Map of Regime Classifications.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Freedom House 2011 NAtions iN transit Arctic Ocean Beaufort Sea GREENLAND (DENMARK) ICELAND U.S.A. RUSSIA Hudson Bay ESTONIA Bering Sea Labrador Sea LATVIA RUSSIA LITHUANIA Gulf of Alaska CANADA BELARUS IRELAND POLAND CZECH REP. SLOVAKIA UKRAINE KAZAKHSTAN HUNGARY MOLDOVA North Atlantic Ocean SLOVENIA ROMANIA CROATIA SERBIA BOSNIA & HERZ. BULGARIA MONTENEGRO UZBEKISTAN GEORGIA KYRGYZSTAN KOSOVO MACEDONIA PORTUGAL ALBANIA ARMENIA AZERBAIJAN TURKMENISTAN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TAJIKISTAN North Pacic Ocean Survey Findings Regime Type Country Breakdown BAHAMAS MEXICO Gulf of Mexico The map reflects the findings of Freedom House’s from year to year. Based on the Democracy Score and its CONSOLIDATED DEMOCRACIES 8 Nations in Transit 2011 survey, which assesses the scale of 1 to 7, Freedom House has defined the following status of democratic development in 29 countries from regime types: consolidated democracy (1–2), semi- SEMI-CONSOLIDATED DEMOCRACIES 6 North Pacic Ocean PUERTO RICO (U.S.A.) Central Europe to Central Asia during 2010. consolidated democracy (3), transitional government/ Freedom House introduced a Democracy Score—an hybrid regime (4), semi-consolidated authoritarian CUBA TRANSITIONAL GOVERNMENTS OR HYBRID REGIMES 5 average of each country’s ratings on all of the indicators regime (5), and consolidated authoritarian regime (6–7). JAMAICA covered by Nations in Transit—beginning with the 2004 ST. KITTS & NEVIS SEMI-CONSOLIDATED AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES 2 edition. The Democracy Score is designed to simplify BELIZE HAITI ANTIGUA & BARBUDA analysis of the countries’ overall progress or deterioration HONDURAS DOM. REP. CONSOLIDATED AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES 8 www.freedomhouse.org DOMINICA Caribbean Sea CAPE VERDE TOTAL 29 GUATEMALA ST. LUCIA MARSHALL GRENADA ST. VINCENT & GRENADINES ISLANDS EL SALVADOR NICARAGUA BARBADOS TRINIDAD & TOBAGO COSTA RICA MICRONESIA VENEZUELA GUYANA KIRIBATI PANAMA SURINAME NAURU FRENCH GUIANA (FRANCE) COLOMBIA PALAU ECUADOR TUVALU GABON RWANDA CONGO (KINSHASA) BURUNDI CONGO (BRAZZAVILLE) PERU INDONESIA PAPUA SOLOMON TANZANIA NEW GUINEA SEYCHELLES ISLANDS EAST TIMOR BRAZIL COMOROS Indian Ocean ANGOLA SAMOA ZAMBIA VANUATU MAURITIUS BOLIVIA ZIMBABWE MALAWI FIJI NAMIBIA MADAGASCAR MOZAMBIQUE TONGA PARAGUAY BOTSWANA AUSTRALIA CHILE South Atlantic Ocean SWAZILAND ARGENTINA LESOTHO SOUTH AFRICA URUGUAY South Pacic Ocean Tasman Sea NEW ZEALAND.

Copy Link

Recommended publications

Egypt Digital Rights Landscape Report
ids.ac.uk Digital Rights in Closing Civic Space: Lessons from Ten African Countries 209 Egypt Digital Rights Landscape Report Egypt Digital Rights Landscape Report Mohamed Farahat This is an Open Access report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence (CC BY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original authors and source are credited and any modifications or adaptations are indicated. This report is part of ‘Digital Rights in Closing Civic Space: Lessons from Ten African Countries’; the Introduction is also recommended reading. © 2021 Mohamed Farahat © Institute of Development Studies. DOI: 10.19088/IDS.2021.014 ids.ac.uk Digital Rights in Closing Civic Space: Lessons from Ten African Countries 210 Egypt Digital Rights Landscape Report 1. Introduction Egypt has experienced many political and social changes prior to and since the 2011 uprising. These changes have had a significant impact on civic space offline, as well as online. Digital rights are simply human rights in online spaces and are recognised as being of central importance. This is especially true when closing civic space in the physical world means that opening civic space online is a necessary last resort. The coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic has highlighted the importance of digital rights, especially for vulnerable groups such as refugees and people in rural and remote areas. The main objective of this report is to give an overview of digital rights in Egypt, especially in the context of freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, the right to access the internet, and for access to information, and the right to knowledge; and to explore the impacts of the political context on civic space in general and digital rights in particular.
