guide .Te Guide includes all the normative principles and practical ele-ments o the ramework, experiences rom those countries that haveused it, and the ways in which democracy assessment can be linked

to the process o democratic re orm. Tis much shorter Overview provides an introduction to the ramework, including its undamen-tal democratic principles , its mediating values , the assessmentsearchquestions , examples o its application around the world, the typicalsteps involved in carrying out an assessment, and its value as a toolor promoting democratic re orm.

Te assessment ramework outlined here (and more ully in theGuide) upholds International IDEAs undamental principles in sup-

porting democracy worldwide. Democratization is a process that requires time and patience. Democracy is not achieved through elections alone. Democratic practices can be compared but not prescribed. Democracy is built rom within societies. Democracy cannot be imported or exported, but can be supported.4

aken together, the Overview and the Guide provide a robust pack-

age o materials that are grounded in many years o experience andpractical application in old and new democracies across the world.Both volumes should prove highly attractive to grass-roots democ-racy activists, civil society organizations, re orm-minded actors inpolitical society and in government, and those international donoragencies and intergovernmental and non-governmental organizationsthat are committed to building democracy or the uture.

Assessing democracyThe approach

Te undamental and underlying question in democracy assessment is:

How democratic are our country and its government?

Tere are many ways to answer this question. Te International IDEA

ramework takes a particular approach that marks it out rom otherapproaches to democracy assessment and measurement.5 Te maineatures o the International IDEA approach are as ollows.


10/33


10

Only citizens and others who live in the country being assessedshould carry out a democracy assessment, since only they can know rom experience how their countrys history and culture shape its ap-proach to democratic principles.

A democracy assessment by citizens and residents o a country may be initiated by government or external agencies only under strict sa e-guards o the independence o the assessment.

Te prime purpose o democracy assessment is to contribute to publicdebate and consciousness raising, and the exercise ought to allow or theexpression o popular understanding as well as any elite consensus.

Te assessment should assist in identi ying priorities or re orm andmonitoring their progress.

Te criteria or assessment should be derived rom clearly de ned

democratic principles and should embrace the widest range o de-mocracy issues, while allowing assessors to choose priorities or ex-amination according to local needs.

Te assessments should be qualitative judgements o strengths and weaknesses in each area, strengthened by quantitative measures where appropriate.

Te assessors should choose benchmarks or standards or assessment,based on the countrys history, regional practice and internationalnorms, as they think appropriate.

Te assessment process should involve wide public consultation, in-cluding a national workshop to validate the ndings. Old as well as new democracies can and should be subject to a similar

ramework o assessment.

Te primacy o internal actors and citizens o a country is an essentialeature o the International IDEA approach, while it also allows orinternational expertise, support and resources to complement the as-sessment process. Te experience o assessments thus ar has shown var-

ious degrees o learning, sharing and support through local assessmentteams, the State o Democracy network, international donor agencies,international academic experts, representatives o intergovernmentaland non-governmental organizations and other key actors. In this way,the International IDEA approach avoids many o the pit alls o existingapproaches,6 while at the same time developing local ownership andempowering citizens to improve the quality o their own democracy in

ways that re ect their own history, culture and national priorities.

The framework

Te key democratic principles that orm the basis or the assessmentramework are popular control over decision makers and political


11/33

International IDEA

11

equality o those who exercise that control. Tese principles de ne what democrats at all times and in all places have struggled or:

making popular control over public decision making more e ective

and more inclusive; removing elite monopoly over decision making and its bene ts; and overcoming obstacles to the equal exercise o citizenship rights, such

as those o gender, ethnicity, religion, language, class and wealth,among many others.

Te ramework derives seven mediating values rom the two demo-cratic principles.

Participation. Without citizen participation, and the rights, thereedoms and the means to participate, the principle o popular con-trol over government cannot begin to be realized.

Authorization. Te starting point o participation is to authorize pub-lic representatives or ofcials through ree and air electoral choice,and in a manner which produces a legislature that is representative o the di erent tendencies o public opinion.

Representation. I di erent groups o citizens are treated on an equalooting, according to their numbers, then the main public institu-

tions will be socially representative o the citizen body as a whole. Accountability . Te accountability o all ofcials, both to the public di-rectly and through the mediating institutions o parliament, the courts,the ombudsman and other watchdog agencies, is crucial i ofcials areto act as agents or servants o the people rather than as their masters.

ransparency . Without openness or transparency in government, noe ective accountability is possible.

