The Economist Intelligence Unit's 2017 Democracy Index

deise69

Brown Belt
@Brown
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
4,154
Reaction score
466
http://uk.businessinsider.com/econo...cy-index-best-countries-2018-1/#21-usa-798-21

Less than 5% of the world's population lives in a "full democracy," according to a new report ranking countries by how functional their political systems are.

The Economist Intelligence Unit released on Wednesday its 2017 Democracy Index, which ranks 167 countries on a 0 to 10 scale. Only countries with scores above 8 are categorised as "full" democracies.

The study has five criteria: Whether elections are free and fair ("electoral process and pluralism"), governments have checks and balances ("functioning of government"), and whether citizens are included in politics ("political participation"), support their government ("political culture"), and enjoy freedom of expression ("civil liberties").

Once again the Norwegians lead the list of countries (Numbers 1 - 20) with a "full democracy".

1. Norway — 9.87/10
Electoral process and pluralism: 10.00
Functioning of government: 9.64
Political participation: 10.00
Political culture: 10.00
Civil liberties: 9.71

2. Iceland — 9.58
3. Sweden — 9.39
4. New Zealand — 9.26
5. Denmark — 9.22
=6. Ireland — 9.15
=6. Canada — 9.15
8. Australia — 9.09
=9. Finland — 9.03
=9. Switzerland — 9.03

=21. USA — 7.98
Electoral process and pluralism: 9.17
Functioning of government: 7.14
Political participation: 7.22
Political culture: 8.13
Civil liberties: 8.24






 
I feel they should deduct even more points for the fact that the US doesn't have public funding of elections.
 
The article says they define "civil liberties" as freedom of expression. How does a country like Germany, which can and will jail/fine people for certain speech, have a higher score than the US?

How does Canada have a higher freedom of expression score, when the government legally compels you to use certain speech they deem acceptable, under bill c-16.

You can say anything you want in the US, how is that not a perfect score if the metric is "freedom of expression"?
 
support their government ("political culture")

Netherlands 8.13
USA 8.13

uh, ok.
 
http://uk.businessinsider.com/econo...cy-index-best-countries-2018-1/#21-usa-798-21



Once again the Norwegians lead the list of countries (Numbers 1 - 20) with a "full democracy".

1. Norway — 9.87/10
Electoral process and pluralism: 10.00
Functioning of government: 9.64
Political participation: 10.00
Political culture: 10.00
Civil liberties: 9.71

2. Iceland — 9.58
3. Sweden — 9.39
4. New Zealand — 9.26
5. Denmark — 9.22
=6. Ireland — 9.15
=6. Canada — 9.15
8. Australia — 9.09
=9. Finland — 9.03
=9. Switzerland — 9.03

=21. USA — 7.98
Electoral process and pluralism: 9.17
Functioning of government: 7.14
Political participation: 7.22
Political culture: 8.13
Civil liberties: 8.24





Cool,bro.
 
All cuck countries at top. China will rule the future at current direction things.
 
The article says they define "civil liberties" as freedom of expression. How does a country like Germany, which can and will jail/fine people for certain speech, have a higher score than the US?

How does Canada have a higher freedom of expression score, when the government legally compels you to use certain speech they deem acceptable, under bill c-16.

You can say anything you want in the US, how is that not a perfect score if the metric is "freedom of expression"?
These rankings are meaningless, it reminds me of the Fragile States Index. Back in 2010, they had Libya as more stable than Brazil and China. A fucking desert ruled by a eccentric president for life.
 
The article says they define "civil liberties" as freedom of expression. How does a country like Germany, which can and will jail/fine people for certain speech, have a higher score than the US?

How does Canada have a higher freedom of expression score, when the government legally compels you to use certain speech they deem acceptable, under bill c-16.

You can say anything you want in the US, how is that not a perfect score if the metric is "freedom of expression"?

Yeah, I agree with this. I think the US's overall ranking is fine, or even a bit too high, but you're spot on about freedom of expression. I think it just seems like the opposite since our diversity broadens the scope of expression.

These rankings are meaningless, it reminds me of the Fragile States Index. Back in 2010, they had Libya as more stable than Brazil and China. A fucking desert ruled by a eccentric president for life.

Maybe not China, but Libya was definitely more stable than Brazil. It wasn't even fucking close. Compared to China, even, it was close.
 
The article says they define "civil liberties" as freedom of expression. How does a country like Germany, which can and will jail/fine people for certain speech, have a higher score than the US?

How does Canada have a higher freedom of expression score, when the government legally compels you to use certain speech they deem acceptable, under bill c-16.

You can say anything you want in the US, how is that not a perfect score if the metric is "freedom of expression"?

I was wondering the same thing. Maybe they take something else into account like being put in prision for a long time?
 
