Freedom in the World Freedom in the World 20032003

Paul BaconPH201

Spring 2010

Brief reviewBrief review

• So far, we have:• Studied the content of the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights.• Studied the historical context in which the UN

Charter and the two human rights Covenants emerged.

• Studied the UN Charter.• Considered the low status accorded to

human rights in the UN Charter.

Human rights in the worldHuman rights in the world

• It is now time to examine two practical questions with regard to the issue of human rights:

• 1. Which countries respect human rights, and which do not?

• 2. How could you ‘measure’ this?

Freedom HouseFreedom House

• The NGO Freedom House is widely regarded as providing the most reliable guide to the existence or absence of human rights in the world.

• Each year, Freedom House publishes Freedom in the World.

• This global survey evaluates levels of freedom, democracy and human rights in every country in the world.

• In the survey, countries are rated as Free, Partly Free or Not Free. I have explained the methodology that Freedom House use in some detail.

Freedom HouseFreedom House• It is important to briefly remind ourselves that the

Freedom House survey attempts to establish basic standards drawn from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

• Freedom House therefore argues that its ratings are universally relevant, and not culture-specific, because they use the acknowledged standards which are found in the UDHR.

• However, it is also important to note that some critics believe that the UDHR focuses too much on civil and political rights. (We will discuss the ‘politics’ of human rights later in the course).

Freedom in the World 2003Freedom in the World 2003

• I have chosen the 2003 Survey because this marks the 30th anniversary of the first comprehensive Freedom in the World survey, which was published in 1972.

• Because it is the thirtieth anniversary there is lots of useful comparative information spanning a thirty year period.

• Just to remind you, the 2004 and 2005 Freedom in the World reports are both also available online, on the Freedom house website, at http://www.freedomhouse.org/

• There is lots of interesting information on this site, and I strongly, strongly, strongly recommend that you have a look at it.

2 significant developments…2 significant developments…

• Comprehensive Freedom in the World surveys began in 1972.

• This was just before the start of what has become known as the Third Wave of democratization. (We will study the third wave in some detail in later classes on this course).

• The two significant developments over the last thirty years are:

• 1. There has been a significant increase in the number of sovereign states. In 1972 there were 150, and in 2003 there were 192. Much of this growth can be explained by the collapse of the Soviet Union and the former Yugoslavia.

• 2. There has been what FH refers to as a ‘dramatic’ increase in freedom in the last thirty years.

Free Partly Free

Not Free

1972 43(29%)

38(25%)

69(46%)

2002 89(46%)

55(29%)

48(25%)

Freedom by Country

Freedom by country - dramatic Freedom by country - dramatic improvementimprovement

• In the last thirty years:• 1. The absolute number of Free states has more than

doubled, from 43 to 89.• 2. The percentage number of Not Free states has

nearly halved, from 46% to 25%.• 3. The absolute number of number of Not Free states

has declined by 21 states, despite the fact that between 1972 and 2002, 42 new states came into existence.

• 4. There has been an increase in both the average Political Rights rating and the average Civil Liberties rating.

Average Political Rights rating

Average Civil Liberties rating

2002 3.4 3.4

1972 4.5 4.4

Rise in average PR and CL ratings

Freedom by world population – more Freedom by world population – more modest improvementmodest improvement

• Freedom gains for the world’s population have not been as dramatic as the country gains.

• But they have still been substantial.• 1. The number of Free people has increased from 1

in 3 to nearly 1 in 2 in the last thirty years.• 2. The number of Not Free people has declined in

percentage terms from nearly 1 in 2 to just over 1 in 3 in the last thirty years.

• 3. However, the total number of Not Free people has still increased by 0.4 billion in the last 30 years

Free Partly Free

Not Free

Total

1973 1.324 billion(35%)

.666 billion(18%)

1.787 billion(47%)

3.779 billion

2003 2.717 billion(44%)

1.293 billion(21%)

2.186 billion(35%)

6.179 billion

Freedom and the world population

A caveat about the population figuresA caveat about the population figures• It is important to note that these figures are skewed by the

population sizes of very large states in the international system. • For example, in 2003 China accounted for some 1.27 billion of

the 2.15 billion Not Free people in the world. This means that roughly 60% of the Not Free people in the world are Chinese.

• If China’s rating were to change, this would have a dramatic impact on the ratings. It would result in a 20% swing. This is also true of India. If India’s overall freedom rating were to change, then this would result in a swing of 17%.

• If China were to become Partly Free, this would leave ‘only’15% of the world’s population as Not Free. However, if India were to become Partly Free, a change from its current rating of Free, this would leave 28% of the world’s population as Free.

Freedom by region - unevenFreedom by region - uneven• So far we have looked at gains in freedom from

the perspective of countries, and in terms of the world population as a whole.

• But it is very important to note that the dramatic gains in freedom in the last thirty years have not been shared equally around the world’s regions.

• According to the 2003 survey: • 1. There have been dramatic freedom gains in:

– the Americas;– the Asia-Pacific;– Central and eastern Europe.

The Americas Free Partly Free Not Free

1972 13 9 4

2002 23 10 2

Asia-Pacific Free Partly Free Not Free

1972 8 13 11

2002 18 10 11

Western Europe

Free Partly Free Not Free

1972 18 4 3

2002 24 1 0

Freedom by region

Freedom by region - unevenFreedom by region - uneven

• According to the 2003 survey: • 2. There has been modest progress

in Africa.• 3. There has been stagnation or

even resistance to democracy in:–the Middle East and North Africa–countries of the former Soviet

Union.