Responsiveness . Responsiveness to public needs, through a variety o institutions through which those needs can be articulated, is a key

indication o the level o controlling in uence which people have overgovernment. Solidarity . While equality runs as a principle through all the me-

diating values, it nds particular expression in the solidarity whichcitizens o democracies show to those who di er rom themselves athome, and towards popular struggles or democracy abroad.

Te mediating values have certain requirements and institutionalmeans or their realization.

Te overall structure o the assessment ramework is derived rom thedemocratic principles and mediating values to include our main pillars,each o which has urther divisions used to organize 90 search ques-


12/33


12

tions (15 overarching questions and 75 speci c questions) that orm thecore o democracy assessment. Tese main pillars are as ollows.

1. Citizenship, law and rights

Democracy starts with the citizen, and the subject o the rst pillar o the ramework is the rights o the citizen and the ability o the state toguarantee equal rights o citizenship to all through its constitutionaland legal processes. Te assessment includes civil, political, economicand social rights.

2. Representative and accountable government Te second pillar comprises the institutions o representative and ac-countable government, including the electoral process, the political

party system, the role o parliament or the legislature and other in-stitutions in securing the integrity and accountability o governmentofcials, and civilian control over the military and police orces.

3. Civil society and popular participationTe third pillar is devoted to what is conventionally called civil so-ciety. Democratic institutions depend or their e ective unctioningboth on guaranteed rights upheld by the legal process and on an alertand active citizen body.

4. Democracy beyond the state Te ourth pillar concerns the international dimensions o democ-racy. Its rationale is that countries do not orm isolated units, butare mutually interdependent, especially in their degree o democraticprogress. Te assessment takes into account the external in uences ona countrys democracy and the countrys democratic impact abroad.

Figure 1 shows the relationship between the democratic principles ,

the mediating values , the structure o the framework , and the searchquestions . Te appendix to this Overview includes a ull list o the90 search questions, while part 2 o the Guide provides comprehen-sive guidance onwhat to look for in answering each search question,

generalized sources of information, data and indicators , and standards of good practice . Tese elements o the ramework provide the coresubstantive content o an assessment, and when taken together re ecta larger set o values and principles associated with a general norma-tive commitment to democracy and democratic values. Tose who

want a quick view o what the method involves can turn straight tothe search questions in the appendix.


13/33

International IDEA

13

Experiences of applying the framework

Tere have been a total o 17 assessment projects so ar, comprising notewer than 20 countries (since the South Asia democracy assessment

was carried out in ve countries). A team o academics is currently car-rying out an assessment in Mexico, while more assessments are plannedor countries in Latin America, Southern Europe, Eastern Europe and

A rica. In addition, certain eatures o the ramework have been adopt-

ed by the Open Society Institutes A riMap project and in the UnitedNations Development Programme (UNDP) Oslo Governance Centres work on poverty reduction and gender mainstreaming.

International IDEA has held a series o expert meetings or the Stateo Democracy Network in June 2004, in London; in 2005, at theUniversity o Essex; in 2006, at the meeting o the International Po-litical Science Association (IPSA) in Fukuoka; and in March 2007,in Stockholm, to re ect on the experiences o applying the rame-

work across a range o di erent country contexts. International IDEA also made numerous presentations at two national workshops or theFi th International Con erence on New or Restored Democracies(ICNRD-5) in Ulaanbaatar in 2003 and 2006, and the inaugural

Figure 1: The International IDEA democracy assessment framework


14/33


14

meeting o the Sixth International Con erence on New or RestoredDemocracies (ICNRD-6) in Doha in November 2006. Te reportsand experiences rom the di erent assessments reveal a remarkably di-verse range o democratic situations as between countries, approach-

es and techniques. All the assessments that have taken place haveremained committed to the standard methodology and the centralprinciple o local ownership o the assessment process that encom-passes the research, analysis and consultation processes, and the iden-ti cation o priorities or uture re orm. But, as Krishna Hachhethu,a Nepalese member o the South Asia regional assessment team, says,Democracy has many stories. Tis straight orward and insight ulobservation captures the essence o the approach: a standard methodderived rom democratic principles and values elicits democracys

many stories rom around the world.

