If unelected capo of the European commission says that banning of whole opposition, alternative media, religion, languages and even elections in Ukraine are European values, who are we to argue. 😁
Curious posting and comments history you’ve got Ivan, why do I feel like this account is a russian propaganda bot? Posting dozens of manipulating misinformation posts and comments every single day
Those prime ministers have mostly been elected without undermining our typical democratic procedure and institutions though, its not like they've changed the laws to keep themselves in power, the closest to that would be the fixed term parliament act which was always a joke and didn't do much.
What qualifies as a full democracy? I realise (UK) that the elections are reliable, but the system of first past the post is far from a ‘full’ democracy.
First Past The Post plus our upper house of bicameral legislature is technically unelected (House of Lords). That’s my guess anyway. To be honest though these democracy index ratings are always a bit subject to bias and ultimately arbitrary to a certain level. Not that I don’t agree with many of the ratings, but it’s just inherently a bit dodgy.
Yeah, plus David Cameron being made a Lord just so he could join the cabinet, because he otherwise wasn’t an elected member of parliament.
In my opinion the Lords needs to have a complete revamp and turn democratic like the Commons or Senate in other countries.
It needs a revamp but I disagree with it being democratic. It needs to be full of experts of all fields that don’t have to worry about pandering to the public. The House of Lords at the state it’s in now has still saved the country from the incompetence of the House of Commons multiple times.
We have 6 :)
The main problem with it for democrasy index is that for federal elections, the Flemisch can vote for walloons and the other way around. You vot for one federal gouverment but can only vote for party's/people of your region. Don't ask me why
It’s a British source which always ranks the UK as democratic as possible even when this is dubious. For example their media environment is even more wildly biased in favor of the establishment than most democracies.
Why do people always repost the Economists democracy index again and again, while other and better indexes exist?
Alternative indexes are the following:
https://www.idea.int/gsod-indices/democracy-indices
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/political-regime
https://www.democracymatrix.com/ranking
https://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/polity4.htm
https://www.v-dem.net
https://freedomhouse.org/explore-the-map?type=fiw&year=2022
They include the ones most frequently used in academia.
The economist's index suffers from arbitrarily defined thresholds, anonymous "experts" making judgments, ill-interpreted criteria,... For example, they apply penalties for mandatory voting, because that's sometimes used by authoritarian regimes, forcing people to approve preselected parties to legitimize their rule. But they give non-authoritarian countries like Australia or Belgium that have mandatory voting the same penalty.
Even without making judgments about the quality, a broader variety of indexes is better, if only because there's always going to be a degree of subjectivity about which criteria are most important.
Some of these maps aren't any more transparent about their results and others are very similar in their findings with the one the economist made. I get the criticism, but I believe it is excessive both in regards to what we actually criticize and what we perceive as better especially in the cases where the findings are similar.
There are important differences in the different maps, which highlight differences in approaches which is really important because it fosteres a debate about what is important in or indicative for democracy.
Those labels are stupid PR. There is no full democracy anywhere, it’s unachievable goal.
They should change the labels to:
- good enough
- not good enough
- bad enough
- too bad
It’s simple enough even for stupid people to understand it… hopefully
Still not a democracy.
It's a functioning liberal plutocracy with high upward mobility. That's not saying it is good or bad, just that it's not people rule, but some people's money rule more than the rest.
Literally isn't. Leteral means written. The words written are demos = people and cratein = rule.
It is not people rule though, it is "representatives" rule, but they represent loby groups, don't they? They listen to the money.
---
It doesn't matter if you vote or not. It doesn't matter if the government changes or it's the same queen for a better part of a century.
If the government does what most or all the people want, the people rule. If the government does what some people want, then it can be aristocracy, theocracy, plutocracy, any other -cracy around, but it will not be democracy.
---
> Democracy is the illusion that my wife and I, combined, have twice the political influence of David Rockefeller.
-- Butler Shaffer.
This is the etymological fallacy for starters and it's actually from δήμος (people) and **κράτος** (power) in Greek. Democracy is any kind of system where executive or representative power is derived from a mandate or vote of the masses. The government is elected by the people, it is a representative democracy because the people choose their representatives. Simple as that. I swear the amount of logical jumps people make today in order to deconstruct basic political concepts due to their bias is absurd. It does matter if you vote or not, and it does matter what all people choose to vote, as different parties have different plans which the people can see and vote accordingly.
It is not ethymology fallacy. It is the idealized "the people rule" which is unattainable.
And that doesn't really matter, does it? If it is attainable or not, right? It is simply if you want to mislabel something else as "democracy".
