Che materia stai cercando?

Anteprima

ESTRATTO DOCUMENTO

FREEDOM IN THE WORLD 2011: THE AUTHORITARIAN CHALLENGE TO DEMOCRACY

Status and Ratings Changes, Trend Arrow Explanations

Status Changes

Improvements

Guinea’s political rights rating improved from 7 to 5, its civil liberties rating from 6 to 5,

and its status from Not Free to Partly Free due to a transition from military to civilian rule,

Guinea credible presidential elections held in November 2010, and heightened observance of

freedoms of expression and association.

Kyrgyzstan’s political rights rating improved from 6 to 5 and its status from Not Free to

Partly Free due to the adoption of a new constitution designed to dismantle the

Kyrgyzstan superpresidential system, and genuinely competitive, multiparty parliamentary elections

held in October 2010. Declines

Djibouti’s political rights rating declined from 5 to 6 and its status from Partly Free to Not

Djibouti Free due to constitutional changes that will allow President Ismael Omar Guelleh to run

for a third term in office.

Ethiopia’s political rights rating declined from 5 to 6, its civil liberties rating from 5 to 6,

and its status from Partly Free to Not Free due to national elections that were thoroughly

Ethiopia tainted by intimidation of opposition supporters and candidates as well as a clampdown on

independent media and nongovernmental organizations.

Mexico’s political rights rating declined from 2 to 3 and its status from Free to Partly Free

Mexico due to the targeting of local officials by organized crime groups and the government’s

inability to protect citizens’ rights in the face of criminal violence.

Nagorno-Karabakh’s political rights rating declined from 5 to 6 and its status from Partly

Nagorno- Free to Not Free due to the complete absence of opposition candidates in the May 2010

Karabakh parliamentary elections.

Ukraine’s civil liberties rating declined from 2 to 3 and its status from Free to Partly Free

due to deteriorating media freedom, secret service pressure on universities to keep students

from participating in protests, government hostility toward opposition gatherings and

Ukraine foreign nongovernmental organizations, and an increase in presidential influence over the

judiciary. Ratings Changes

Improvements

Georgia’s civil liberties rating improved from 4 to 3 due to a reduction in the political

instability the country confronted in the aftermath of the 2008 Russian invasion, as well as

Georgia greater media diversity, including the launch of satellite broadcasts by the opposition

television station Maestro.

Kenya’s civil liberties rating improved from 4 to 3 due to the reduced threat of ethnic and

Kenya political violence demonstrated by a peaceful constitutional referendum held in August

2010.

Moldova’s civil liberties rating improved from 4 to 3 due to a more balanced and diverse

media environment, a reduction in government hostility toward civil society groups, and a

Moldova lack of interference with political gatherings ahead of the November 2010 parliamentary

elections.

Nigeria’s political rights rating improved from 5 to 4 due to increasing efforts at electoral

Nigeria reform, greater opposition leverage to demand transparent elections, and the emergence of

a diverse slate of presidential candidates within the ruling People’s Democratic Party.

18

FREEDOM IN THE WORLD 2011: THE AUTHORITARIAN CHALLENGE TO DEMOCRACY

The Philippines’ political rights rating improved from 4 to 3 due to comparatively peaceful

Philippines and credible presidential and legislative elections held in May 2010.

St. Vincent St. Vincent and the Grenadines’ political rights rating improved from 2 to 1 due to the

and the opposition’s ability to challenge the ruling party and gain a significant number of seats in

Grenadines the December 2010 parliamentary elections.

Somaliland’s political rights rating improved from 5 to 4 due to the successful conduct of a

Somaliland long-delayed presidential election and the peaceful transfer of power from the incumbent

president to his leading rival.

Tanzania’s political rights rating improved from 4 to 3 due to the more open and

Tanzania competitive nature of national elections held in October 2010.

Tonga’s political rights rating improved from 5 to 3 due to free and fair parliamentary

Tonga elections held in November 2010, in which for the first time a majority of seats were filled

through universal suffrage and won by prodemocracy candidates.

Declines

Burundi’s political rights rating declined from 4 to 5 due to arrests and intimidation by the

Burundi government and ruling party during local, parliamentary, and presidential election

campaigns.