Te assessment methodology was invented and rst applied by Dem-ocratic Audit in the UK. It was developed or universal use underthe direct aegis o International IDEA and then pioneered over asix-month period in eight countries Bangladesh, El Salvador, Italy,Kenya, Malawi, Peru, New Zealand and South Korea. Te pilot as-sessments covered di erent regions o the world and a mix o devel-oped and developing countries in an e ort to test the process. Nearly

all involved a national con erence o leading experts and interestedparties within each country.

Te pilot assessments showed that it has been relatively easy to:

obtain a broadly agreed constitution with a bill o rights; establish some sort o ofce o ombudsmen and/or a public de ender; hold ree elections and establish universal su rage; revive local government; and

ensure respect or and the protection o basic reedoms such as party association, press, speech and assembly.

But they also revealed that has been more difcult to establish:

the e ective inclusion o minorities and womens participation; equal access to justice and protection o the right to li e; meaning ul intra-party democracy; control o executives;

a reduction in private in uence and private interests in the publicsphere; and a signi cant role or opposition parties.


15/33

International IDEA

15

Since 2000, the assessment ramework has travelled widely acrossregions and countries at di erent stages o democratization. Te pi-lot assessments have been ollowed by assessment exercises in (in al-phabetical order) Australia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the European

Union (EU), Ireland, Latvia, Mongolia, the Netherlands, NorthernIreland, the Philippines, the South Asia region (covering Bangladesh,India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka) and the UK (the latest audit).Tese second-generation assessments were largely conducted inde-pendently o International IDEA, and in many cases resulted rom adeliberate selection o the methodology as the most appropriate romamong the many assessment methods currently used internationally.

Te origins, unding and orm o the assessments di er greatly. Te

pilot assessments unded by International IDEA were all university-based and most o the non-International IDEA assessments so ar nine o the individual country assessments and the South Asianregional assessment have their roots in universities, but there havebeen wide variations in the unding and in the process o assessment,ranging rom nationally and internationally well- unded assessments(e.g. those undertaken in Australia, Latvia and Mongolia) to thosethat have been under-resourced and have been carried out in piece-meal ashion (e.g. the assessments in New Zealand and the Philip-

pines). Tree assessments (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ireland andthe UK) sprang rom civil society, while two (the Netherlands andMongolia) were government-led, although the Dutch assessment wasunded wholly by the government and the Mongolian assessment re-ceived technical assistance rom the UNDPs Oslo Governance Cen-tre and unding rom various international donors. Te government-led assessments in Mongolia, the Netherlands and Latvia (where theassessment was in a sense state-sponsored) were carried out withoutinappropriate intervention by the government and in many ways have

tied the government to the larger agenda o democratic re orm, al-though such a model may not be appropriate in all contexts.

Tere have been as many di ering arrangements or carrying out as-sessments as there have been projects. It is clear across the experiencesthat the breadth o the investigations necessary to conduct ull as-sessments has generally obliged the projects to involve a wide rangeo contributors. Assessment teams have variously comprised nationaland international academics, researchers and analysts rom inter-

governmental and non-governmental organizations, members o theexecutive, legislative and judicial branches o government, and rep-resentatives rom civil society and the media. Te norm seems to bethat projects generally have a small core o people who coordinate the


16/33


16

research and dra t reports together with a wider set o experts, whohave o ten been recruited rom outside the bounds o the institutioncarrying out the assessment and who usually seem to work independ-ently o each other.

The steps involved in carrying out an assessment

Assessing the quality o democracy is a large and complex task thatinvolves many stakeholders and is a ected by a variety o national andcontext-speci c actors, including the size o the country (populationand geography), its level o economic development, its type o societalcleavages and level o ragmentation, and its history o democracy

and democratic stability, among many others. Despite this complex-ity and variety, the history o the democracy assessment ramework has shown that it can apply equally across very di erent countries.Te assessments have been carried out in new and old democracies,large and small countries, post-authoritarian and post-con ict coun-tries, and rich and poor countries.

With this universal applicability comes a series o standard steps thatall assessments undergo in order to make the best o the assessment

experience. Tese include: (a) the initial decisions and agenda settingor the process o assessment; (b) the data collection, analysis andorganization that orm the core o the assessment; and (c) a national

workshop and stakeholder event in which the nal report is launched,discussed and evaluated and in which the uture o democracy is dis-cussed. Figure 2 summarizes the main elements o these three steps,

while part 1 o the Guide contains two owcharts that map in greaterdetail the components o each stage.

