Democracy Index 2011 (Russia now rated 'authoritarian')

[Hydesland]

Maybe you can show how this index is flawed?

I'm not saying it's flawed. I'm just saying I don't take their magazine seriously.

A lot of people didn't take them seriously back in 2005, perhaps they should have.

[Gravlen]

Maybe you can show how this index is flawed?

I'm not saying it's flawed. I'm just saying I don't take their magazine seriously.

So there's nothing wrong with this particular index, but you wouldn't take it seriously because of the magazine it was published in?

[Hydesland]

This means that, according to the Economist, two out of the following three, i.e. North Korea and Congo, Congo and Zimbabwe, or North Korea and Zimbabwe, are actually less authoritarian, than either Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan or Chad.

Let's decompose the results:

For Zimbabwe we have:

Electoral process and pluralism II Functioning of government III Political participation IV Political culture V Civil liberties
0.00 1.29 3.89 5.00 3.24

For Turkmenistan we have:

Electoral process and pluralism II Functioning of government III Political participation IV Political culture V Civil liberties
0.00 0.79 2.22 5.00 0.59

Which part of these categories do you disagree with in how the countries are compared?

edit: errr didn't realise the post ignored all my spaces separating out the numbers, ah well really can't be fucked to fix it

[Allrule]

This means that, according to the Economist, two out of the following three, i.e. North Korea and Congo, Congo and Zimbabwe, or North Korea and Zimbabwe, are actually less authoritarian, than either Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan or Chad.

Now, Allrule, can you please tell me what that has to do with whether the order is descending or ascending? Or will you admit to yet another failed strawman?

Sometimes the fact that its research comes up with counter-intuitive results is why the paper is actually good, conventional wisdom is not always correct. Just because a few of the results are counter to your own preconceived notions does NOT make the index rubbish, perhaps it is in fact your own preconceptions which are crap? Also, this is NOT simply a ranking based on one subjective view by one journalist at the paper, according to The Economist they're based on a survey of 60 questions handed out to different experts for each country as well as from public surveys. The survey is the same for each country. Furthermore, since this is strictly a measure of democratic freedom, not of the overall quality of living (economic standard of living is not included in the survey), it is not a broad measure of quality of life or standard of living, only political freedom.

And it's not like Chad has an impressive rating compared to North Korea anyway.

[Keronians]

Looks legit.

[Nightkill the Emperor]

Looks legit.

India's democratic, according to that.

Not possible.

[Keronians]

Looks legit.

India's democratic, according to that.

Not possible.

Well, it has been listed as a "flawed democracy", not a "full democracy".

I agree with that.

[Nightkill the Emperor]

India's democratic, according to that.

Not possible.

Well, it has been listed as a "flawed democracy", not a "full democracy".

I agree with that.

I was joking.

Sometimes you forget with all the shitty corruption though.

[Keronians]

Well, it has been listed as a "flawed democracy", not a "full democracy".

I agree with that.

I was joking.

Sometimes you forget with all the shitty corruption though.

And the CMs all having their own gangs.

I mean, if ever there is a moment to facepalm, THAT is it.

[Nightkill the Emperor]

I was joking.

Sometimes you forget with all the shitty corruption though.

And the CMs all having their own gangs.

I just call them the police.

[Keronians]

And the CMs all having their own gangs.

I just call them the police.

Touche.

[Shofercia]

This means that, according to the Economist, two out of the following three, i.e. North Korea and Congo, Congo and Zimbabwe, or North Korea and Zimbabwe, are actually less authoritarian, than either Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan or Chad.

Now, Allrule, can you please tell me what that has to do with whether the order is descending or ascending? Or will you admit to yet another failed strawman?

Sometimes the fact that its research comes up with counter-intuitive results is why the paper is actually good, conventional wisdom is not always correct. Just because a few of the results are counter to your own preconceived notions does NOT make the index rubbish, perhaps it is in fact your own preconceptions which are crap? Also, this is NOT simply a ranking based on one subjective view by one journalist at the paper, according to The Economist they're based on a survey of 60 questions handed out to different experts for each country as well as from public surveys. The survey is the same for each country. Furthermore, since this is strictly a measure of democratic freedom, not of the overall quality of living (economic standard of living is not included in the survey), it is not a broad measure of quality of life or standard of living, only political freedom.

Oh, so it's based on only sixty questions? And who exactly are these experts? To save time, let's just focus on the five or six countries in question. What are the biases of said experts? Because I recall the Economist, quoting the Jamestown Foundation, whose expert explained why it would be tough for the Russians to fight the Georgians in 2008. After the Russians kicked ass, he claimed that Russia used 1200 tanks. (Actual number was between 135 and 150.) So you can't really persuade me, or anyone with a brain, by just going o.O - he be expert, trust him over conventional wisdom!

What are the questions? Who are these experts? And why do I have to register in order to download the report? http://www.eiu.com/public/topical_repor ... yIndex2011

I'm not saying it's flawed. I'm just saying I don't take their magazine seriously.