Côte d’Ivoire’s political rights rating declined from 6 to 7 and its civil liberties rating

declined from 5 to 6 due to incumbent president Laurent Gbagbo’s refusal to step down or

Côte recognize the November 2010 electoral victory of opposition presidential candidate

d’Ivoire Alassane Ouattara, as well as political violence that stemmed from the postelection

standoff, including state security forces’ targeting of ethnic minority groups that supported

Ouattara.

Indian Kashmir’s civil liberties rating declined from 4 to 5 due to a surge in state violence

Indian against protesters opposed to Indian rule, including the enforcement of onerous curfews

Kashmir and use of live ammunition that caused over 100 civilian deaths in a three-month period.

Kuwait’s civil liberties rating declined from 4 to 5 due to restrictions on freedom of

Kuwait expression including the legal harassment of critical journalists, as well as a ban on public

rallies in September 2010.

Latvia’s civil liberties rating declined from 1 to 2 due to negative developments for press

Latvia freedom, including threats to editorial independence following the sale of an influential

newspaper under less-than-transparent circumstances.

Sri Lanka’s political rights rating declined from 4 to 5 due to the misuse of state resources

before and during the 2010 presidential and parliamentary elections, the arrest and

Sri Lanka prosecution of opposition presidential candidate Sarath Fonseka, and an increasing

concentration of power in the executive branch and the president’s family.

Venezuela’s civil liberties rating declined from 4 to 5 due to a raft of legislation that

granted President Hugo Chávez wide-ranging decree powers, tightened restrictions on civil

Venezuela society and the media, and attempted to vitiate opposition gains in September 2010

parliamentary elections. Trend Arrows

Up

Colombia received an upward trend arrow due to an improved equilibrium between the

Colombia three branches of government and the end of surveillance operations that had targeted both

civil society and government figures.

Down

Afghanistan received a downward trend arrow due to fraudulent parliamentary elections in

Afghanistan September 2010. 19

FREEDOM IN THE WORLD 2011: THE AUTHORITARIAN CHALLENGE TO DEMOCRACY

Bahrain received a downward trend arrow due to an intensified crackdown on members of

Bahrain the Shiite Muslim majority in 2010, including assaults and arrests of dozens of activists

and journalists, as well as reports of widespread torture of political prisoners.

Cambodia received a downward trend arrow due to the government’s consolidation of

Cambodia control over all aspects of the electoral process, its increased intimidation of civil society,

and its apparent influence over the tribunal trying former members of the Khmer Rouge.

Egypt received a downward trend arrow due to extensive restrictions on opposition

Egypt candidates and reform advocates during the 2010 parliamentary elections, as well as a

widespread crackdown on the media that resulted in increased self-censorship.

Fiji received a downward trend arrow due to the replacement of additional magistrates

Fiji with appointees who support the legitimacy and actions of the current military regime.

France received a downward trend arrow due to a continued pattern of political and

societal discrimination against ethnic minorities, manifested in policies including a

France government-sponsored debate about national identity, the passage of a ban on facial

coverings in public places, and the systematic deportation of some 8,000 Roma.

Guinea-Bissau received a downward trend arrow due to the military’s interference in the

Guinea- country’s politics and the civilian president’s increasingly apparent willingness to

Bissau acquiesce to its demands.

Haiti received a downward trend arrow due to evidence of massive fraud in November

Haiti 2010 elections, as well as disregard for electoral laws and lack of transparency in the

operation of the Provisional Electoral Council.

Hungary received a downward trend arrow due to the government’s efforts to consolidate

control over the country’s independent institutions, including the creation of a new media

Hungary council dominated by the ruling party that has the ability to impose large fines on

broadcast, print, and online media outlets.

Iran received a downward trend arrow due to the rising economic and political clout of the

Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, extensive efforts by the government to restrict

Iran freedom of assembly, and the sentencing of the entire leadership of the Baha’i community

to lengthy prison terms.

Madagascar received a downward trend arrow due to de facto president Andry Rajoelina’s

Madagascar attempt to unilaterally impose an electoral process in violation of internationally mediated

agreements with the main opposition parties.

Rwanda received a downward trend arrow due to a severe crackdown on opposition

Rwanda politicians, journalists, and civil society activists in the run-up to a deeply flawed August

2010 presidential election.