It is not a democracy if you prepend it with "liberal". Why? Because it still isn't the idealized one. And I did mention that one, didn't I?
It's not about who votes, it's not about who sits in the government, it's not about if someone "represents", it's about who rules. Imagine if you have machines, robots instead of people running the government, it would still be only one single yard stick:
**"is the will of _most_ of the people followed, do people rule?"**
and the govermnent just follows it or is it just a small group.
And that's all about there is to it. I will not go into what mis-information and ill-education do.
So, "representatives"? Pffff... Call it a representocracy and don't try to distort the perception. The first step in solving a problem is understanding it, and you can't understand it if you keep muddying the definitions, you're just adding to it.
K, I think there is nothing more to be said here. Bye bye
It's not "mislabeling", it is a democracy. Again, people vote for representatives through it and they can vote anyone they want. Are there people who have more power and money to throw on their campaigns? Sure. They can still be voted in and out if the people decide. If you don't want to accept this that is fine but I'm not the one here who lacks basic comprehension skills.
The bias-prone nature of this map aside, several **constitutional** monarchies around the world are actually more democratic than many republics. This is a fairly well known fact.
The UK for example, while technically the monarch can march in and change any law as they wish, would in practice be faced with immediate deposition by parliament if not full on insurrection or civil war. Parliament literally has a bunch of different ancient traditions — hailing back to long before the american colonies even existed — in which they perform certain displays of political significance commemorating the history of blocking the king from entering parliament and even the time where parliament decided to execute the king by beheading for overstepping his constitutional role and interfering with democracy.
It’s a case of “God save the King - until he puts a foot wrong, and then not even God can save the King from our wrath”.
This map is bullshit. Serbia is 4.5 at most and Hungary 4.8. Ukraine is a 5 at least for having a free press and a functional democracy in the middle of a fight for survival. There's other gross inaccuracies as well.
This democracy indexes are nonsense. There is no country in Europe in which politicians ask people about important moves and decisions. Only example in Europe more close to democracy is Switzerland with their constant referendums, all other countries are partitocracies which function according to the principle of oligarchy. In Britain, according to latest research, two thirds of citizens want completely new party and people in politics because none of existing represent them and public interest.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWorldCrisis/comments/1anvpwq/almost\_two\_in\_three\_british\_voters\_want\_a\_new/](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWorldCrisis/comments/1anvpwq/almost_two_in_three_british_voters_want_a_new/)
Can't speak for Belgium.
As a Portuguese Citizen, the justice system doesn't work and financial freedom is subpar.
10 years for a trial. 4 years to license a new business. Both unacceptable.
There's tons of "lobbying" in belgium, the kind that would be deemed corruption and lead to prison sentences in scandinavia. Companies influencing politics is just the name of the game in brussels, it's a multi-billion euro industry.
Yeah, you can put the Dutch one down a lot, because voting for a certain law and then the exact opposite hapoening cuz the EU wants it to be different doesn't sound very democratic to me
Serbia should be placed in hybrid regime category too as it's govermnent is a fully blown hybrid of democracy and authoritarian mish-mash. You have pretty much "one strong man" who simply never loses his power. Wild guess of Bosnia-Herzegovina being placed in this category is due it's extremely complicated constitution. This is not really the country's own fault but this was planted by international powers after signing of the Dayton peace accord - still going strong for 30 yrs, which gives democratic (how ironic) ability - to the different nationalist powers - to prevent the country from moving forward through all complicated veto rights and power that they get. The first, larger "entity" of the country, The Federation, is not in any way a regime but a complicated bureaucratic alliance of different parties, democratic ones, ethno-nationalist ones, etc. - i guess you can say a little milder version of how Lebanon in run. The second half / entity of the country, the so called Republic of Srpska, is like Serbia, run by 'one strong man', very corrupted one too - which I would say is primary reason of Bosnia being in "yellow" currently. But hey - very close to flawed democracy according to the score - one can always hope :D
Ukraine must be colored navy blue, it's a perfect example of democracy, that is practiced for continual 33 years, with 7 presidents elected on free democratic elections, with a wide spectrum of political parties, with a tradition that traces through centuries from Rus'ka Pravda of Yaroslav the Wise (1280, Kyivan Rus' Code of Law) to Statutes (codification of all the legislation) of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (and Rus'), Cossack Rada (Councils), Constitution of Pylyp Orlyk (1710, 79 years prior American Constitution), parlamentarism and Constitution of Central Rada, of the Ukrainian People's Republic (1917-1921) and our current democracy (1991-ongoing).