Freedom by regionSub-Saharan Africa

Free Partly Free Not Free

1972 2 9 28

2002 11 21 16

Middle East/N. Africa

Free Partly Free Not Free

1972 2 3 14

2002 1 4 13

CEE-FSU* Free Partly Free Not Free

1972 0 0 9

2002 12 9 6

*Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union

The ‘worst of the worst’ The ‘worst of the worst’

• The worst possible rating that a country can receive is a score of 7.

• To achieve this, a country would have to receive both a Political Rights rating of 7, and a Civil Liberties rating of 7.

• In the 2003 survey nine countries received this overall freedom rating of 7, and therefore, in terms of freedom, could be described as the ‘worst of the worst’.

• These nine countries were: Burma, Cuba, Iraq, North Korea, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria and Turkmenistan.

The ‘worst of the worst’The ‘worst of the worst’

• It is interesting to note that of these nine countries, six have majority Muslim populations.

• Furthermore, of the 48 countries in the 2003 survey that were rated as Not Free, 25 had majority Muslim populations.

• It is sometimes suggested that certain cultures or civilizations are not compatible with liberal democracy.

• As we will see when we look at Huntington’s book The Third Wave in more detail, it is suggested in particular that Islamic and Confucian culture may not be compatible with liberal democracy.

Electoral democracyElectoral democracy

• To qualify as a genuine electoral democracy, a state must have the following:

• 1. A competitive multi-party system.• 2. Universal adult suffrage.• 3. Regular elections with: ballot secrecy, reasonable

ballot security, and an absence of massive voter fraud.

• 4. Candidates must have access to the media, and the possibility of open political campaigning.

• 5. The electorate can vote without undue pressure.• 6. Candidates can campaign free from intimidation.

An increase in the number of electoral An increase in the number of electoral democraciesdemocracies

• In recent years the concept of electoral democracy has become increasingly important.– In 1988, 66/167 countries were electoral

democracies (40%)– In 1993, 99/186 countries were electoral

democracies (53%)– In 2002, 121/192 countries were electoral

democracies (63%).

A note on electoral democraciesA note on electoral democracies

• It can hopefully be seen that these criteria are reasonably substantial.

• It is not possible for a country to be an electoral democracy simply because it holds elections.

• Elections must meet the criteria which are described above.

• This would mean, for example, that although Russia, China and Iraq have all held elections in recent years, they do not automatically qualify as electoral democracies.

The distinction between electoral and liberal The distinction between electoral and liberal democracydemocracy

• Liberal democracies possess the attributes which are required in order to qualify as electoral democracies.

• But they also possess a substantial range of civil liberties. So, all liberal democracies are also electoral democracies.

• But not all electoral democracies are liberal democracies.

• Some countries do provide political rights, but they do not provide a full range of civil liberties.

The distinction between electoral and liberal The distinction between electoral and liberal democracydemocracy

• To relate this more explicitly to the Freedom House survey:

• 1. All Free countries are liberal democracies and electoral democracies.

• 2. Partly Free countries do not qualify as liberal democracies.

• 3. However, some Partly Free countries are electoral democracies.

The distinction between electoral and liberal The distinction between electoral and liberal democracydemocracy

• There are 89 Free countries in the 2003 survey, but there are also 121 electoral democracies.

• This means that, according to the 2003 survey, there are 32 countries which are electoral democracies, but which are not Free.

• They are also not, therefore, liberal democracies.

1. Democracy and human rights1. Democracy and human rights

• It has been suggested that democracy, human rights and freedom go together.

• In fact, the claim is circular, as we can see from the Freedom House definitions.

• This is not necessarily a problem, if you consider human rights and democracy to be important, and worth protecting and promoting.

• There has been a significant increase in the number of liberal democracies in the last 30 years.

• This has lead to increased levels of freedom, and higher levels of respect for human rights.

2. Democracy and aggregate wealth2. Democracy and aggregate wealth• The 2003 survey also refers to the ‘growing technological

and economic dominance of open societies’. • As a rule, Free countries have expanded their economic

output more quickly than closed societies. (China is an important exception to this rule).

• In 2002, the GDP of Free countries was $27.8 trillion, while the GDP of Not Free countries was $1.8 trillion.

• Free countries make up 46% of all countries, but were responsible, in 2002, for 86% of global economic output.

• Another way to make the same point is that the ratio of Free countries to not Free countries is roughly 2:1, but the global economic output ratio between Free and not Free countries is 15:1.

3. Democracy and living standards3. Democracy and living standards

• It is often argued that Free countries have higher living standards than Partly Free and Not Free countries.

• It is possible to support this claim using data drawn from the 2004 Freedom in the World survey.

• There are two important points to be made about the information in the table below.

• 1. Firstly, 79% of high income countries are Free.• 2. Secondly, 84% of low income countries are not

Free. • There is thus a clear relationship between living

standards and levels of freedom and democracy. • This is an important point with regard to the ‘Asian

values’ debate.

Free Partly Free Not Free

High income country(GNI/capita greater than $6,000)

38(79%)

5(10%)

5(10%)

Middle income country(GNI/capita between $1,500 and $6,000)

35(66%)

11(21%)

7(13%)

Low income country(GNI/capita less than $1,500)

15(16%)

39(43%)

37(41%)

GNI/capita = Gross national income per capitaN.B. This table uses data from the 2004 survey

Democracy and living standards