Swaziland received a downward trend arrow due to a major crackdown

Swaziland on oppositionist and prodemocracy groups before and during organized demonstrations in

September 2010.

Thailand received a downward trend arrow due to the use of violence in putting down

Thailand street protests in April and May 2010, and the coercive use of lèse-majesté laws and

emergency powers to limit freedom of expression and personal autonomy.

Zambia received a downward trend arrow due to political violence against the opposition

Zambia and civil society groups, as well as the judiciary’s failure to demonstrate substantial

independence in key decisions throughout the year.

20

FREEDOM IN THE WORLD 2011: THE AUTHORITARIAN CHALLENGE TO DEMOCRACY

Global Data

Country Breakdown by Status

Population Breakdown by Status

Global Trends in Freedom

Free Countries Partly Free Countries Not Free Countries

Year Under

Review Number Percentage Number Percentage Number Percentage

87 45 60 31 47 24

2010 86 45 58 30 48 25

2000 65 40 50 30 50 30

1990 51 31 51 31 60 37

1980 21

FREEDOM IN THE WORLD 2011: THE AUTHORITARIAN CHALLENGE TO DEMOCRACY

Regional Data

Americas

Free Partly Free Not Free

Status by 69% 29% 3%

Country

Status by 71% 28% 1%

Population 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Asia-Pacific

Free Partly Free Not Free

Status by 41% 38% 21%

Country

Status by 43% 16% 41%

Population 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Central and Eastern Europe/Former Soviet Union

Free Partly Free Not Free

Status by 45% 31% 24%

Country

Status by 28% 18% 54%

Population 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

22

FREEDOM IN THE WORLD 2011: THE AUTHORITARIAN CHALLENGE TO DEMOCRACY

Middle East and North Africa

Free Partly Free Not Free

Status by 6% 17% 78%

Country

Status by 2% 10% 88%

Population 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Sub-Saharan Africa

Free Partly Free Not Free

Status by 19% 46% 35%

Country

Status by 12% 51% 37%

Population 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Western Europe

Free Partly Free

Status by 96% 4%

Country

Status by 85% 15%

Population 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

23

FREEDOM IN THE WORLD 2011: THE AUTHORITARIAN CHALLENGE TO DEMOCRACY

World Population in 2010 According to Combined Average

of Political Rights and Civil Liberties Ratings

1,600

1,400

1,200

millions) 1,000

(in 800

Population 600

400

200

0 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7

Free

Partly

Free Not Free

Combined Average of Political Rights and Civil Liberties Ratings

Key to Political Rights and Civil Liberties Ratings and Status

Political Rights (PR) Civil Liberties (CL)

Aggregate Aggregate

PR Rating CL Rating

Score Score

36–40 1 53–60 1

30–35 2 44–52 2

24–29 3 35–43 3

18–23 4 26–34 4

12–17 5 17–25 5

6–11 6 8–16 6

0–5 7 0–7 7

Combined Average of the Country Status

PR and CL Ratings

1.0 to 2.5 Free

3.0 to 5.0 Partly Free

5.5 to 7.0 Not Free

For more information, please see methodology summary on page 30.

