NSPoliteia: A Brief Summary
NSPoliteia is a project that aims to compile a comprehensive index of nations sorted according to the degree of democracy and pluralism present in the inner workings of their political systems.
(OOC: As its name may suggest, it is heavily based on the real-life Polity project by the Center for Systemic Peace.)
Methodology
NSPoliteia groups nations into democracies, autocracies, and anocracies (a mix of the two previous classifications) using a 21-point system based on the characteristics of their political systems. The three main political aspects to be evaluated are as follows:
- The openness of executive recruitment,
- The degree of constraints on executive power, and
- The openness of political participation and competition.
Here are the different Concepts for each aspect:
Concept 1: Inheritance (+3 A points)
- The office of chief executive is passed down by hereditary sucession.
- Typically includes traditional and absolute monarchies, as well as de facto hereditary republics such as real-life North Korea in which the position of chief executive has been passed down over three or more generations.
- Does NOT include constitutional and parliamentary monarchies with a prime minister, unless said prime minister is virtually powerless.
- Does NOT include authoritarian self-declared monarchies, unless the self-declared monarch is succeeded by a relative as ruler.
- The office of chief executive is shared between a hereditary monarch and a prime minister designated by authoritarian means.
- Typically includes authoritarian constitutional monarchies wherein the prime minister is a member of a hegemonic faction that controls the government.
- Does NOT include authoritarian constitutional monarchies wherein the monarch is merely a figurehead (code Concept 3).
- Does NOT include authoritarian 'constitutional' monarchies wherein the prime minister is virtually powerless (code Concept 1).
- The office of chief executive is determined by non-violent informal competition within a closed authoritarian regime.
- Typically includes one-party states, established military dictatorships, personalistic dictatorships, and authoritarian pseudo-democracies with rigged and/or show elections. Elective monarchies in which the monarch is selected by a council of nobles or other unelected assembly are coded here as well.
- Also includes closed authoritarian regimes wherein factions agree to rotate power on a regular basis, as well as meritocratic systems wherein there is little to no citizen participation in the executive recruitment process.
- Does NOT include recently-established military dictatorships wherein the current chief executive came to power via a coup (code Concept 4).
- The office of chief executive was recently determined by a forceful, though not necessarily violent, seizure of power (e.g. a coup).
- Typically includes recently-established military dictatorships wherein the current chief executive came to power via a coup.
- Even if the coup leader attempts to legitimize their rule via implementing procedures for transfers of power, as long as they retain de facto power, their nation will be coded here. If said procedures are democratic, have been firmly established, and drawn out over the course of more than 2 years but the coup leader still remains in power, it may be coded as Concept 5.
- Does NOT include mass-based social revolutions such as the Russian and French revolutions.
- Does NOT include entrenched military regimes wherein a regular transfer of power has already taken place.
- Does NOT include situations wherein a leader selected by normal means resigns due to international pressure or a failed coup.
- The office of chief executive was determined by autocratic means, whether inheritance, designation, or self-selection via coup.
- The chief executive has begun to establish procedures for a (at least nominally) democratic and orderly transition of power, though they have not stepped down yet, whether formally or de facto.
- The transition, however, is dominated by the executive and their supporting institutions, and involvement by opposition groups and other non-executive forces is restricted.
- If the chief executive formally steps down according to the newly-established set of procedures but continues to dominate the political arena as a de facto leader, it is coded here.
- The office of chief executive is shared between a hereditary monarch and a democratically elected, whether directly or indirectly, prime minister.
- Typically includes constitutional monarchies wherein the prime minister normally heads executive discussion, but the monarch still retains a considerable amount of real power.
- Does NOT include parliamentary constitutional monarchies wherein the monarch is merely a figurehead with symbolic powers (code Concept 7 or 8 depending on how fair the elections are).
- Does NOT include 'constitutional' monarchies wherein the prime minister is overshadowed by the monarch or virtually powerless (code Concept 1).
- Does NOT include constitutional monarchies wherein the prime minister has considerable power, but is designated by a weak or rubber-stamp legislature (code Concept 2).
- The office of chief executive is determined by free, though not fair direct or indirect elections plagued by considerable, though not insurmountable, problems.
- If the elections are deemed to be free, but not fair by domestic and international observers or these observers are barred from monitoring the elections, it is coded here.
- If the executive or various unelected groups such as the military attempt to influence, but not rig, the elections, it is coded here.
- If the executive is elected indirectly via an assembly that was not completely freely elected but not completely unelected either (at least 25% of it is unelected), it is coded here.
- If the elections take place in an environment of widespread civil unrest or under the military supervision of a UN equivalent or regional peace organization, it is coded here.