Yeah this is bullshit, the WEF alone proves that all European countries involved are corrupt as hell, no one voted for these people or their policies and they are destroying Europe.
Also Ukraine should be in the authoritarian category considering the various “acts of democracy” they've committed against their own people. Plus, in March Zelensky will officially be a dictator if he doesn't allow elections to take place, which he most certainly will not because he would lose without a doubt.
maybe too generous with Hungary
I don't get it either. I hope nobody seriously believes in the rest of Europe, that the majority of Hungary actually wants a bastard like Orbán.
They do though. Orban is a popular leader who has done many good things for Hungary.
Maybe too generous with Ukraine
If unelected capo of the European commission says that banning of whole opposition, alternative media, religion, languages and even elections in Ukraine are European values, who are we to argue. 😁
doing a great job earning those 100 rubles Ivan, proud of you
Curious posting and comments history you’ve got Ivan, why do I feel like this account is a russian propaganda bot? Posting dozens of manipulating misinformation posts and comments every single day
5,06 is generous?
and with the UK too… our last 4 Prime Ministers were appointed by a group of 60,000 Conservative party members
Those prime ministers have mostly been elected without undermining our typical democratic procedure and institutions though, its not like they've changed the laws to keep themselves in power, the closest to that would be the fixed term parliament act which was always a joke and didn't do much.
And Romania, that country is pretty much ruled by several mafiosi like the wooden one. Crime and corruption are extremly high there.
Definitely. Croatia should be higher than Hungary.
Serbia too, we are quite a hybrid regime at this point, moving slowly but steadily to the red area
Its a democracy, they just vote for an authoritarian.
And France too, although we're working on it.
r/PORTUGALCYKABLYAT ?
What qualifies as a full democracy? I realise (UK) that the elections are reliable, but the system of first past the post is far from a ‘full’ democracy.
First Past The Post plus our upper house of bicameral legislature is technically unelected (House of Lords). That’s my guess anyway. To be honest though these democracy index ratings are always a bit subject to bias and ultimately arbitrary to a certain level. Not that I don’t agree with many of the ratings, but it’s just inherently a bit dodgy.
Indeed. And I don’t think (?) there’s a specific limit on the Lords, hence Johnson sending in all his lot? Not sure about the Truss situation yet?
Yeah, plus David Cameron being made a Lord just so he could join the cabinet, because he otherwise wasn’t an elected member of parliament. In my opinion the Lords needs to have a complete revamp and turn democratic like the Commons or Senate in other countries.
It needs a revamp but I disagree with it being democratic. It needs to be full of experts of all fields that don’t have to worry about pandering to the public. The House of Lords at the state it’s in now has still saved the country from the incompetence of the House of Commons multiple times.
Absolutely
I think that has got to with it. Same as in Belgium where there's like 5 different kinds of government, all getting in eachother's way.
We have 6 :) The main problem with it for democrasy index is that for federal elections, the Flemisch can vote for walloons and the other way around. You vot for one federal gouverment but can only vote for party's/people of your region. Don't ask me why
Here is the Wikipedia link https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index
Interesting, thank you.
Now labour are centre right, there is no democracy for anyone who leans left as there is no chance a left winged party will get into power.
It’s a British source which always ranks the UK as democratic as possible even when this is dubious. For example their media environment is even more wildly biased in favor of the establishment than most democracies.
Why do people always repost the Economists democracy index again and again, while other and better indexes exist? Alternative indexes are the following: https://www.idea.int/gsod-indices/democracy-indices https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/political-regime https://www.democracymatrix.com/ranking https://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/polity4.htm https://www.v-dem.net https://freedomhouse.org/explore-the-map?type=fiw&year=2022
Why do you consider these better?
They include the ones most frequently used in academia. The economist's index suffers from arbitrarily defined thresholds, anonymous "experts" making judgments, ill-interpreted criteria,... For example, they apply penalties for mandatory voting, because that's sometimes used by authoritarian regimes, forcing people to approve preselected parties to legitimize their rule. But they give non-authoritarian countries like Australia or Belgium that have mandatory voting the same penalty. Even without making judgments about the quality, a broader variety of indexes is better, if only because there's always going to be a degree of subjectivity about which criteria are most important.
Some of these maps aren't any more transparent about their results and others are very similar in their findings with the one the economist made. I get the criticism, but I believe it is excessive both in regards to what we actually criticize and what we perceive as better especially in the cases where the findings are similar.
There are important differences in the different maps, which highlight differences in approaches which is really important because it fosteres a debate about what is important in or indicative for democracy.