Report is here: http://pages.eiu.com/rs/753-RIQ-438/images/Democracy_Index_2017.pdf

North America summary starts on pg. 49.


Here are the questions related to civil liberties.

44. Is there a free electronic media?

45. Is there a free print media? [Accounts for state-controlled media]

46. Is there freedom of expression and protest (bar only generally accepted restrictions, such as banning advocacy of violence)?

47. Is media coverage robust? Is there open and free discussion of public issues, with a reasonable diversity of opinions?

48. Are there political restrictions on access to the Internet?

49. Are citizens free to form professional organisations and trade unions?

50. Do institutions provide citizens with the opportunity to petition government to redress grievances?

51. The use of torture by the state.

52. The degree to which the judiciary is independent of government influence. Consider the views of international legal and judicial watchdogs. Have the courts ever issued an important judgement against the government, or a senior government official?

53. The degree of religious tolerance and freedom of religious expression. Are all religions permitted to operate freely, or are some restricted? Is the right to worship permitted both publicly and privately? Do some religious groups feel intimidated by others, even if the law requires equality and protection?

54. The degree to which citizens are treated equally under the law. Consider whether favoured groups or individuals are spared prosecution under the law.

55. Do citizens enjoy basic security?

56. Extent to which private property rights are protected and private business is free from undue government influence

57. Extent to which citizens enjoy personal freedoms. Consider gender equality, right to travel, choice of work and study.

58. Popular perceptions on protection of human rights; proportion of the population that think that basic human rights are well-protected.

59. There is no significant discrimination on the basis of people’s race, colour or religious beliefs.

60. Extent to which the government invokes new risks and threats as an excuse for curbing civil liberties.


And here is what they say about the US in summary:

The US fell below the threshold for a “full democracy” in 2016 and is now rated as a “flawed democracy”. The main cause of the US regression was a serious decline in public trust in US institutions in 2016. This year the country’s overall score remained the same, and the US remains in 21st place in the global rankings. The score for Canada also stayed the same, at 9.15, and it remains in joint sixth place (with Ireland).

Donald Trump won the presidential election in November 2016 in part because of his ability to tap into the discontent expressed by many voters with the political and economic state of affairs in the country. His presidency may be an opportunity for the country’s political class to focus on the disempowerment felt by these voters. It is too soon to judge whether President Trump will be successful in assuaging this deep groundswell of popular disaffection. So far his attempts to address the concerns of his voters have resulted in a further polarisation of US politics, resulting in a decline in the score for social cohesion in the 2017 Democracy Index. According to the Pew Research Centre, partisan divides have widened on a number of issues, notably for example on the question of immigration. In response to a question about whether immigrants strengthen the country, a Pew survey showed that Republicans were almost evenly split in their answer to this question, while the majority of Democrats supported the statement that immigration is good for the US. Polarisation has also increased on economic and environmental policies; Republicans and Democrats have deeply polarised views on whether stricter environmental regulations are harming jobs and the economy, with Republicans tending to believe that these policies are detrimental for growth and employment. The growing divisions between (and within) those who identify as Republicans and Democrats help to explain in part why the Trump administration is finding it so hard to govern, despite controlling both houses of Congress.

If Mr Trump is unable to reverse the trend towards increasing social polarisation, US democracy will be at greater risk of further deterioration, especially given the interplay of this trend with other, long-standing drivers of democratic decline. For example, the US scores comparatively poorly in the Democracy Index in the functioning of government category. Bitter partisanship has developed in part because many congressional districts have been redrawn in a way that gives one party a builtin advantage. As a result, members of Congress fear a challenge in their party primaries, which are controlled by the party base, and are consequently incentivised to move to the right (for Republicans) or to the left (for Democrats). The upshot is a stronger emphasis on ideological purity and less appetite for compromise, which reinforces existing cynicism among voters about the workings of Congress. The trend towards partisanship has coincided with an erosion of confidence in government and public institutions over many years. Major political events over many decades have damaged confidence, including the Vietnam war, the Watergate scandal, the Iraq wars, the financial crisis in 2008-09 and repeated federal government shutdowns.

Income inequality has also been a key factor in fuelling popular dissatisfaction with government, its institutions and politicians. Income inequality is higher in the US than in other rich countries and has worsened since the global economic and financial crisis of 2007-09. Studies show that higher income inequality reduces trust in others and undermines social capital. There is a risk that income inequality will widen further in coming years following the major tax changes passed by Congress in late 2017; tax cuts in the bill favour those on higher incomes, especially in the medium term. Also, the central feature of Obamacare was repealed, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates will lead to a loss of access to health insurance for 13m citizens over the next decade
 
Last edited:
The article says they define "civil liberties" as freedom of expression. How does a country like Germany, which can and will jail/fine people for certain speech, have a higher score than the US?