- If the elections are completely rigged or just for show, it is NOT coded here (code Concept 3).
- If the chief executive is democratically elected but forced to share power with unelected officials who exert significant though not overbearing influence, it is coded here.
- The office of chief executive is determined by free and fair elections, whether direct or indirect, which are typically free from major obstacles.
- If the elections are verified to be both free and fair by domestic and international observers or independent electoral commissions, it is coded here.
- If the executive or various unelected groups such as the military attempt to influence, but not rig, the elections, it is NOT coded here (code Concept 7).
- If the elections take place in an environment of widespread civil unrest or under the military supervision of a UN equivalent or regional peace organization, it is NOT coded here (code Concept 7).
- If a major opposition party or group boycotts the election for strategic reasons or as a political protest, it is NOT coded here (code Concept 7).
Concept 1: Unlimited Executive Authority (+3 A points)
- There are no regular limitations on the chief executive's actions, unlike irregular limitations such as threat of coups and assassinations. Rule by decree is repeatedly used.
- The judiciary is completely devoid of independence, and the legislature, if it exists, is either powerless or completely subservient to the executive's wishes.
- Typically includes absolute monarchies and personalistic dictatorships. One-party states and military dictatorships may be included, but only if the regime's structure simply serves the chief executive's wishes.
- If the democratically-elected executive is granted sweeping powers by an assembly to deal with a national emergency then relents this power after it has passed, it is NOT coded here, unless these emergency powers have been in effect for more than two years.
- Typically used to document a change from Concept 1 to Concept 3 or vice versa within the span of 10 years.
- Examples include a monarch establishing a weak consultative assembly (Concept 1 to 3) or the leader of a hegemonic party beginning to consolidate their power over the party apparatus (Concept 3 to 1).
- There are real but limited constraints on the executive.
- For example, the legislature or party council might occasionally initiate some pieces of legislation.
- Typically includes strong, institutionalized one-party states (unless they are dominated by a single individual) and long-standing military juntas in which numerous military officers have held the office of chief executive.
- Can also include 'democratic-authoritarians' or democratically-elected leaders who thoroughly dominate their political systems, with the legislature and judiciary being clearly subordinate to their wishes.
- Typically indicates a transition between Concepts 3 and 5, one way or the other, in the span of ten years.
- Can be used to document the tightening of restrictions on the executive in a previously autocratic regime (3 to 5) or the further weakening of checks and balances in a democratic system that already grants significant powers to the chief executive (5 to 3).
- The executive has more effective authority than accountability groups such as legislatures and party councils, but are substantially constrained by them.
- For example, the legislature may occasionally refuse funds to the executive or modify strike down their proposals.
- Democratic systems which grant a significant amount of power to the executive, e.g. strong presidential regimes, are typically coded here. These may be created by design or are a result of the legislature being unable to effectively restrict the executive branch. While parliamentary systems are not exempt from being coded here, it is far less common for them to be so.
- If the chief executive completely dominates the judiciary but is effectively restricted by the legislature, it is coded here.
- Typically indicates a transition between Concepts 5 and 7, one way or the other, in a span of 10 years.
- This can be used to depict a situation wherein a democratically-elected chief executive is temporarily granted emergency powers by a powerful legislature in order to cope with a national emergency.
- In semi-presidential systems wherein both the president and prime minister are granted significant powers, this can be used to depict periods where both are from the same party.
- In most political activity, accountability groups such as the legislature and judiciary have a degree of power equal to or greater than the executive.
- The legislature is responsible for initiating most or all important legislation.
- The chief executive may be chosen by the accountability group and dependent on its continued support to remain in office, as in most parliamentary systems.
- Presidential systems wherein the chief executive (president) is well-constrained are coded here as well.
- Most mature, consolidated democracies are coded here.
Concept 1: Repressed Competition (+4 A points)
- The nation is institutionally closed, both officially and de facto. No significant political activity is permitted outside of the ranks of the hegemonic regime.
- The hegemonic regime bans and suppresses ALL opposition groups, regardless of size or organization.
- The regime has both the capacity and willingness to suppress and exclude opponents from the political arena.
- If the regime cannot effectively suppress oppositional activity such as mass protests and acts of rebellion for more than 5 years, it is NOT coded here (code Concept 2).
- Typically included are totalitarian one-party states, military dictatorships, personalistic dictatorships, and despotic absolute monarchies.
- The nation is institutionally closed, though it need not be officially so. Some organized political activity is permitted outside of the regime's ranks, but they are systematically limited.
- The hegemonic regime bans and suppresses MAJOR opposition groups. Minor opposition groups are typically permitted to operate on a limited scale.