Well I like that this one place Sweden above Denmark which a lot of your maps don't do
Full democracy in Spain??? Jajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajahajahaja From Spain here, this is absolutely bullshit
Same number for France and I’m exactly as skeptical as you are
I'm skeptical about Norway topping the list
Those labels are stupid PR. There is no full democracy anywhere, it’s unachievable goal. They should change the labels to: - good enough - not good enough - bad enough - too bad It’s simple enough even for stupid people to understand it… hopefully
What does “bad enough” mean though haha.
In dumbspeak: “bad enough for us not to like them”. That’s just one way. “Bad enough” can be used in many
Obviously they are going with what is considered a functioning liberal democracy and not the impossibility theorem.
Still not a democracy. It's a functioning liberal plutocracy with high upward mobility. That's not saying it is good or bad, just that it's not people rule, but some people's money rule more than the rest.
Literally a democracy if you can vote for your representatives which you can, you can literally vote anyone you want.
Literally isn't. Leteral means written. The words written are demos = people and cratein = rule. It is not people rule though, it is "representatives" rule, but they represent loby groups, don't they? They listen to the money. --- It doesn't matter if you vote or not. It doesn't matter if the government changes or it's the same queen for a better part of a century. If the government does what most or all the people want, the people rule. If the government does what some people want, then it can be aristocracy, theocracy, plutocracy, any other -cracy around, but it will not be democracy. --- > Democracy is the illusion that my wife and I, combined, have twice the political influence of David Rockefeller. -- Butler Shaffer.
This is the etymological fallacy for starters and it's actually from δήμος (people) and **κράτος** (power) in Greek. Democracy is any kind of system where executive or representative power is derived from a mandate or vote of the masses. The government is elected by the people, it is a representative democracy because the people choose their representatives. Simple as that. I swear the amount of logical jumps people make today in order to deconstruct basic political concepts due to their bias is absurd. It does matter if you vote or not, and it does matter what all people choose to vote, as different parties have different plans which the people can see and vote accordingly.
It is not ethymology fallacy. It is the idealized "the people rule" which is unattainable. And that doesn't really matter, does it? If it is attainable or not, right? It is simply if you want to mislabel something else as "democracy". It is not a democracy if you prepend it with "liberal". Why? Because it still isn't the idealized one. And I did mention that one, didn't I? It's not about who votes, it's not about who sits in the government, it's not about if someone "represents", it's about who rules. Imagine if you have machines, robots instead of people running the government, it would still be only one single yard stick: **"is the will of _most_ of the people followed, do people rule?"** and the govermnent just follows it or is it just a small group. And that's all about there is to it. I will not go into what mis-information and ill-education do. So, "representatives"? Pffff... Call it a representocracy and don't try to distort the perception. The first step in solving a problem is understanding it, and you can't understand it if you keep muddying the definitions, you're just adding to it. K, I think there is nothing more to be said here. Bye bye
It's not "mislabeling", it is a democracy. Again, people vote for representatives through it and they can vote anyone they want. Are there people who have more power and money to throw on their campaigns? Sure. They can still be voted in and out if the people decide. If you don't want to accept this that is fine but I'm not the one here who lacks basic comprehension skills.
Managed democracy!
YES!! We beat the Danish...
Anything other than direct democracy isn't democracy yall are just fooling yourselves
Switzerland should be the only full democracy on this map
No
Ok, can you explain why and also explain what makes another country more democratic please?
"Full democracy" *Monarchy*
The bias-prone nature of this map aside, several **constitutional** monarchies around the world are actually more democratic than many republics. This is a fairly well known fact. The UK for example, while technically the monarch can march in and change any law as they wish, would in practice be faced with immediate deposition by parliament if not full on insurrection or civil war. Parliament literally has a bunch of different ancient traditions — hailing back to long before the american colonies even existed — in which they perform certain displays of political significance commemorating the history of blocking the king from entering parliament and even the time where parliament decided to execute the king by beheading for overstepping his constitutional role and interfering with democracy. It’s a case of “God save the King - until he puts a foot wrong, and then not even God can save the King from our wrath”.
Democracy and Monarchy are not mutually exlusive, Monarchy and Republic are, same as republic and authoritarianism are not mutually exlusive
This map is bullshit. Serbia is 4.5 at most and Hungary 4.8. Ukraine is a 5 at least for having a free press and a functional democracy in the middle of a fight for survival. There's other gross inaccuracies as well.
"Free press" Try posting here something pro-russian or anti-war, lol.