24

FREEDOM IN THE WORLD 2011: THE AUTHORITARIAN CHALLENGE TO DEMOCRACY

Historical Status Breakdown, 1972–2010

Partly Free Not Free

Free Countries

Year Under Total Number Countries Countries

Review of Countries Number % Number % Number %

2010 194 87 45 60 31 47 24

2009 194 89 46 58 30 47 24

2008 193 89 46 62 32 42 22

2007 193 90 47 60 31 43 22

2006 193 90 47 58 30 45 23

2005 192 89 46 58 30 45 24

2004 192 89 46 54 28 49 26

2003 192 88 46 55 29 49 25

2002 192 89 46 55 29 48 25

2001 192 85 44 59 31 48 25

2000 192 86 45 58 30 48 25

1999 192 85 44 60 31 47 25

1998 191 88 46 53 28 50 26

1997 191 81 42 57 30 53 28

1996 191 79 41 59 31 53 28

1995 191 76 40 62 32 53 28

1994 191 76 40 61 32 54 28

1993 190 72 38 63 33 55 29

1992 186 75 40 73 39 38 21

1991 183 76 42 65 35 42 23

1990 165 65 40 50 30 50 30

1989 167 61 37 44 26 62 37

1988 167 60 36 39 23 68 41

1987 167 58 35 58 35 51 30

1986 167 57 34 57 34 53 32

1985 167 56 34 56 34 55 33

1984 167 53 32 59 35 55 33

1982–1983* 166 52 31 56 34 58 35

1981–1982** 165 54 33 47 28 64 39

1980 162 51 31 51 31 60 37

1979 161 51 32 54 33 56 35

1978 158 47 30 56 35 55 35

1977 155 43 28 48 31 64 41

1976 159 42 26 49 31 68 43

1975 158 40 25 53 34 65 41

1974 152 41 27 48 32 63 41

1973 151 44 29 42 28 65 43

1972 151 44 29 38 25 69 46

* This survey covered events that occurred from 1981 through mid-1982.

** This survey covered events that occurred from mid-1982 through late 1983.

25

FREEDOM IN THE WORLD 2011: THE AUTHORITARIAN CHALLENGE TO DEMOCRACY

Electoral Democracies, 1989–2010

Year Under Total Number Number of Electoral Percentage of Electoral

Review of Countries Democracies Democracies *

2010 194 115 59

2009 194 116 60

2008 193 119 62

2007 193 121 63

2006 193 123 64

2005 192 123 64

2004 192 119 62

2003 192 117 61

2002 192 121 63

2001 192 121 63

2000 192 120 63

1999 192 120 63

1998 191 117 61

1997 191 117 61

1996 191 118 62

1995 191 115 60

1994 191 113 59

1993 190 108 57

1992 186 99 53

1991 183 89 49

1990 165 76 46

1989 167 69 41

* Percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number.

Electoral Democracy Designation

The numerical benchmark for a country to be listed as an electoral democracy is a subtotal score of 7 or

better (out of a possible 12) for the political rights checklist subcategory A (the three questions on

Electoral Process), and an overall political rights score of 20 or better (out of a possible 40).

The presence of certain irregularities during the electoral process does not automatically disqualify a

country from being designated an electoral democracy. A country cannot be an electoral democracy if

significant authority for national decisions resides in the hands of an unelected power, whether a monarch

or a foreign or international authority. A country is removed from the ranks of electoral democracies if its

last national elections were not sufficiently free or fair, or if changes in law significantly eroded the

public’s opportunity for electoral choice.

Freedom House’s term “electoral democracy” differs from “liberal democracy” in that the latter also

implies the presence of a substantial array of civil liberties. In the survey, all Free countries qualify as

both electoral and liberal democracies. By contrast, some Partly Free countries qualify as electoral, but

not liberal, democracies.

For more information on scoring and methodology, see page 30.

Freedom in the World 26

FREEDOM IN THE WORLD 2011: THE AUTHORITARIAN CHALLENGE TO DEMOCRACY

Gains and Declines in Aggregate Scores, 2002–2010

The following graph and maps depict gains and declines in aggregate scores between the 2003 and

2011 surveys. Political rights and civil liberties ratings (1 to 7) are determined by the total number of

points (up to 100) each country receives on 10 political rights questions and 15 civil liberties

questions. This point total is referred to as the country’s aggregate score. Countries receive 0 to 4

points on each question, with 0 representing the smallest degree and 4 the greatest degree of freedom.

Many changes in these scores are too small to trigger a change in the political rights or civil liberties

ratings, but they can often illustrate long-term trends with greater subtlety. The features below clearly

show the five consecutive years of global decline discussed in the introductory essay.

For the full methodology, please visit the Freedom House website

Freedom in the World

(www.freedomhouse.org). 27

Freedom in the World ­

2003–2007

Arc tic O cean Greenland Sea

Beaufort Sea Norwegian Sea

GREENLAND ICELAND NORWAY

U.S.A. SWEDEN RUSSIA

FINLAND

Hudson Bay ESTONIA

Labrador Sea

Bering Sea LATVIA

DENMARK Sea of Okhotsk

Gulf of Alaska LITHUANIA

RUSSIA

U.K.

CANADA BELARUS

IRELAND POLAND

NETHERLANDS

GERMANY

BELGIUM TRANSNISTRIA

CZECH REP.