Step 1 includes all those decisions concerning the purpose o the assessment,the context in which it will be conducted, the range o benchmarksand comparators that will be used, the personnel that will carry outthe assessment and many other crucial decisions.

Step 2 orms the core o the assessment and takes the largest proportiono the time, since it involves collecting and analysing data in orderto provide valid, meaning ul and reliable answers to all the searchquestions (every assessment thus ar has provided answers to all the

questions). Te time it takes to complete an assessment is necessarily aunction o the complexity o the context in which it is being carriedout, the available capacity and resources, and the initial parametersthat have been established in step 1.


17/33


18/33


18

were selected to score the assessment ndings on a ve-point scalerom 5 (most democratic) to 1 (least democratic), and the results werepublished together in tabular orm. Te Latvian assessment con-structed a similar table or each search question, the results being

marked on a scale rom very good to good, satis actory, poor andvery poor. Tere then ollowed a brie item on the best eature orthat section, then the most serious problem, and nally a suggestedimprovement, all o which provided a quick snapshot o the demo-cratic condition in the country. In the latest UK audit, the ndingsrom each section were summarized together at the end o the book in bullet-point orm, and these were then edited or publication as aseparate pamphlet.

Assessing for reform

Te International IDEA ramework stresses that the process o as-sessment is an e ective means to communicate a particular story about democracy that has been orged through national consensus.Te story itsel ought to be communicated to as diverse and broad anaudience as possible and it ought to lead to the ormulation o concrete

proposals for democratic reformthat draw on the ndings o the assess-

ment in ways that are based on local ownership o the re orm agenda.It is clear rom the experiences o applying the assessment ramework that assessment teams have moved beyond the set o search questionsand have used the ramework as a use ul tool or critical re ection

within the country that is being assessed. A domestic team o asses-sors and stakeholders based in the country o the assessment providesthe empirical basis or answering the questions while re ecting on thedemocratic achievements and de cits or the period being assessed,as well as identifying the obstacles for democratic reform that may exist . In

this way, the assessment is crucial or celebrating democratic achieve-ments while revealing critical gaps in the lived democratic experienceo the country and obstacles in need o attention through proposalsor re orm to move the democratic agenda orward.

Te main gaps between early constitutional and institutional achieve-ments, on the one hand, and longer-term problems that erode thedemocratic quality o li e, on the other hand, are consonant withpopular commentaries on and critical analyses o democratic undera-

chievement beyond the countries that have undergone the kind o as-sessments carried out using the International IDEA ramework. Suchcommentaries are critical about two key things: (a) an overemphasison elections (known as the electoral allacy) at the cost o examining


19/33

International IDEA

19

other key dimensions o democracy; and (b) the alse logic o demo-cratic sequencing.7 While elections are important and eature promi-nently in the assessment ramework, the many other dimensions o the ramework show that elections are but one acet o the democratic

experience, where questions o rights, inclusion, the media, politicalparties and parliaments, among other things, must sit alongside theholding o regular elections. Democratic sequencing sees the develop-ment o democracy as a set o necessary steps in which the state and therule o law are stabilizedbefore democracy is introduced ully. A recentcritique o this sequential approach cautions against this and arguesthat democracies and the democrats who inhabit them are best placedto bring about democratic re orm, that their e orts to do so o ten pre-cede rather than follow any interventions rom the international com-

munity and that even in those instances where this is not the case thepower o outside intervention in democracy promotion is overrated.

Tis view is largely compatible with the types o lessons that have beenlearned by applying the assessment ramework across such a diverseset o countries, which unlike the various debates on democraticsequencing has included established democracies as well as new and restored democracies. Te new democrats o Mongolia orged acompetitive electoral system in which real alternation o power has

taken place, and where all major stakeholders have become engagedin state re orm and strengthening the rule o law. In the Netherlands,popular rejection o the EU constitution and two prominent politicalassassinations initiated an assessment that revealed the need to revisitissues o Dutch citizenship and the complexity o government itsel inrepresenting the needs and democratic aspirations o the population.In South Asia, the State o Democracy project sought to locate de-mocracy in the context o that region o the world in order to discover

what South Asians think about democracy and how they have adapted

its very idea. Te project showed that across the region democraticpreconditions are not necessary or the installation o democracy andthat democracy has not yet been able to address questions o poverty.

