Make a one-time Donation to Democracy Paradox.
Measuring Democracy
In 1972 Freedom House published its first annual report known as Freedom in the World. It codes nations in the world on a scale from 1 to 7. While Freedom House describes countries as free, partly free, and not free, many use the report as a measure for democracy. Indeed, even Freedom House uses freedom and democracy interchangeably in its reports. So, the first few decades of the report saw a noticeable increase in freedom in the world year after year. The third wave of democratization brought about democratization in many countries around the world. The decline and subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union accelerated democratization efforts even further.
However, over the last sixteen years Freedom House has observed declines in global freedom. Moreover, they are not alone. Other surveys and reports on democracy from Varieties of Democracy, The Economist Intelligence Unit, Polity, and show a similar trend. Larry Diamond calls it a democratic recession. Others call it the third wave of autocratization. It is a disturbing trend that raises many questions. Why has democracy lost its appeal? How can we reverse the trend? Did democracies somehow lose their ability to effectively govern?
At first some questioned whether Freedom House and others were simply wrong. The different surveys all rely on humans to measure levels of democracy and democratization. So, they all contain potential for human error. They also pose some risk of recency bias. For example, Polity recently coded the United States below the threshold for democracy briefly after January 6th. It’s difficult to understand how America is less democratic today than in 1829 when suffrage was limited and slavery was prevalent in the South. Still, it’s impossible to ignore the shift away from liberal democracy particularly in recent years.
A Critique of Democracy Measures
The more substantive critique of democratic measures questions their approach or rather the methodology rather than their findings. Democracy measures typically examine observable characteristics. Varieties of Democracy examines 470 unique indicators in its different measures of democracy. However, they all involve observable traits rather than underlying features. It’s reminiscent of biology before genetics. Biologists classified species based on observable traits into species, genus, and so on. The discovery of genetics and DNA sequencing completely revolutionized traditional taxonomies.
It’s difficult to imagine how political science might make the kind of leap genetics provided for biology. A better approach may never exist. However, I imagine it might have something to do with the people rather than the structure of the regime itself. Democracy does depend on institutions, but it also relies on citizens to navigate those institutions. The 21st Century has enabled greater levels of participation through social media and ability due to increased levels of education. At the same time, traditional means of civic engagement have declined due to the professionalization of civil society. In other words, the decay of formal democratic institutions is likely a symptom rather than the disease.
What we need to learn is whether democracy was never as healthy as we once believed. It is possible the success of democracy was somewhat overestimated, while its subsequent decline is now overstated. At the same time, many countries really did adopt liberal democratic practices during the third wave of democratization. However, democracy is perhaps most easily reduced to a government of the people. So, the presence of formally democratic institutions and practices is not really enough. As Christian Welzel puts it, “In order to be stable and liberal, democracy must be understood and appreciated by its citizens.” Unfortunately, social scientists still struggle to measure this hidden dimension of democracy.
Democracy Paradox Podcast
Michael Coppedge on Why Democracies Emerge, Why They Decline, and Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem)
Sarah Repucci from Freedom House with an Update on Freedom in the World
More Episodes from the Podcast
Democracy Paradox is part of the Amazon Affiliates Program and earns commissions on items purchased from links to the Amazon website. All links are to recommended books discussed in the podcast or referenced in the blog.
Putnam may be right about the United States, and the negative effect of the professionalization of civil society, but since my research focused on civil society organizations that promoted democracy in Argentina, South Africa and Tajikistan, I don’t think one can generalize about this.
Despite Putnam’s views on the U.S. and the negative effect of the professionalization of civil society, i found just the opposite in South Africa, Tajikistan and Argentina, where there are many CSOs that focus on democracy and promote it.
Great points as always. I was not trying to say the professionalization of NGOs did not support democracy. Rather I was only referring to how they limit opportunities for participation. As you point out, this is more relevant in the US.
Many thanks. I loved your book on Italy, years ago. Pretty depressing what is happening now. In addition to my book, ( http://www.importingdemocracy.org, ), I have finished an update article about Tajikistan and the contrast between the autocratic government and democratization at the local level- for once due to the internet!