How does Canada have a higher freedom of expression score, when the government legally compels you to use certain speech they deem acceptable, under bill c-16.

You can say anything you want in the US, how is that not a perfect score if the metric is "freedom of expression"?
America lacks the freedom of giving prisoners a comfy jail cell with a PS3, so even if you go to jail for Holocaust denial, in the end you're probably more free in Northern Europe
 
From my understanding, when these rankings give us a shitty ranking when it comes to things like having a free press, it's because our government is doing all kinds of shit and can't let people blow the lid on everything were doing. So you can go to jail for leaking classified shit. If I'm not just talking out of my ass here, then that would mean that these lists will inherently be dominated by irrelevant countries that aren't spying on everyone, carrying out secret operations, creating new military technology, etc
 
The Economist is neo-liberal handbook trash. Little credibility.
 
Maybe not China, but Libya was definitely more stable than Brazil. It wasn't even fucking close. Compared to China, even, it was close.
Gaddafi stayed in power by killing and locking up those that would stand up to him and handing out gibsmedats to his people. That can only give you so much stability when you're operating a renegade state and ruling over Islamists with no national identity.

That's like 3 different scenarios at to when he could collapse: Islamist uprising, running out of handouts, and foreign intervention

Brazil has a national identity, no crazy Islamist presence, and isn't being targeted by Western governments (That I'm aware of)
 
Maybe not China, but Libya was definitely more stable than Brazil. It wasn't even fucking close. Compared to China, even, it was close.
So stable it's no more. It was not a real country, it was just a bunch of tribes brought together by a strong man.
Brazil may be poor, corrupt and violent, but it has never fractured, never had a serious civil war or a foreign war for that matter, since the declaration of the republic(excluding a small contribution in ww2).
Brazil also has institutions, unlike Libya. Brazil has a house of representatives, a senate, a supreme court, democratically elected presidents.
Libya had one man in control of everything and a tendency to get into fights with the US.

China is one of the most stable countries on earth and it will endure another thousand years at least, Libya will probably not exist in 10 years.
 
Gaddafi stayed in power by killing and locking up those that would stand up to him and handing out gibsmedats to his people. That can only give you so much stability when you're operating a renegade state and ruling over Islamists with no national identity.

That's like 3 different scenarios at to when he could collapse: Islamist uprising, running out of handouts, and foreign intervention

Brazil has a national identity, no crazy Islamist presence, and isn't being targeted by Western governments (That I'm aware of)
They also had no economy, their economy relied on selling oil and guns. Gadaffi only got some leftist sympathy because he opposed the west, but he was no better than them. He was a imperialist himself, using his oil wealth to invade poorer African countries like Chad and supporting genocidal maniacs like Idi Amin.
 
http://uk.businessinsider.com/econo...cy-index-best-countries-2018-1/#21-usa-798-21



Once again the Norwegians lead the list of countries (Numbers 1 - 20) with a "full democracy".

1. Norway — 9.87/10
Electoral process and pluralism: 10.00
Functioning of government: 9.64
Political participation: 10.00
Political culture: 10.00
Civil liberties: 9.71

2. Iceland — 9.58
3. Sweden — 9.39
4. New Zealand — 9.26
5. Denmark — 9.22
=6. Ireland — 9.15
=6. Canada — 9.15
8. Australia — 9.09
=9. Finland — 9.03
=9. Switzerland — 9.03

=21. USA — 7.98
Electoral process and pluralism: 9.17
Functioning of government: 7.14
Political participation: 7.22
Political culture: 8.13
Civil liberties: 8.24





This just proves that Trump wasn't racist when he insisted on wanting immigrants from Norway instead of shitholes, like all of Africa. He had an advanced copy of this report. He wants to have people from Norway who appreciate a robust, and "full" democracy. He needs those people to help him drain the swamp.

Ha ha, liberals BTFO again!
 
No surprises there. Actually surprised US ranks that high. Wonder how high it would rank on the oligarchy index.
 
Last edited:
This just proves that Trump wasn't racist when he insisted on wanting immigrants from Norway instead of shitholes, like all of Africa. He had an advanced copy of this report. He wants to have people from Norway who appreciate a robust, and "full" democracy. He needs those people to help him drain the swamp.

Ha ha, liberals BTFO again!
You're being sarcastic but it's a relevant point. Somebody from a full democracy will likely make a better citizen than somebody from a country where you resolve disputes with machetes.
 
This just proves that Trump wasn't racist when he insisted on wanting immigrants from Norway instead of shitholes, like all of Africa. He had an advanced copy of this report. He wants to have people from Norway who appreciate a robust, and "full" democracy. He needs those people to help him drain the swamp.

Ha ha, liberals BTFO again!
Calm down
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,254,595
Messages
56,658,560
Members
175,336
Latest member
Swamps
Back
Top