- If all political parties are outlawed but limited independent oppositional activity is permitted, it is coded here. However, if these 'independents' are merely a front for the ruling regime, it is coded as Concept 1.
- If the regime allows major opposition forces to organize but not participate in the electoral process, it is coded here.
- If the regime allows major opposition forces to participate in the electoral processes but systematically suppresses them (e.g. leaders killed or jailed, candidates regularly ruled off ballots, opposition media harassed), it is coded here.
- If the regime aims to suppress all oppositional activity but is unable to do so, as manifested by mass protests and acts of rebellion for more than 5 years, it is coded here.
- If 20% or more of the population is denied all political rights, it is coded here. However, if they are allowed limited political rights, less than 20% are denied all political rights, or they are allowed all political rights but nonetheless face severe harassment and intimidation, it is not coded here (code Concept 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10 depending on the extent of exclusion and the size of the group).
- Typically included are one-party states, military regimes, some personalistic dictatorships, and authoritarian monarchies, as well as some illiberal democracies with a considerable authoritarian streak.
- Typically used to denote a transition from Concepts 1 or 2 to Concept 6 or 7, or vice versa, over the span of 10 years.
- For example, a formerly hegemonic regime decides to open up to limited and typically factional competition (Concept 1 or 2 to Concept 6 or 7), or a weak illiberal democracy plagued by factionalism transforms into a fully-fledged authoritarian regime which systematically represses oppositional activity (Concept 6 or 7 to Concept 1 or 2).
- Political participation can be described as decentralized and unregulated, typically revolving around various personalities, regional interests, ethnic or religious groups, and clans. It can be likened to tribalism, feudalism, and 'traditional' societies.
- The central authority is generally weak and national organizations and institutions such as political parties are either weak or non-existent.
- These systems are most likely to be found following the collapse of central authority in a resource-poor authoritarian state in the wake of decolonization.
- If the central government's authority does not extend to more than half of the nation's territory, an interregnum (see the Special Cases category) classification would be more appropriate as it would denote the complete breakdown of central authority.
- Typically used to denote a transition from unregulated forms of political participation (Concept 4) to more stable and rigid systems.
- Also typically used to denote the gradual consolidation of power by a formerly weak central authority, as well as the formation of stable national organizations and institutions such as political parties.
- If a central government re-emerges in the wake of foreign occupation or a state failure (e.g. civil war or anarchy) and gradually reorganizes political authority and political competition with the support of state institutions, it is coded here.
- If the aforementioned re-emerging central government uses its powers to limit the formation and expression of political interests and perspectives, it should be coded as Concept 3 instead.
- More or less the same as open factional competition (Concept 7), though it is more restrictive and entails greater levels of government recognition of group differences and promotion of exclusionary ideologies.
- These nations typically swing back and forth more or less regularly between intense factionalism and faction-based restrictions. An example is that when one of the contending factions seizes power, it uses that power to promote its exclusive interests and reward group members while marginalizing other contending factions until it is displaced in turn.
- It is more restrictive than open factional competition (Concept 7) which it has a lot in common with, but less restrictive than restricted competition (Concept 2).
- If less than 20% of the population are denied all political rights, it is coded here. If 20% or more are excluded, however, it is coded as Concept 2.
- If the regime cannot effectively deny political access to these groups, it is coded as Concept 7.
- If the excluded groups, regardless of size, are allowed limited political rights, it is coded here, or as Concepts 7 or 8.
- While it is not impossible for democratic political systems to have restricted factional competition, a rule of thumb is that restricted factional competition is more likely to be associated with authoritarian systems, while open factional competition is more likely to be associated with democratic systems.
- Relatively stable and enduring factions such as political parties and ethnic groups regularly compete for influence at the national level, but they tend to promote particularist and narrow-minded agendas in an uncompromising manner with limited social integration. Thus, competition between them is often intense, antagonistic, hostile, and coercive.
- It is distinguished by a relative balance of group capabilities that prevents any one of the contending factions from gaining control of the state apparatus, and can also arise when the state is a relatively autonomous entity attempting to broker peace between these factions.
- Elections are deemed by international and domestic observers to be free but not fair, and the electoral process is constantly plagued by partisan-based violence.
- The government attempts to use its institutional powers to interfere with the outcome of the electoral process.
- The political arena may either be dominated by numerous fractionalized parties/factions or a few major parties, but as long as they promote polarizing ideologies and compete in a fierce, antagonistic manner, it is coded here.
- Major parties are sectarian and/or personalistic in character or a secular, progressive regime attempts to control and limit, but not prohibit, the activities of sectarian groups.