Tese di erent examples suggest that the ramework, in addition tobeing equally applicable to such a diverse range o country contexts,is equally use ul in generating concrete proposals or democratic re-orm, the success o which relies heavily on the agents o the assess-ment and their ability to provide the broad conditions o ownership

or key stakeholders that have the capacity and opportunity to drivethe re orm process. In terms o the assessment ramework and withinInternational IDEAs general orientation towards democracy as anongoing and an evolving process, it is entirely to be expected that de-


20/33


20

mocracy is not an all or nothing a air, so that certain eatures may be better developed than others, and that the assessment o the qual-ity o democracy necessarily requires a multidimensional approachthat can provide a more nuanced and context-speci c per ormance

pro le. Moreover, the assessment ramework lends itsel well to theidenti cation o possible explanations or the gaps between achieve-ments and remaining challenges, which in turn can lead to the or-mulation o a democratic re orm agenda.

Te potential or initiating, implementing and sustaining signi cantdemocratic re orms, however, must be seen as a unction o our larg-er actors that need to be taken into consideration. Tese actors are:

the context under which the assessment was carried out; the types o in uence that the assessment made possible; the audience to which the assessment was directed; and the type o outputs produced.

Tese actors can act alone or in combination to a ect the type o dem-ocratic re orm possible, both in the short term and in the longer term.

Across the experiences, thecontext o the assessment varied greatly across

the main agent of the assessment (government, civil society or an aca-demic institution), the relativeopenness of the political process to reform,and the relativevoice the assessment had in the public domain and popu-lar political discourse. Assessments can have direct in uence on policy makers and other political elites, as in the cases o the Netherlands,Mongolia and Latvia, and to a lesser extent in Ireland and the UK.

Assessments can also strengthen constituencies, non-governmental or-ganizations and civil society organizations that can mobilize and addpressure or democratic re orm. It is also possible or assessments to

have longer-term cultural impact through raising awareness and beingmainstreamed through educational curricula at secondary school level,as well as within the university system. Finally, di erent audiences oran assessment include national stakeholders within government and inpolitical, civil and economic society, as well as audiences outside thecountry, including other countries wishing to carry out their own as-sessments and the international donor community.

Tese di erent dimensions o the assessment process (agent, con-

text, openness o the political process, audiences, outputs and im-pact) create di erent opportunities and areas or democratic re orm, which include:


21/33

International IDEA

21

institutional re orms; resource-based re orms; and long-term cultural shi ts.

Institutional reforms are based on enhancing accountability mecha-nisms in ways that prohibit the centralization o power or preventpower and decision making being exercised without real oversight.

Across di erent institutional arrangements (e.g. unitary and ederalsystems, presidential and parliamentary systems, and proportionaland majoritarian systems), the assessment experiences have shownthat it is important that institutional mechanisms are in place ormaintaining independent orms o representation and accountability.Institutional oversight requires real power backed with constitutional

or statutory authority to oversee and control actions o governmentthat can have a deleterious impact on human rights, including civil,political, economic, social and cultural rights. Popular institutionalsolutions include the establishment o national human rights insti-tutions, electoral commissions, anti-corruption bodies and ombuds-man ofces, as well as more traditional legislative and judicial powerso oversight that have evolved over long periods o time in the moreestablished democracies. For transitional societies there is an addi-tional demand or institutional solutions that con ront authoritarian

legacies (at a ormal and legal level and at a cultural and practical lev-el), the so-called military reserve domains o power (e.g. in Bangla-desh and Pakistan), and the use o emergency powers within nationalconstitutions. Moreover, there ought to be institutional solutions toenhance participation and the inclusion o all groups, including mi-nority groups and women.

Te need or resource-based reforms stems rom the act that theramework is based on the idea that political and legal equality must

be complemented by the means or realising social equality. Te per-sistence o social and economic inequality constrains the ability o large numbers o people to take part in the public a airs o the coun-try. Concentration on the ul lment o economic and social rights iso ten criticized or placing a heavy burden on the scal capacity o governments, but programmes that enhance the protection o civiland political rights also entail such a burden. All rights depend tosome degree on tax revenues and government spending. Tus, the im-provement o the quality o democracy involves enhancing the scal

capacity o states, while more democratic procedures and institutionscan contribute to a better allocation o national revenue in ways thatraise living standards and overall well-being.