[Show full text]
1 Hybrid Regimes, the Rule of Law, and External Influence on Domestic Change
9780415451024-Ch01 4/16/08 7:00 PM Page 1 1 Hybrid regimes, the rule of law, and external influence on domestic change Amichai Magen and Leonardo Morlino Introduction At the beginning of the twenty-first century, two sets of phenomena are challenging our understanding of democracy and democratization. First, transition from authoritarian regimes into some form of democracy is no longer understood to constitute the most prevalent or important change in worldwide democratization processes. Second, contemporary processes of domestic political change are unfolding within a radically transformed inter- national environment compared to even two decades ago (Gershman 2005; Whitehead 2004). As the Freedom House organization has been underlining in its reports over the last decade,1 etc. the stable, closed authoritarian regime has become something of a rarity. While in 1974 – the year that heralded the launch of the “third wave” of global democratization with the Portuguese Revolução dos Cravos (Huntington 1991) – the number of democracies on the planet stood at a mere 39, at the end of 2006, out of 193 independent countries, 123 ranked as electoral democracies (Freedom House 2006). Thus, for the first time in human history, democracy had become not only a universal aspiration, but the predominant form of government in the world, and the only form enjoying broad international legitimacy (McFaul 2004; Gershman 2005; Sen 1999). The triumph of democracy, moreover, has (so far at least) proven steadier than many would have expected, with cases of outright breakdowns and reversions to autocracy, and fears of a “reverse wave” to autocracy, largely held at bay (Diamond 2000; 2005).
[Show full text]
THE RISE of COMPETITIVE AUTHORITARIANISM Steven Levitsky and Lucan A
Elections Without Democracy THE RISE OF COMPETITIVE AUTHORITARIANISM Steven Levitsky and Lucan A. Way Steven Levitsky is assistant professor of government and social studies at Harvard University. His Transforming Labor-Based Parties in Latin America is forthcoming from Cambridge University Press. Lucan A. Way is assistant professor of political science at Temple University and an academy scholar at the Academy for International and Area Studies at Harvard University. He is currently writing a book on the obstacles to authoritarian consolidation in the former Soviet Union. The post–Cold War world has been marked by the proliferation of hy- brid political regimes. In different ways, and to varying degrees, polities across much of Africa (Ghana, Kenya, Mozambique, Zambia, Zimbab- we), postcommunist Eurasia (Albania, Croatia, Russia, Serbia, Ukraine), Asia (Malaysia, Taiwan), and Latin America (Haiti, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru) combined democratic rules with authoritarian governance during the 1990s. Scholars often treated these regimes as incomplete or transi- tional forms of democracy. Yet in many cases these expectations (or hopes) proved overly optimistic. Particularly in Africa and the former Soviet Union, many regimes have either remained hybrid or moved in an authoritarian direction. It may therefore be time to stop thinking of these cases in terms of transitions to democracy and to begin thinking about the specific types of regimes they actually are. In recent years, many scholars have pointed to the importance of hybrid regimes. Indeed, recent academic writings have produced a vari- ety of labels for mixed cases, including not only “hybrid regime” but also “semidemocracy,” “virtual democracy,” “electoral democracy,” “pseudodemocracy,” “illiberal democracy,” “semi-authoritarianism,” “soft authoritarianism,” “electoral authoritarianism,” and Freedom House’s “Partly Free.”1 Yet much of this literature suffers from two important weaknesses.