LUXEMBOURG SLOVAKIA UKRAINE

LIECHTENSTEIN

Nor th Atlantic O cean KAZAKHSTAN

MOLDOVA

AUSTRIA HUNGARY

SWITZERLAND MONGOLIA

SLOVENIA ROMANIA

ITALY CROATIA

FRANCE SERBIA ABKHAZIA

BOSNIA & HERZ. CHECHNYA

MONTENEGRO BULGARIA

MONACO SOUTH OSSETIA UZBEKISTAN

ANDORRA MACEDONIA

SAN MARINO GEORGIA KYRGYZSTAN

AZERBAIJAN

KOSOVO

PORTUGAL ARMENIA

GREECE NORTH KOREA

TURKMENISTAN

SPAIN TURKEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TAJIKISTAN

ALBANIA NAGORNO

Nor th Pac ific O cean NORTHERN KARABAKH

CYPRUS

MALTA SOUTH KOREA

CHINA

PAKISTANI KASHMIR

SYRIA

CYPRUS

TUNISIA AFGHANISTAN

LEBANON INDIAN KASHMIR

IRAQ

ISRAELI OCCUPIED/PAL. AUTHO. East

MOROCCO IRAN JAPAN

ISRAEL China Sea

TIBET

JORDAN NEPAL

KUWAIT PAKISTAN BHUTAN

ALGERIA LIBYA BAHRAIN

Gulf of Mexico BAHAMAS EGYPT QATAR

MEXICO Nor th Pac ific O cean

WESTERN SAHARA U.A.E. TAIWAN

INDIA

PUERTO RICO SAUDI ARABIA BURMA HONG KONG

CUBA LAOS

MAURITANIA BANGLADESH

JAMAICA OMAN

ST. KITTS & NEVIS MALI South China Sea

HAITI ANTIGUA & BARBUDA

BELIZE NIGER YEMEN Bay of Bengal

DOM. REP.

HONDURAS CHAD

SENEGAL ERITREA THAILAND

Caribbean Sea DOMINICA VIETNAM

CAPE VERDE MARSHALL

ST. LUCIA

GUATEMALA SUDAN

THE GAMBIA

GRENADA PHILIPPINES ISLANDS

ST. VINCENT & GRENADINES CAMBODIA

EL SALVADOR NICARAGUA BURKINA DJIBOUTI

FASO

BARBADOS GUINEA BISSAU GUINEA BENIN NIGERIA

TRINIDAD & TOBAGO SOMALILAND

COSTA RICA SRI LANKA MICRONESIA

ETHIOPIA

CÔTE

VENEZUELA GUYANA GHANA

SIERRA LEONE CENTRAL AFRICAN

D’IVOIRE KIRIBATI

SURINAME

PANAMA NAURU

REPUBLIC

CAMEROON BRUNEI

FRENCH GUIANA TOGO

LIBERIA

COLOMBIA MALDIVES PALAU

MALAYSIA

SOMALIA

UGANDA

EQUATORIAL GUINEA

SAO TOME & PRINCIPE

ECUADOR KENYA TUVALU

SINGAPORE

GABON RWANDA

CONGO (KINSHASA) BURUNDI

CONGO (BRAZZAVILLE)

PERU INDONESIA PAPUA SOLOMON

NEW GUINEA

TANZANIA ISLANDS

SEYCHELLES EAST TIMOR

Indian O cean

BRAZIL COMOROS

ANGOLA

SAMOA ZAMBIA VANUATU

BOLIVIA MAURITIUS

ZIMBABWE FIJI

MALAWI

NAMIBIA MADAGASCAR

MOZAMBIQUE TONGA

BOTSWANA

PARAGUAY S outh Atlantic O cean AUSTRALIA

CHILE SWAZILAND

ARGENTINA LESOTHO

SOUTH AFRICA

URUGUAY

S outh Pacific O cean Tasman Sea

NEW ZEALAND

Note: Related and disputed territories that were not scored

Net Change in Aggregate Score, 2003–2007 separately for the entire coverage period have been

colored to match the country with which they were

10+ point improvement 10+ point decline

No change otherwise scored.