22/33


22

Finally, there is a longer-term need or the kind o re orms that pro-mote and develop a broader political culture that is supportive of democ-racy . Te Bosnian and Latvian assessment experiences showed thatnew and restored democracies ace harder challenges in this regard.

Bangladesh has experienced ongoing military interventions in thepolitical sphere which the general public in general has backed, whichsuggests a weak attachment to democracy and democratic principles.Indeed, the South Asian assessment ound that an afrmation o democracy does not lead to the negation o authoritarian alternatives,so support or democracy is thin. Te Netherlands has sought to or-mulate an interconnected package o measures to guarantee, rein-orce and where necessary renew democracy, together with theresults o the Citizens Forum (Burger orum) and the National Con-

vention (Nationale Conventie), among other initiatives. In Australia,assessment outputs orm part o the curricula or university students, where students cut their teeth onour assessments o Australian po-litical practices when learning about Australian politics.

Such institutional, resource-based and cultural re orms demand var-ying degrees o attention, time, and a wide range o di erent actors inorder to build a broader, deeper and better democratic uture. Te as-sessment ramework makes it clear that democracy assessment must

be comprehensive, inclusive and orward-looking in ways that draw on the democratic achievements, are grounded in the many di er-ent contexts in which democracy ourishes, and require the supporto all citizens within the country that is to be assessed. Democracy assessment engages all levels o society as well as key internationalactors in an e ort to build and strengthen democratic institutions,democratic society and democratic culture in ways that re ect theneeds o the population governed within the democracy itsel .

Summary

Tis Overview has provided a short outline o the purpose, conceptu-al underpinning, methodology and main eatures o the Internation-al IDEA ramework or democracy assessment. It has also provided abrie re ection on the experiences o applying the ramework acrossa diverse set o country contexts. Te ramework makes a clear link between undamental principles o democracy, mediating values, and

speci c questions that probe the overall quality o democracy andidenti y key areas or democratic re orm. Te method is groundedin the use o country-based assessment teams and the promotion o broad orms o participation in ways that develop ownership over


23/33

International IDEA

23

the assessment process and the larger democratic re orm agenda.Te uller Guide lays out in much greater detail the ramework; thesources o data, standards and good practice; the process o carryingout an assessment; the experiences o teams that have carried out the

assessments in several countries; and how the lessons o an assessmentcan be used to pursue long-term democratic re orm.

Notes

1 In Te History of Government (Ox ord and New York: Ox ord University Press,1997), Samuel Finer compares all orms o government rom antiquity to thepresent and shows that his notion o the orum-polity is the rarest and most

recent o all orms o government.2 See, or example, Diamond, Larry,Developing Democracy: oward Consolidation

(Baltimore, Md: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999); Przeworski, A., Alvarez, M.E., Cheibub, J. A. and Limongi, F., Democracy and Development: Political Institutions and Well-Being in the World, 19501990 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2000); Boix, C., Democracy and Redistribution(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003); and Doorenspleet, R.,Democratic ransitions: Exploring the Structural Sources of the Fourth Wave (Boulder, Colo: Lynne Rienner, 2005).

3 See, or example, the UK Department or International Development (DFID)2006 White Paper Eliminating Poverty: Making Governance Work for the Poor , Cm6876 (London: Te Stationery Ofce, 2006).

4 International IDEA, en Years of Supporting Democracy Worldwide (Stockholm:International IDEA, 2005), p. 12.

5 Annex A to Assessing the Quality of Democracy: Practical Guide reviews the other main ways o measuring democracy.

6 Tese pit alls include: (a) conceptual problems o oversimpli cation and a narrow ocus on the institutional dimensions o democracy; (b)methodological problems o lack o transparency in coding, selective use o material, country-level aggregation,and the validity and reliability o measures; and (c) the political problems o givingprimacy to outside judgement, the lack o local ownership in the measurementprocess and the tendency to engage in comparative ranking.

7 wo issues o the Journal of Democracy cover the many sides o this debate aboutdemocratic sequencing (see volume 18, issues 1 and 3, 2007).