[Show full text]
China Resilient, Sophisticated Authoritarianism
21st Century Authoritarians Freedom House Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty Radio Free Asia JUNE 2009 FFH_UD7.inddH_UD7.indd iiiiii 55/22/09/22/09 111:221:22 AAMM CHINA RESILIENT, SOPHISTICATED AUTHORITARIANISM Joshua Kurlantzick Perry Link Chinese Communist Party leaders have clearly embraced the idea of soft power, and it has become central to their discourse about China’s role in the world. While only fi ve years ago Chinese offi cials and academics denied they had any lessons to offer to the developing world, today they not only accept this idea but use their training programs for foreign offi cials to promote aspects of the China model of development. introduction In 1989, in the wake of the crackdown on prodemocracy protesters in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square, the moral and ideological standing of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) was at an all-time low. Popular complaints about corruption and special privileges for the elite were widespread. Idealistic language about socialism was seen as empty sloganeering. The Tiananmen killings showed that the “people’s army” could open fi re on the people themselves. China’s agricultural economy had been partially liberated, but the urban econ- omy still seemed locked within the iron framework of a work-unit system that was both ineffi cient and corrupt. No one either inside or outside China saw the country as a model for others. Now, nearly 20 years later, the prestige of the CCP has risen dramatically on the twin geysers of a long economic boom and a revived Han chauvinism. The expectation that more wealth in China would lead to more democracy (a fond hope in many foreign capitals) has been frustrated as one-party rule persists.
[Show full text]
Table and Graphs
Table and Graphs Figure 1. Electoral Process in Putin’s Russia This graph illustrates the deterioration of Russia’s electoral process score in Nations in Transit, an annual Freedom House publication on democratization from Central Europe to Central Asia. Each indicator is assessed on a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 representing the best performance and 7 the worst. Russia has leveled off at 6.5 since the 2008 edition, though the events of calendar 2012 have yet to be assessed. Decline in Electoral Process Score: 2001–2012 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 1 2 3 4 5 Electoral Process Score Process Electoral 6 7 Figure 2. Civil Society in Putin’s Russia This graph illustrates a similar pattern on the indicator for civil society, although an increase in civic activity in recent years has been registered in the scores. Again, the negative events of calendar 2012 will be covered in the forthcoming 2013 edition of Nations in Transit. Decline in Civil Society Score: 2001–2012 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 1 2 3 4 5 Civil Society Score Society Civil 6 7 Figure 3. Putin’s Russia and the World This table shows Russia’s position in comparison with the world and a selection of other regions, as measured by Freedom in the World 2013, the latest edition of Freedom House’s annual global report. The publication assigns each country two ratings—for political rights and civil liberties—on a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 representing the best performance and 7 the worst.
[Show full text]
FREEDOM in the WORLD 2020 United Arab Emirates 17 NOT FREE /100
4/28/2020 United Arab Emirates | Freedom House FREEDOM IN THE WORLD 2020 United Arab Emirates 17 NOT FREE /100 Political Rights 5 /40 Civil Liberties 12 /60 LAST YEAR'S SCORE & STATUS 17 /100 Not Free Global freedom statuses are calculated on a weighted scale. See the methodology. TOP https://freedomhouse.org/country/united-arab-emirates/freedom-world/2020 1/15 4/28/2020 United Arab Emirates | Freedom House Overview The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is a federation of seven emirates led in practice by Abu Dhabi, the largest by area and richest in natural resources. Limited elections are held for a federal advisory body, but political parties are banned, and all executive, legislative, and judicial authority ultimately rests with the seven hereditary rulers. The civil liberties of both citizens and noncitizens, who make up an overwhelming majority of the population, are subject to significant restrictions. Key Developments in 2019 Pope Francis undertook the first papal visit to the UAE and the Arabian Peninsula in February, as Emirati officials sought to burnish the country’s reputation for religious tolerance. In May, Emirati media circulated video images of Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed al- Nahyan, ruler of Abu Dhabi and president of the UAE, meeting well-wishers during Ramadan. Sheikh Khalifa had rarely appeared in public since suffering a stroke in 2014; his half-brother and designated heir, Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan, remained the country’s de facto ruler. Nonpartisan elections for half of the seats on the UAE’s advisory council were held in October, featuring a somewhat expanded pool of eligible voters and greater participation by women candidates, though turnout remained low.