- Typically used to document relatively coercive and/or restrictive transitions from factional competition (Concept 6 or 7) to institutionalized competitive participation (Concept 10) or vice versa over the span of ten years.
- Often found in nations wherein political participation is characteristically unconsolidated in an otherwise democratic system, such as those with relatively shallow democratic roots.
- Is generally the same as Concept 9, but with a greater degree of force and coercion present in the system. For example, the electoral process may be marred by systematic though limited partisan-based violence.
- May be used to document relatively peaceful transitions from factional competition (Concept 6 or 7) to institutionalized competitive participation (Concept 10), though not necessarily within the span of 10 years.
- Elections are deemed to be free, but not necessarily fair, by domestic and international observers. The electoral process is stained by sporadic and/or limited partisan-based violence.
- May be used to depict the early years of a democratic transition wherein previously-moribund or newly-formed weak parties revolving around specific personalities, issues, affiliations, or nationalism compete for power or the former hegemonic party continues to dominate the electoral process due to its established, superior organizational and financial resources.
- If a single party dominates the executive and legislative branches continuously for an extended period of time (e.g. 15-20 years) and opposition parties pose no real electoral threat to the dominant party and do not actively challenge their policies and/or face minor institutional barriers to competing in the electoral arena, it is coded here.
- If the government attempts to interfere with, but not rig, the outcome of the electoral process without the overt use of repression or establishes unreasonable minimum vote thresholds for inclusion in the legislature, it is coded here.
- If all major domestic groups have full political rights but some minor groups face significant obstacles to political participation, it is coded here.
- If numerous parties (e.g. more than 10) regularly contest national elections and most are fluid in nature (e.g. here one election, gone the next), it is coded here. However, depending on the degree of coercion and factionalism present in the system, it may be more appropriately coded as Concept 6, 7, or 8.
- If the major parties have traditionally been personalistic and/or sectarian in character but are intentionally making efforts to institutionalize their organizational structures and/or evolve into ideology and mass-based parties, it is coded here.
- If the nation holds democratic elections but nonetheless is plagued by common, but not systematic, violations of civil liberties, it is coded here. Some examples of human rights abuses are: media/literature censorship, restrictions on the content of public discussion, limits on freedom of assembly and demonstration, military and/or police brutality, unjustified imprisonment, a draconian criminal code, constraints on labor and/or business organizations, and restrictions on religious practice, property rights, travel, choice of residence, and so forth.
- Relatively stable and enduring political groups such as political parties regularly compete for political influence with little to no use of coercion. No significant political and cultural groups, issues, or types of conventional political actions are regularly excluded.
- Often found in stable, consolidated democratic systems wherein political competition and participation in the electoral arena has been fully institutionalized and regulated.
- Political parties, especially major ones, are ideology and/or issue-based and cross-cutting rather than personalistic, narrow-minded, and/or sectarian.
- Human rights and civil liberties are generally well-respected.
- National elections are deemed by international and domestic observers to be both free and fair.
- A regular rotation of power between competing parties is not necessary for a nation to be coded here. If a single party continuously dominates the government for more than 15-20 years and opposition parties pose little to no threat to it, but continue to actively challenge their policies and face no significant institutional barriers to competition and participation, the nation is coded here.
- All domestic groups must have equal institutional opportunities to access the political process, though certain groups may dominate the political agenda. Group claims for self-determination and/or autonomy do not have to be satisfied to be coded here, but if the government resorts to repression to quell these demands or the groups resort to force to pursue their claims, it is NOT coded here, but rather as Concept 6, 7, 8, or 9.
- If numerous parties (e.g. more than 10) regularly contest national elections, it may be a sign that political competition has not been institutionalized. If these parties are fragile/unstable and/or factional in nature, the nation is NOT coded here. However, if these parties are durable and not prone to factionalism, the nation may be coded here.
- If the major parties are personalistic in character, revolving around dominant personalities rather than ideological platforms, it may be a sign that political competition has not been institutionalized. However, if personalistic parties have evolved into ideology-based or issue-based organizations over time or a personalistic leader rises from within the ranks of a firmly-established and existing organization, the polity may be coded here.
- If the major parties are sectarian in character, revolving around exclusive ethnic, racial, religious, and/or regional social networks (to the exclusion of other social networks), the nation is NOT coded here. This environment is much more likely to be featured in nations coded as Concept 6, 7, 8, or 9, depending on the degree of party exclusiveness and the extensiveness of inter-group conflict in the nation.
- If the political environment is dominated by class-based parties that actively compete in the electoral process but the use of non-party class instruments such as labor unions, police, and paramilitary groups to coerce and intimidate opposition forces, the nation is NOT coded here.