24/33


25/33

25

1. Citizenship, law and rights

1.1. Nationhood and citizenshipOverarching question: Is there public agreement on a commoncitizenship without discrimination?

1.1.1. How inclusive is the political nation and state citizenship o all wholive within the territory?

1.1.2. How ar are cultural di erences acknowledged, and how well areminorities and vulnerable social groups protected?

1.1.3. How much consensus is there on state boundaries andconstitutional arrangements? 1.1.4. How ar do constitutional and political arrangements enable major

societal divisions to be moderated or reconciled? 1.1.5. How impartial and inclusive are the procedures or amending the

constitution? 1.1.6. How ar does the government respect its international obligations

in its treatment o re ugees and asylum seekers, and how ree romarbitrary discrimination is its immigration policy?

1.2. Rule o law and access to justiceOverarching question: Are state and society consistently subject to the law?

1.2.1. How ar is the rule o law operative throughout the territory?1.2.2. o what extent are all public ofcials subject to the rule o law and

to transparent rules in the per ormance o their unctions?1.2.3. How independent are the courts and the judiciary rom the

executive, and how ree are they rom all kinds o inter erence?

1.2.4. How equal and secure is the access o citizens to justice, to dueprocess and to redress in the event o maladministration?1.2.5. How ar do the criminal justice and penal systems observe due rules

o impartial and equitable treatment in their operations?

Appendix: The search questions


26/33


27/33


28/33


28

2.3.5. How comprehensive and e ective is the right o access or citizens togovernment in ormation under the constitution or other laws?

2.3.6. How much con dence do people have in the ability o governmentto solve the main problems con ronting society, and in their own

ability to in uence it?

2.4. Te democratic e ectiveness o parliamentOverarching question: Does the parliament or legislature contribute e ectively to the democratic process?

2.4.1. How independent is the parliament or legislature o the executive,and how reely are its members able to express their opinions?

2.4.2. How extensive and e ective are the powers o the parliament or

legislature to initiate, scrutinize and amend legislation?2.4.3. How extensive and e ective are the powers o the parliament orlegislature to oversee the executive and hold it to account?

2.4.4. How rigorous are the procedures or approval and supervision o taxation and public expenditure?

2.4.5. How reely are all parties and groups able to organize within theparliament or legislature and contribute to its work?

2.4.6. How extensive are the procedures o the parliament or legislature orconsulting the public and relevant interests across the range o its work?

2.4.7. How accessible are elected representatives to their constituents?2.4.8. How well does the parliament or legislature provide a orum ordeliberation and debate on issues o public concern?

2.5. Civilian control o the military and policeOverarching question: Are the military and police orces under civilian control?

2.5.1. How e ective is civilian control over the armed orces, and how ree

is political li e rom military involvement?2.5.2. How publicly accountable are the police and security services ortheir activities?

2.5.3. How ar does the composition o the army, police and security services re ect the social composition o society at large?

2.5.4. How ree is the country rom the operation o paramilitary units,private armies, warlordism and criminal ma as?

2.6. Integrity in public li e

Overarching question: Is the integrity o conduct in public li e assured?

2.6.1. How e ective is the separation o public ofce rom the personalbusiness and amily interests o ofce holders?


29/33

International IDEA

29

2.6.2. How e ective are the arrangements or protecting ofce holders andthe public rom involvement in bribery?

2.6.3. How ar do the rules and procedures or nancing elections,candidates and elected representatives prevent their subordination to

sectional interests?2.6.4. How ar is the in uence o power ul corporations and businessinterests over public policy kept in check, and how ree are they rom involvement in corruption, including overseas?

2.6.5. How much con dence do people have that public ofcials andpublic services are ree rom corruption?

3. Civil society and popular participation

3.1. Te media in a democratic society Overarching question: Do the media operate in a way that sustains democratic values?

3.1.1. How independent are the media rom government, how pluralisticis their ownership, and how ree are they rom subordination tooreign governments or multinational companies?

3.1.2. How representative are the media o di erent opinions and how

accessible are they to di erent sections o society?3.1.3. How e ective are the media and other independent bodies ininvestigating government and power ul corporations?

3.1.4. How ree are journalists rom restrictive laws, harassment andintimidation?

3.1.5. How ree are private citizens rom intrusion and harassment by themedia?

3.2. Political participation

Overarching question: Is there ull citizen participation in public li e?