5­­­­­­–9 point improvement 5–9 point decline

1–4 point improvement 1–4 point decline www.freedomhouse.org

28

Freedom in the World ­

2007–2011

Arc tic O cean Greenland Sea

Beaufort Sea Norwegian Sea

GREENLAND ICELAND NORWAY

U.S.A. SWEDEN RUSSIA

FINLAND

Hudson Bay ESTONIA

Labrador Sea

Bering Sea LATVIA

DENMARK Sea of Okhotsk

Gulf of Alaska LITHUANIA

RUSSIA

U.K.

CANADA BELARUS

IRELAND POLAND

NETHERLANDS

GERMANY

BELGIUM TRANSNISTRIA

CZECH REP.

LUXEMBOURG SLOVAKIA UKRAINE

LIECHTENSTEIN

Nor th Atlantic O cean KAZAKHSTAN

MOLDOVA

AUSTRIA HUNGARY

SWITZERLAND MONGOLIA

SLOVENIA ROMANIA

ITALY CROATIA

FRANCE SERBIA ABKHAZIA

BOSNIA & HERZ. CHECHNYA

MONTENEGRO BULGARIA

MONACO SOUTH OSSETIA UZBEKISTAN

ANDORRA MACEDONIA

SAN MARINO GEORGIA KYRGYZSTAN

AZERBAIJAN

KOSOVO

PORTUGAL ARMENIA

GREECE NORTH KOREA

TURKMENISTAN

SPAIN TURKEY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TAJIKISTAN

ALBANIA NAGORNO

Nor th Pac ific O cean NORTHERN KARABAKH

CYPRUS

MALTA SOUTH KOREA

CHINA

PAKISTANI KASHMIR

SYRIA

CYPRUS

TUNISIA AFGHANISTAN

LEBANON INDIAN KASHMIR

IRAQ

ISRAELI OCCUPIED/PAL. AUTHO. East

MOROCCO IRAN JAPAN

ISRAEL China Sea

TIBET

JORDAN NEPAL

KUWAIT PAKISTAN BHUTAN

ALGERIA LIBYA BAHRAIN

Gulf of Mexico BAHAMAS EGYPT QATAR

MEXICO Nor th Pac ific O cean

WESTERN SAHARA U.A.E. TAIWAN

INDIA

PUERTO RICO SAUDI ARABIA BURMA HONG KONG

CUBA LAOS

MAURITANIA BANGLADESH

JAMAICA OMAN

ST. KITTS & NEVIS MALI South China Sea

HAITI ANTIGUA & BARBUDA

BELIZE NIGER YEMEN Bay of Bengal

DOM. REP.

HONDURAS CHAD

SENEGAL ERITREA THAILAND

Caribbean Sea DOMINICA VIETNAM

CAPE VERDE MARSHALL

ST. LUCIA

GUATEMALA SUDAN

THE GAMBIA

GRENADA PHILIPPINES ISLANDS

ST. VINCENT & GRENADINES CAMBODIA

EL SALVADOR NICARAGUA BURKINA DJIBOUTI

FASO

BARBADOS GUINEA BISSAU GUINEA BENIN NIGERIA

TRINIDAD & TOBAGO SOMALILAND

COSTA RICA SRI LANKA MICRONESIA

ETHIOPIA

CÔTE

VENEZUELA GUYANA GHANA

SIERRA LEONE CENTRAL AFRICAN

D’IVOIRE KIRIBATI

SURINAME

PANAMA NAURU

REPUBLIC

CAMEROON BRUNEI

FRENCH GUIANA TOGO

LIBERIA

COLOMBIA MALDIVES PALAU

MALAYSIA

SOMALIA

UGANDA

EQUATORIAL GUINEA

SAO TOME & PRINCIPE

ECUADOR KENYA TUVALU

SINGAPORE

GABON RWANDA

CONGO (KINSHASA) BURUNDI

CONGO (BRAZZAVILLE)

PERU INDONESIA PAPUA SOLOMON

NEW GUINEA

TANZANIA ISLANDS

SEYCHELLES EAST TIMOR

Indian O cean

BRAZIL COMOROS

ANGOLA

SAMOA ZAMBIA VANUATU

BOLIVIA MAURITIUS

ZIMBABWE FIJI

MALAWI

NAMIBIA MADAGASCAR

MOZAMBIQUE TONGA

BOTSWANA

PARAGUAY S outh Atlantic O cean AUSTRALIA

CHILE SWAZILAND

ARGENTINA LESOTHO

SOUTH AFRICA

URUGUAY

S outh Pacific O cean Tasman Sea

NEW ZEALAND

Note: Related and disputed territories that were not scored separately for the entire