[Show full text]
United Arab Emirates 2013 Human Rights Report
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES 2013 HUMAN RIGHTS REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is a federation of seven semiautonomous emirates with a resident population of approximately 9.2 million, of whom an estimated 11.5 percent are citizens. The rulers of the seven emirates constitute the Federal Supreme Council, the country’s highest legislative and executive body. The council selects a president and a vice president from its membership, and the president appoints the prime minister and cabinet. In 2009 the council selected Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed al- Nahyan, ruler of Abu Dhabi Emirate, to a second five-year term as president. The emirates are under patriarchal rule with political allegiance defined by loyalty to tribal leaders, leaders of the individual emirates, and leaders of the federation. There are limited democratically elected institutions, but no political parties. A limited appointed electorate participates in periodic elections for the Federal National Council (FNC), a consultative body that can examine, review, and recommend changes to legislation, consisting of 40 representatives allocated proportionally to each emirate based on population. In 2011 the appointed electorate of approximately 129,000 citizens elected 20 FNC members, and the rulers of the individual emirates appointed the other 20. Citizens can express their concerns directly to their leaders through traditional consultative mechanisms such as the open majlis (forum). Topics of legislation can also emerge through discussions and debates in the FNC. While authorities maintained effective control over the security forces, there were some media reports of human rights abuses by police. The three most significant human rights problems were citizens’ inability to change their government; limitations on citizens’ civil liberties (including the freedoms of speech, press, assembly, association, and internet use); and arbitrary arrests, incommunicado detentions, and lengthy pretrial detentions.
[Show full text]
Kazakhstan by Bhavna Dave
Kazakhstan by Bhavna Dave Capital: Astana Population: 15.9 million GNI/capita, PPP: US$10,320 Source: !e data above was provided by !e World Bank, World Development Indicators 2011. Nations in Transit Ratings and Averaged Scores 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Electoral Process 6.25 6.50 6.50 6.50 6.50 6.50 6.75 6.75 6.75 6.75 Civil Society 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.50 5.75 5.75 5.50 5.50 5.75 5.75 Independent Media 6.00 6.25 6.50 6.50 6.75 6.75 6.75 6.50 6.75 6.75 Governance* 5.75 6.25 6.25 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a National Democratic 6.75 Governance n/a n/a n/a 6.50 6.75 6.75 6.75 6.75 6.75 Local Democratic 6.25 Governance n/a n/a n/a 6.25 6.25 6.25 6.25 6.25 6.25 Judicial Framework 6.25 and Independence 6.00 6.25 6.25 6.25 6.25 6.25 6.25 6.00 6.25 Corruption 6.25 6.25 6.50 6.50 6.50 6.50 6.50 6.50 6.50 6.50 Democracy Score 5.96 6.17 6.25 6.29 6.39 6.39 6.39 6.32 6.43 6.43 * Starting with the 2005 edition, Freedom House introduced separate analysis and ratings for national democratic governance and local democratic governance to provide readers with more detailed and nuanced analysis of these two important subjects.
[Show full text]
Managing Opposition in a Hybrid Regime
Edinburgh Research Explorer Managing Opposition in a Hybrid Regime Citation for published version: March, L 2009, 'Managing Opposition in a Hybrid Regime: Just Russia and Parastatal Opposition', Slavic Review, vol. 68, no. 3, pp. 504-527. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/25621653> Link: Link to publication record in Edinburgh Research Explorer Document Version: Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record Published In: Slavic Review Publisher Rights Statement: © March, L. (2009). Managing Opposition in a Hybrid Regime: Just Russia and Parastatal Opposition. Slavic Review, 68(3), 504-527. General rights Copyright for the publications made accessible via the Edinburgh Research Explorer is retained by the author(s) and / or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing these publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. Take down policy The University of Edinburgh has made every reasonable effort to ensure that Edinburgh Research Explorer content complies with UK legislation. If you believe that the public display of this file breaches copyright please contact [email protected] providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. Download date: 03. Oct. 2021 Managing Opposition in a Hybrid Regime: Just Russia and Parastatal Opposition Author(s): Luke March Source: Slavic Review, Vol. 68, No. 3 (Fall, 2009), pp. 504-527 Published by: Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25621653 . Accessed: 03/02/2014 06:03 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp .
[Show full text]
Working Paper 52
INSTITUTE Multiple Measurements, Elusive Agreement, and Unstable Outcomes in the Study of Regime Change Hans Lueders Ellen Lust September 2017 Working Paper SERIES 2017:52 THE VARIETIES OF DEMOCRACY INSTITUTE Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) is a new approach to conceptualization and measurement of democracy. It is co-hosted by the University of Gothenburg and University of Notre Dame. With a V-Dem Institute at University of Gothenburg with almost ten staff, and a project team across the world with four Principal Investigators, fifteen Project Managers (PMs), 30+ Regional Managers, 170 Country Coordinators, Research Assistants, and 2,500 Country Experts, the V- Dem project is one of the largest ever social science research-oriented data collection programs. Please address comments and/or queries for information to: V-Dem Institute Department of Political Science University of Gothenburg Sprängkullsgatan 19, PO Box 711 SE 40530 Gothenburg Sweden E-mail: [email protected] V-Dem Working Papers are available in electronic format at www.v-dem.net. Copyright © 2017 University of Gothenburg, V-Dem Institute. All rights reserved. Multiple Measurements, Elusive Agreement, and Unstable Outcomes in the Study of Regime Change* Hans Lueders PhD Candidate Stanford University Ellen Lust Professor University of Gothenburg * We thank Matt Buehler, Lindsay Hundley, Jana Morgan, Michael Touchton, Jeremy Wallace, and participants at the 2015 APSA, 2016 SPSA, and 2016 MPSA meetings for helpful comments. We gratefully acknowledge collaboration with David Waldner and support of the USAID/IIE Grant, “Unwelcome Change: Understanding, Examining and Extending Theories of Democratic Backsliding,” which supported development of this paper. Special thanks to colleagues who shared their data with us and provided helpful feedback on the paper, and to Staffan Lindberg and the Varieties of Democracy Institute for including these findings in the working paper series.
[Show full text]
Facade Democracy: Democratic Transition in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan
University of Central Florida STARS Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019 2004 Facade Democracy: Democratic Transition In Kazakhstan And Uzbekistan Robin Nicole Merritt University of Central Florida Part of the Political Science Commons Find similar works at: https://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd University of Central Florida Libraries http://library.ucf.edu This Masters Thesis (Open Access) is brought to you for free and open access by STARS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019 by an authorized administrator of STARS. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STARS Citation Merritt, Robin Nicole, "Facade Democracy: Democratic Transition In Kazakhstan And Uzbekistan" (2004). Electronic Theses and Dissertations, 2004-2019. 143. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd/143 FAÇADE DEMOCRACY: DEMOCRATIC TRANSITION IN KAZAKHSTAN AND UZBEKISTAN by ROBIN NICOLE MERRITT B.A. University of Central Florida, 1999 A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in the Department of Political Science in the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of Central Florida Orlando, Florida Summer Term 2004 © 2004 Robin Nicole Merritt ii ABSTRACT This thesis explores the reasons behind the stagnation in the transition to democracy in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. According to their constitutions, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan are democracies. In actuality, however, there is little evidence to support that these are democratic systems. These states’ post-Soviet constitutions outline them as democracies – yet they lack a free press; freedom of association is suppressed; religious freedom is limited; and free speech is constrained as well. While these two countries hold popular elections, much of their electoral processes are under the control of the executive branch of government - calling into question whether or not Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan really hold “fair and competitive” elections.
[Show full text]
Democracy in Crisis: Corruption, Media, and Power in Turkey
A Freedom House Special Report Democracy in Crisis: Corruption, Media, and Power in Turkey Susan Corke Andrew Finkel David J. Kramer Carla Anne Robbins Nate Schenkkan Executive Summary 1 Cover: Mustafa Ozer AFP / GettyImages Introduction 3 The Media Sector in Turkey 5 Historical Development 5 The Media in Crisis 8 How a History Magazine Fell Victim 10 to Self-Censorship Media Ownership and Dependency 12 Imprisonment and Detention 14 Prognosis 15 Recommendations 16 Turkey 16 European Union 17 United States 17 About the Authors Susan Corke is Andrew Finkel David J. Kramer Carla Anne Robbins Nate Schenkkan director for Eurasia is a journalist based is president of Freedom is clinical professor is a program officer programs at Freedom in Turkey since 1989, House. Prior to joining of national security at Freedom House, House. Ms. Corke contributing regularly Freedom House in studies at Baruch covering Central spent seven years at to The Daily Telegraph, 2010, he was a Senior College/CUNY’s School Asia and Turkey. the State Department, The Times, The Transatlantic Fellow at of Public Affairs and He previously worked including as Deputy Economist, TIME, the German Marshall an adjunct senior as a journalist Director for European and CNN. He has also Fund of the United States. fellow at the Council in Kazakhstan and Affairs in the Bureau written for Sabah, Mr. Kramer served as on Foreign Relations. Kyrgyzstan and of Democracy, Human Milliyet, and Taraf and Assistant Secretary of She was deputy editorial studied at Ankara Rights, and Labor. appears frequently on State for Democracy, page editor at University as a Critical Turkish television.
[Show full text]