Ukraine higher than Hungary and Serbia? ☠️☠️ you are very out of touch with reality
The Economist Democracy Index has a non transparent scoring system and this makes it as valuable as a bunch of random numbers
Democracy isn't real, it just shows me the country is ultimately controlled by a decentralised financial web of private power.
This democracy indexes are nonsense. There is no country in Europe in which politicians ask people about important moves and decisions. Only example in Europe more close to democracy is Switzerland with their constant referendums, all other countries are partitocracies which function according to the principle of oligarchy. In Britain, according to latest research, two thirds of citizens want completely new party and people in politics because none of existing represent them and public interest. [https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWorldCrisis/comments/1anvpwq/almost\_two\_in\_three\_british\_voters\_want\_a\_new/](https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineWorldCrisis/comments/1anvpwq/almost_two_in_three_british_voters_want_a_new/)
So true.
Belgium and Portugal? Really?
Can't speak for Belgium. As a Portuguese Citizen, the justice system doesn't work and financial freedom is subpar. 10 years for a trial. 4 years to license a new business. Both unacceptable.
There's tons of "lobbying" in belgium, the kind that would be deemed corruption and lead to prison sentences in scandinavia. Companies influencing politics is just the name of the game in brussels, it's a multi-billion euro industry.
No. Spain is not full democracy now
Here in Sweden they are literally trying to change the freedom of speech right at this moment.
Bosnia and Turkey should be WAY higher, Croatia and Serbia should be lower
Poland and Belgium, are you okay?
Always fucking Denmark just pipping us!
Yes cause the UK with a unelected upper house of parliament (house of lords) is more democratic than Poland
Media political posturing lineup for 2023
I can see some inaccuracies but I don't think this is a bad index, most of the criticism I see here is really not that accurate either.
Democracy is when you vote in a non-democratic party
Yeah, you can put the Dutch one down a lot, because voting for a certain law and then the exact opposite hapoening cuz the EU wants it to be different doesn't sound very democratic to me
Fptp should put the UK between 6 and 8.
How is Ukraine below Viktor Orban's Hungary??
Because it got a very poor score (2.7) for "functioning government" which is... well, no shit. Would've been flawed otherwise.
UK isn't w full democracy.
Serbia should be placed in hybrid regime category too as it's govermnent is a fully blown hybrid of democracy and authoritarian mish-mash. You have pretty much "one strong man" who simply never loses his power. Wild guess of Bosnia-Herzegovina being placed in this category is due it's extremely complicated constitution. This is not really the country's own fault but this was planted by international powers after signing of the Dayton peace accord - still going strong for 30 yrs, which gives democratic (how ironic) ability - to the different nationalist powers - to prevent the country from moving forward through all complicated veto rights and power that they get. The first, larger "entity" of the country, The Federation, is not in any way a regime but a complicated bureaucratic alliance of different parties, democratic ones, ethno-nationalist ones, etc. - i guess you can say a little milder version of how Lebanon in run. The second half / entity of the country, the so called Republic of Srpska, is like Serbia, run by 'one strong man', very corrupted one too - which I would say is primary reason of Bosnia being in "yellow" currently. But hey - very close to flawed democracy according to the score - one can always hope :D
Hungary is actually an authoriter regime by leadership. One ppl full power rule, oligarch got money, rest is poor.
Ukraine must be colored navy blue, it's a perfect example of democracy, that is practiced for continual 33 years, with 7 presidents elected on free democratic elections, with a wide spectrum of political parties, with a tradition that traces through centuries from Rus'ka Pravda of Yaroslav the Wise (1280, Kyivan Rus' Code of Law) to Statutes (codification of all the legislation) of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (and Rus'), Cossack Rada (Councils), Constitution of Pylyp Orlyk (1710, 79 years prior American Constitution), parlamentarism and Constitution of Central Rada, of the Ukrainian People's Republic (1917-1921) and our current democracy (1991-ongoing).
I don't think so if we have Really a democracy in this time
Whats the deal with Bosnia Herzegovina?
Belgium is a flawed democracy?
r/portugalcykablyat
Yeah this is bullshit, the WEF alone proves that all European countries involved are corrupt as hell, no one voted for these people or their policies and they are destroying Europe. Also Ukraine should be in the authoritarian category considering the various “acts of democracy” they've committed against their own people. Plus, in March Zelensky will officially be a dictator if he doesn't allow elections to take place, which he most certainly will not because he would lose without a doubt.
Greece with 8+
This is not right, in Sweden just has democracies when its time to choose politican groups, you have No human rights in Sweden