- If the major parties are mass-based and secular in nature and actively seek to limit the political activities of sectarian and other non-mass-based political parties and/or movements, this may indicate factional (Concept 6 or 7) than institutionalized competitive (Concept 10) competition.
- If the nation holds free and fair elections but nonetheless experiences significant violations of civil liberties, it is unlikely to be coded here. The systematic violation of civil liberties is a form of restriction on participation and the suppression of dissent, despite the existence of widespread political rights. However, under certain special conditions a restriction of civil liberties may occur in any political system. If the restrictions are consistent and short-lived rather than capricious or concentrated against certain members of opposition groups, the nation may be coded here.
Once a nation's three concepts are decided, the amount of D and A points are added together, then the total number of A points is subtracted from the total amount of D points in order to get their NSPoliteia Score, which determines how democratic and pluralistic their political system is. A positive score implies a degree of democracy and pluralism, while a negative score implies a lack of democracy or the presence of autocratic elements. The maximum scores for each extreme are 10 (full democracy) and -10 (total autocratic control).
Under the NSPoliteia classification system, nations are classified into five distinct main categories. They are:
- NSPoliteia Score Range: 10
- Description:
Nations grouped under the Full Democracy category have mature, entrenched pluralistic political systems with a healthy degree of democratic competition between parties for public office. Chief executives are elected in open, transparent elections, there are little to no problems interfering with the political process, and the executive branch's powers are balanced out by an active legislature and independent judiciary.
- NSPoliteia Score Range: 6–9
- Description:
Nations grouped under the Democracy category have relatively durable pluralistic political systems with a reasonable degree of democratic competition between parties, though problems such as sporadic political violence, antagonistic factionalism, and a relative lack of constraints on the executive are present.
- NSPoliteia Score Range: 1–5
- Description:
Nations grouped under the Open Anocracy category typically possess a relatively weak but still adequately democratic political system with a slight authoritarian streak. They are typically plagued by violent, irregular, or loosely restricted competition between factions, an imbalance of power favoring the executive, internal turmoil, and/or other impediments to democratic procedures. Open anocracies straddle the line between democracy and autocracy, though they lean further towards democracy than their closed peers.
- NSPoliteia Score Range: (-5)–0
- Description:
Nations grouped under the Closed Anocracy category typically possess a weak, barely democratic system that has been largely compromised by autocratic threats such as restricted competition in the politcal arena, an imbalance of power heavily favoring the executive typically combined with a weak or sharply divided legislature and an ineffective judiciary, internal turmoil, a closed system of executive recruitment, and/or other impediments to electoral democratic procedures. Closed anocracies straddle the line between democracy and autocracy, though they possess a greater authoritarian streak than their open peers.
- NSPoliteia Score Range: (-10)–(-6)
- Description:
Nations grouped under the Autocracy category either have an extremely weak and superficial pseudo-democratic system or none at all. Their political systems are deeply authoritarian, with opposition generally being heavily suppressed by the hegemonic regime. Virtually all political power resides with the executive, with the legislature being either an extremely weak rubber stamp or nonexistent, and the judiciary being completely powerless. Chief executives are typically recruited via informal competition within the hegemonic party or military cabal, self-selection via coup, or inheritance within a firmly established royal bloodline.
Interruption/Occupation
- Description: Nations classified as being in a state of interruption are completely under the rule or occupation of a foreign power, such as in times of war. This classification is applied until the nation in question is liberated or a new government is established.
- Description: Nations classified as being in a state of interregnum have suffered a complete collapse of central authority, in which more than half of their territory is under control of factions fighting against each other for dominance. Situations like these typically arise in times of widespread civil war or ethnic conflict. This classification is applied until the central authority regains control of the nation's entire territory or a faction triumphs and establishes a new, stable government.
One should note, however, that under the NSPoliteia system, human rights are a secondary consideration subordinate to the degree of pluralism present in a nation's system. Thus, nations classified as authoritarian regimes under other systems, such as real-life Russia, may end up being classified as open anocracies due to their political systems, and vice-versa.
With all that said, here is the NSPoliteia Questionnaire. Answer honestly. NS stats do not have to be used.
For a better-informed decision, try reading the different Concepts included above.
- Code: Select all
This index has been concluded. If you wish to apply, wait for the upcoming NSPoliteia II index.
NOTE: A nation's factbooks and other sources of national information may be used as additional sources to help determine their Concepts.
Note to new applicants: Try explaining your political system further in Section V in order to make your score easier to determine, as some answers are vague and/or conflicting. Try reading the Concepts as well.