Net Change in Aggregate Score, 2007–2011 coverage period have been colored to match the country with which they were

otherwise scored. The Israeli-Occupied Territories and Palestinian Authority–

10+ point improvement 10+ point decline

No change Freedom in the World 2007

Administered Territories are colored to show changes from

Freedom in the World 2010,

through after which their scoring system was altered.

5­­­­­­–9 point improvement 5–9 point decline

1–4 point improvement 1–4 point decline www.freedomhouse.org

29

FREEDOM IN THE WORLD 2011: THE AUTHORITARIAN CHALLENGE TO DEMOCRACY

Methodology Summary

The survey provides an annual evaluation of the progress and decline of

Freedom in the World

freedom in 194 countries and 14 select related and disputed territories. The survey, which

includes both analytical reports and numerical ratings, measures freedom according to two broad

categories: political rights and civil liberties. Political rights ratings are based on an evaluation of

three subcategories: electoral process, political pluralism and participation, and functioning of

government. Civil liberties ratings are based on an evaluation of four subcategories: freedom of

expression and belief, associational and organizational rights, rule of law, and personal

autonomy and individual rights.

Each country is assigned a numerical rating from 1 to 7 for both political rights and civil

liberties, with 1 representing the most free and 7 the least free. The ratings are determined by the

total number of points (up to 100) each country receives on 10 political rights questions and 15

civil liberties questions; countries receive 0 to 4 points on each question, with 0 representing the

smallest degree and 4 the greatest degree of freedom. The combined average ratings of both

political rights and civil liberties determines the overall status: Free (1.0 to 2.5), Partly Free (3.0

to 5.0), or Not Free (5.5 to 7.0). Freedom House also assigns upward or downward trend arrows

to certain countries which saw general positive or negative trends during the year that were not

significant enough to result in a ratings change from the previous year.

The survey assigns the designation of electoral democracy to countries that have met certain

minimum standards. The numerical benchmark for a country to be listed as an electoral

democracy is a total of 7 points or more (out of a possible 12) for the 3 political rights

subcategory questions on electoral process, as well as a total of 20 points or more (out of a

possible 40) for all 10 political rights questions.

Freedom House does not maintain a culture-bound view of freedom. The methodology of the

survey is grounded in basic standards of political rights and civil liberties, derived in large

measure from relevant portions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These standards

apply to all countries and territories, irrespective of geographical location, ethnic or religious

composition, or level of economic development.

The survey does not rate governments or government performance per se, but rather the real-

world rights and freedoms enjoyed by individuals. Freedoms can be affected by state actions, as

well as by nonstate actors, including insurgents and other armed groups. Thus, the survey ratings

generally reflect the interplay of a variety of actors, both governmental and nongovernmental.

The survey findings are reached after a multilayered process of analysis and evaluation by a team

of in-house and consultant regional experts and scholars. The survey, which has been published

since 1972, enables an examination of trends in freedom over time and on a comparative basis

across regions with different political and economic systems. ratings and

Freedom in the World’s

narrative reports are used by policymakers, leading scholars, the media, and international

organizations in monitoring the ebb and flow of freedom worldwide.

For the full methodology, please visit www.freeedomhouse.org.

Freedom in the World 30

FREEDOM IN THE WORLD 2011: THE AUTHORITARIAN CHALLENGE TO DEMOCRACY

Political Rights and Civil Liberties Checklist Questions

POLITICAL RIGHTS CHECKLIST

A. ELECTORAL PROCESS

1. Is the head of government or other chief national authority elected through free and

fair elections?

2. Are the national legislative representatives elected through free and fair elections?

3. Are the electoral laws and framework fair?

B. POLITICAL PLURALISM AND PARTICIPATION

1. Do the people have the right to organize in different political parties or other competitive

political groupings of their choice, and is the system open to the rise and fall of these

competing parties or groupings?

2. Is there a significant opposition vote and a realistic possibility for the opposition to increase

its support or gain power through elections?