3.2.1. How extensive is the range o voluntary associations, citizengroups, social movements etc., and how independent are they romgovernment?

3.2.2. How extensive is citizen participation in voluntary associationsand sel -management organizations, and in other voluntary publicactivity?

3.2.3. How ar do women participate in political li e and public ofce atall levels?3.2.4. How equal is access or all social groups to public ofce, and how

airly are they represented within it?


30/33


30

3.3. DecentralizationOverarching question: Are decisions taken at the level o government that is most appropriate or the people a ected?

3.3.1. How independent are the sub-central tiers o government rom thecentre, and how ar do they have the powers and resources to carry out their responsibilities?

3.3.2. How ar are these levels o government subject to ree andair electoral authorization, and to the criteria o openness,accountability and responsiveness in their operation?

3.3.3. How extensive is the cooperation o government at the most locallevel with relevant partners, associations and communities in theormation and implementation o policy, and in service provision?

4. Democracy beyond the state

4.1. External infuences on the countrys democracy Overarching question: Is the impact o external infuences broadly supportive o the countrys democracy?

4.1.1. How ree is the country rom external in uences which undermineor compromise its democratic process or national interests?

4.1.2. How equitable is the degree o in uence exercised by thegovernment within the bilateral, regional and internationalorganizations to whose decisions it may be subject?

4.1.3. How ar are the governments negotiating positions and subsequentcommitments within these organizations subject to e ectivelegislative oversight and public debate?

4.2. Te countrys democratic impact abroadOverarching question: Do the countrys international policies

contribute to strengthening global democracy?

4.2.1. How consistent is the government in its support or, and protectiono , human rights and democracy abroad?

4.2.2. How ar does the government support the UN and agencieso international cooperation, and respect the rule o law internationally?

4.2.3. How extensive and consistent is the governments contribution tointernational development?

4.2.4. How ar is the governments international policy subject to e ectiveparliamentary oversight and public in uence?


31/33

31

Annex: About International IDEA

What is International IDEA?

Te International Institute or Democracy and Electoral Assistance(International IDEA) is an intergovernmental organization that sup-ports sustainable democracy worldwide. Its objective is to strengthendemocratic institutions and processes. International IDEA acts as acatalyst or democracy building by providing knowledge resources,expertise and a plat orm or debate on democracy issues. It works to-gether with policy makers, donor governments, UN organizations andagencies, regional organizations and others engaged on the eld o

democracy building.

What does International IDEA do?

Democracy building is complex and touches on many areas includingconstitutions, electoral systems, political parties, legislative arrange-ments, the judiciary, central and local government, ormal and tradi-tional government structures. International IDEA is engaged with allo these issues and o ers to those in the process o democratization:

knowledge resources, in the orm o handbooks, databases, websitesand expert networks;

policy proposals to provoke debate and action on democracy issues; and assistance to democratic re orms in response to speci c national requests.

Areas of work

International IDEAs notable areas o expertise are:

Constitution-building processes. A constitutional process can lay theoundations or peace and development, or plant seeds o con ict.International IDEA is able to provide knowledge and make poli-


32/33


32

cy proposals or constitution building that is genuinely nationally owned, is sensitive to gender and con ict-prevention dimensions, andresponds e ectively to national priorities.

Electoral processes.Te design and management o elections has astrong impact on the wider political system. International IDEA seeks to ensure the pro essional management and independence o elections, adapt electoral systems, and build public con dence in theelectoral process.

Political parties.Political parties orm the essential link between vot-ers and the government, yet polls taken across the world show thatpolitical parties enjoy a low level o con dence. International IDEA analyses the unctioning o political parties, the public unding o political parties, their management and relations with the public.

Democracy and gender.International IDEA recognizes that i democ-racies are to be truly democratic, then womenwho make up overhal o the worlds populationmust be represented on equal terms

with men. International IDEA develops comparative resources andtools designed to advance the participation and representation o

women in political li e. Democracy assessments.Democratization is a national process. Inter-

national IDEAs State o Democracy methodology allows people toassess their own democracy instead o relying on externally producedindicators or rankings o democracies.

Where does International IDEA work?

International IDEA works worldwide. It is based in Stockholm,Sweden, and has ofces in Latin America, A rica and Asia.


33/33

assessing overview web

Documents