A lot of people didn't take them seriously back in 2005, perhaps they should have.

And thankfully, a lot of people didn't take it seriously in 2008 and 2009, when they shouldn't have. If you're wondering why Russians think it's a joke, well, that's cause the Economist's coverage of Russia since Putin took a tough stance on certain corporations, like Yukos, has been a joke.

Just to take some of the silliest claims of the Economist apart, on an issue that I know quite a bit about:

http://www.economist.com/node/12009678

Never mind that Russia is itself being incoherent in continuing to insist that Kosovo’s independence from Serbia is still illegal (a stance driven in part by its wish to avoid setting a precedent for Chechnya or other restive republics within Russia).

Why, I do believe that implies that one cannot support South Ossetia, without supporting Kosovo. Except that's not true. South Ossetia does not claim any part of the land that the South Ossetian Government doesn't control. Kosovo does. Economist "accidentally" fails to point this out.

As for Chechen Independence, I know it's a Neocon wet dream, but an entire battalion of Chechens fought on the side of Russia in the Ossetian War, under Russia's leadership, and the overwhelming majority do not want independence, starvation, violence and warfare. I'm also a bit curious what other republics come to mind, because I could only think of Ingushetia, and that's singular; maybe the article was written a bit late, and someone forgot the check the grammar.

Throughout the 1990s the Americans were extremely reluctant to get involved in the Balkans.

Seriously? Anyone want to argue this point?

[Russia] did its utmost to provoke Mr Saakashvili into a fight.

Again, lolwut? The Russians warned Saakashvili not to go to war on August 5th. How's is this provocation? "Hey, we have the best army in the region, and if you attack our allies, we will use it against you, so don't do it!"

Of course when journalists make mistakes, they're supposed to correct them. Instead, the Economist tries to rewrite history:

http://www.economist.com/node/14560958

Everyone was a loser in the war that cost 850 lives and left over 35,000 displaced civilians, most of them Georgian.

That's odd, cause Russians sure felt like winners. Let's try arguing that point for WWII: "Every was a loser in the war that cost tens of millions of lives, and left hundreds of millions of displaced people, mostly Europeans." Yeah Ike, put down that cup, don't drink to victory, everyone was a loser! Dear Economist: when someone declares war on you, and you win, you're not a loser.

The roots of the war go back a decade, and lie in Russia’s ambition to impose its influence in its near abroad, clashing with Georgia’s ambition to move closer to the West and its obsession with bringing the breakaway regions under control.

And here's Economist rewriting history. The roots of the war go back to at least 1822, which is slightly more than a decade. In the interest of brevity, I'll only grant a sentence to the Russian Imperial Period: Ossetians, Georgians and Abkhaz lived together, under the Russian Empire, sometimes living in harmony and sometimes feuding with one another, but were usually restrained by the Russian Imperial Army, when things got rough. When the Russian Empire broke apart in 1917, Georgia declared independence, the Abkhaz wanted to be left alone, and the Ossetians fought with the Russians.

During this time period, gross atrocities were committed on all sides, including the Chechens defeating Georgians in battle, and burning down Gori. That's Stalin's birthplace, and Stalin got his revenge, when he deported the Chechens in 1944/1945 on trumped up charges. But that was far from the only atrocity committed. The Bolsheviks eventually restored peace.

Fast forward to the actions of Comrade Stalin, aka Dzhugashvili. Yup, he's Georgian. First he abolished a good chunk of South Ossetia's autonomy, handing it to Georgia, and then he abolished Abkhazia's SSR status, handing that to Georgia, as well. He also gave Nagorno-Karabakh to Azarbaijan, even though it was Armenian. And he deported the Chechens. shall I recap the wars that happened in the Caucasus after the USSR fell apart? Ossetian, Chechen, Abkhaz and Nagorno-Karabakh.

Clearly, it's all Putin's fault, Economist said so, down with conventional wisdom!

Ever since Mr Putin came to power in 2000, Russia tightened its links with South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Russia's be tightening links with South Ossetia and Abkhazia way before Putin came to power. Going back to the USSR breaking apart, Glasnost, blah-blah, profits for the uber rich, elderly and women fucked, huzzah for democracy, blah-blah-blah.

Under these conditions, the leaders were caught in a bit of a bind. Quite a bit of a bind. So they turned to nationalism. It happened in the Balkans, it happened in the Baltics, (to a lesser extent,) it even happens in Western Europe, i.e. when economy is bad, political parties blaming immigrants and promoting nationalism, emerge. Oh shock and awe, it happened in the Caucasus as well! Except there, it led to the bloody wars of the early, mid, and late 1990's. When Putin came to power, Dagestan was being invaded, courtesy of Wahhabi Terrorists. But hey, none of that matters to the Economist, who must paint Putin as the bad guy.

Wanna know why Russians treat Economist as a joke? Because Economist's coverage of Russia is a joke.

I'm not saying it's flawed. I'm just saying I don't take their magazine seriously.