3. Are the people’s political choices free from domination by the military, foreign powers,

totalitarian parties, religious hierarchies, economic oligarchies, or any other powerful group?

4. Do cultural, ethnic, religious, or other minority groups have full political rights and electoral

opportunities?

C. FUNCTIONING OF GOVERNMENT

1. Do the freely elected head of government and national legislative representatives determine

the policies of the government?

2. Is the government free from pervasive corruption?

3. Is the government accountable to the electorate between elections, and does it operate with

openness and transparency?

ADDITIONAL DISCRETIONARY POLITICAL RIGHTS QUESTIONS

1. For traditional monarchies that have no parties or electoral process, does the system provide

for genuine, meaningful consultation with the people, encourage public discussion of policy

choices, and allow the right to petition the ruler?

2. Is the government or occupying power deliberately changing the ethnic composition of a

country or territory so as to destroy a culture or tip the political balance in favor of another

group? 31

FREEDOM IN THE WORLD 2010: EROSION OF FREEDOM INTENSIFIES

CIVIL LIBERTIES CHECKLIST

D. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND BELIEF

1. Are there free and independent media and other forms of cultural expression? (Note: In

cases where the media are state-controlled but offer pluralistic points of view, the survey

gives the system credit.)

2. Are religious institutions and communities free to practice their faith and express themselves

in public and private?

3. Is there academic freedom, and is the educational system free of extensive political

indoctrination?

4. Is there open and free private discussion?

E. ASSOCIATIONAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL RIGHTS

1. Is there freedom of assembly, demonstration, and open public discussion?

2. Is there freedom for nongovernmental organizations? (Note: This includes civic

organizations, interest groups, foundations, etc.)

3. Are there free trade unions and peasant organizations or equivalents, and is there effective

collective bargaining? Are there free professional and other private organizations?

F. RULE OF LAW

1. Is there an independent judiciary?

2. Does the rule of law prevail in civil and criminal matters? Are police under direct civilian

control?

3. Is there protection from political terror, unjustified imprisonment, exile, or torture, whether

by groups that support or oppose the system? Is there freedom from war and insurgencies?

4. Do laws, policies, and practices guarantee equal treatment of various segments of the

population?

G. PERSONAL AUTONOMY AND INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS

1. Do citizens enjoy freedom of travel or choice of residence, employment, or institution of

higher education?

2. Do citizens have the right to own property and establish private businesses? Is private

business activity unduly influenced by government officials, the security forces, political

parties/organizations, or organized crime?

3. Are there personal social freedoms, including gender equality, choice of marriage partners,

and size of family?

4. Is there equality of opportunity and the absence of economic exploitation?

32


PAGINE

34

PESO

2.08 MB

AUTORE

Atreyu

PUBBLICATO

+1 anno fa


DESCRIZIONE DISPENSA

Materiale didattico per il corso di Politica comparata del prof. Marco Giuliani. Trattasi del rapporto pubblicato nel 2011 da Freedom House dal titolo "Freedom in the World 2011. The Authoritarian Challenge to Democracy" all'interno del quale sono analizzate le problematiche legate alla diffusione dei valori di libertà e democrazia nel mondo.


DETTAGLI
Corso di laurea: Corso di laurea in scienze internazionali e istituzioni europee
SSD:
Università: Milano - Unimi
A.A.: 2011-2012

I contenuti di questa pagina costituiscono rielaborazioni personali del Publisher Atreyu di informazioni apprese con la frequenza delle lezioni di Politica comparata e studio autonomo di eventuali libri di riferimento in preparazione dell'esame finale o della tesi. Non devono intendersi come materiale ufficiale dell'università Milano - Unimi o del prof Giuliani Marco.

Acquista con carta o conto PayPal

Scarica il file tutte le volte che vuoi

Paga con un conto PayPal per usufruire della garanzia Soddisfatto o rimborsato

Recensioni
Ti è piaciuto questo appunto? Valutalo!

Altri appunti di Politica comparata

Democrazia - Dahl
Dispensa
Scala di astrazione dei concetti
Dispensa
Sistema istituzionale ed elettorale in Bosnia - Erzegovina
Dispensa
Democrazia maggioritaria e consensuale - Lijphart
Dispensa