So there's nothing wrong with this particular index, but you wouldn't take it seriously because of the magazine it was published in?

Nope, because he doesn't trust the magazine that conducted the study. If you don't trust the person/group that conducted the study, you won't take the study seriously.

This means that, according to the Economist, two out of the following three, i.e. North Korea and Congo, Congo and Zimbabwe, or North Korea and Zimbabwe, are actually less authoritarian, than either Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan or Chad.

Let's decompose the results:

For Zimbabwe we have:

Electoral process and pluralism II Functioning of government III Political participation IV Political culture V Civil liberties
0.00 1.29 3.89 5.00 3.24

For Turkmenistan we have:

Electoral process and pluralism II Functioning of government III Political participation IV Political culture V Civil liberties
0.00 0.79 2.22 5.00 0.59

Which part of these categories do you disagree with in how the countries are compared?

edit: errr didn't realise the post ignored all my spaces separating out the numbers, ah well really can't be fucked to fix it

Eh, I can read it, so it's all good on that front

Why don't you help me figure out the numbers: which ones refer to slavery and rape statistics? Because, call me crazy, but I believe that I have an inherent right not to be enslaved by the government, and not to be raped by the government. So which of the numbers deal with government-assisted slave trade, and government ignored rape statistics? Here's a "fun" one on Congo: https://www.freetheslaves.net/SSLPage.aspx?pid=602

It's not just my opinion. I have friends in Uzbekistan, and I read Georgianne Nienaber's coverage on the Congo. Even solely on the political front, it ain't the same. One's much worse, and it ain't Uzbekistan. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/georgianne-nienaber

[The Greater Aryan Race]

Does anyone know what Singapore's classification is?

[Allrule]

Does anyone know what Singapore's classification is?

Hybrid regime, with a score of 5.89.

[Allrule]

What are the questions? Who are these experts? And why do I have to register in order to download the report? http://www.eiu.com/public/topical_repor ... yIndex2011

The trope "Arson, Murder, and Jaywalking" comes to mind... Yeah, big injustice, having to take round 30 seconds of your precious time to fill out a free registration form, really.

[The Greater Aryan Race]

Hybrid regime, with a score of 5.89.

Wait what? A hybrid regime? We have a fully functioning and capable democracy that has no electoral fraud whatsoever (although I wouldn't rule out gerrymandering). Singapore ought to be higher.

[Shofercia]

What are the questions? Who are these experts? And why do I have to register in order to download the report? http://www.eiu.com/public/topical_repor ... yIndex2011

The trope "Arson, Murder, and Jaywalking" comes to mind... Yeah, big injustice, having to take round 30 seconds of your precious time to fill out a free registration form, really.

Way to miss the important questions and focus on the jocular one

[Costa Fiero]

Wait what? A hybrid regime? We have a fully functioning and capable democracy that has no electoral fraud whatsoever (although I wouldn't rule out gerrymandering). Singapore ought to be higher.

Singapore is a single party state. You vote for one party. Sure, there are others, but the government has means and ways of dealing with them.

[New England and The Maritimes]

America should be a bit lower on the list, but the shocker to me is this idea that South Africa is somehow much better off than, say, Nigeria.

[Conserative Morality]

America should be a bit lower on the list, but the shocker to me is this idea that South Africa is somehow much better off than, say, Nigeria.

Pardon?

I think 19th is a pretty fair assessment.

[New Conglomerate]

Hybrid regime, with a score of 5.89.

Wait what? A hybrid regime? We have a fully functioning and capable democracy that has no electoral fraud whatsoever (although I wouldn't rule out gerrymandering). Singapore ought to be higher.

The PAP won 60% of the vote and 11/12 of the seats.

Yeah, that's bullcrap.

[Caninope]

America should be a bit lower on the list, but the shocker to me is this idea that South Africa is somehow much better off than, say, Nigeria.

Pardon?

I think 19th is a pretty fair assessment.

What? I thought we were the least free country in the world, because Amurica is a Ebul Empire.

[The Greater Aryan Race]

The PAP won 60% of the vote and 11/12 of the seats.

Yeah, that's bullcrap.

Correction. The PAP won 81/87 of all seats contested during the last General Election (I assume we're talking about the one in 2011 ). Six seats were won by the Worker's Party.

Singapore is a single party state. You vote for one party. Sure, there are others, but the government has means and ways of dealing with them.

People can vote for any party they want, no one's stopping them. It's just that the PAP has the most successful track record by far. Of course one has to take into account the fact that trade unions are under government control, the media is under government control, education is under government control and etc.

[Costa Fiero]

People can vote for any party they want, no one's stopping them. It's just that the PAP has the most successful track record by far. Of course one has to take into account the fact that trade unions are under government control, the media is under government control, education is under government control and etc.

And what not a better way to control the populace that to have the government and the ruling party control absolutely everything?

[The Greater Aryan Race]

They don't control the Internet, the one main source of dissent.