The Economist's “Democracy Index” measures the state of democracies and ranks 165 countries and two territories. The determination is made based on 60 indicators grouped into five categories: electoral process and pluralism, the functioning of the government, political participation, political culture, and civil liberties. Based on the score, a country is categorised as a full democracy, flawed democracy, hybrid regime, or an authoritarian regime.
This rating is the most widely accepted barometer of democracy amongst academics and journalists. The evaluation, however, is not holistic; it provides a limited understanding of democratic society and ignores social, economic and political factors that influence the success of democracy in the region. The disparity is evident in an analysis of the South Asian region. Except for India, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, all countries in South Asia score less than the world average, which is 5.44.
|
Country |
Rank |
Categorisation |
|
Afghanistan |
141 |
Authoritarian Regime |
|
India |
51 |
Flawed Democracy |
|
Pakistan |
108 |
Hybrid Regime |
|
Bangladesh |
80 |
Hybrid Regime |
|
Sri Lanka |
69 |
Flawed Democracy |
|
Nepal |
92 |
Hybrid Regime |
|
Bhutan |
91 |
Hybrid Regime |
|
Maldives |
- |
- |
The report does not aptly capture the status of democratic sentiments in the region as it ignores certain crucial factors, such as the socio-political realities of the country, in its analysis. It therefore fails to contextualise the concept of democratic governance by using the same set of indicators to rank countries that are incomparable to begin with. While the ranking itself is not in question, the indicators used to establish each country's score give a skewed perception of governance in the region. The report fails to account for the difference in models of governance and the priorities of the administrations in each region.
This misguided 'one-size-fits-all' approach is illustrated in the report's understanding of democracies South Asia; it concludes that democratic institutions and governance in the region is on the downfall. Contrary to the report's conclusion, South Asian countries are experiencing a rise in democratic principles. Currently, all countries in the region have a popularly elected government. The region has also seen a surge in principles like constitutionalism, multiparty governance, and the rule of law. These concepts are taken for granted in most developed countries. However, for South Asia countries, with their history of authoritarian governments, the inculcation of these principles is a major step in their social development.
For instance, Pakistan’s recent election saw increased public participation through election rallies, social media, and protests. The Maldives witnessed a coalition of the opposition to overthrow the authoritarian President Abdullah Yameen, showing the rise of multiparty governance in the country.
The number of political parties participating in elections in South Asian countries is also one the rise. This shows a positive trend in both democratic competitiveness and plurality in political representation. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, 84 and 120 political parties participated in the recent elections respectively. Nepal, saw nine major parties win seats in the legislature.
Additionally, there has been an overall increase in voter turnout in South Asia. Out of a population of 1.8 billion in the region, 427.76 million successfully voted in their respective elections. Afghanistan and Bangladesh showed drastic improvements in this aspect. Participation in Afghanistan rose from 35.14% in 2010 to 45.4% in 2019. In Bangladesh, the voter turnout rose to 80% from 51.37% in 2014. A rise in voter participation is directly linked to a reduction in alienation from the government of the country. It also reflects an increase in the voters’ trust in the democratic system's ability to fulfill their interests.
The fundamental shortcoming of the index is its inability to contextualise the nature of administration in the region. Each country has a unique system of governance, driven by its own history and regional politics, and therefore cannot be judged on the same scale. For instance, the Democracy Index has constantly reduced the score of France owing to the excessive powers given to the duly elected President as compared to the Parliament. Hence, the model of democratic governance adopted by France is fundamentally in conflict with the understanding of a democracy according to the index.
Additionally, the ranking does not consider the societal expectations of the government. For example, Middle Eastern societies value Islamic notions of community and solidarity over principles of liberal democracy. Hence, their expectations from their administration cannot be equated to those of the European societies.
The failure to consider societal expectations is reflected in India's drop in the 2019 index. The report argues that this can be attributed to India's abrogation of the special status afforded to Jammu and Kashmir and the implementation of the National Register for Citizens in Assam.
However, both these issues had been specifically addressed in the Bhartiya Janata Party’s national manifesto in 2019 and Assam’s state manifesto in 2016. Thus, the parameters used to analyze the level of democracy in a nation are at odds with each other in that they require government policies to be both liberal and representative of the interests of the population. If a popularly elected ruling party in a representative democracy implements a campaign promise, this implies an implicit agreement of the general population. Thus, it becomes difficult to term the abrogation of Article 370 or the implementation of NCR as undemocratic, in that the people voted for a party that promised to implement these policies.
The ranking also fails to consider the influence of the economic development on perpetuation and consolidation of democratic principles. The economic development of a region directly impacts the sustenance of democratic institutions. Better economies are known to have a better redistribution of wealth due to stronger private sector actors and higher levels of education. This then leads to the emergence of democratic values such as political autonomy and personal freedoms and choice.
For countries in South Asia–which face pressing issues such as income inequality, socio-economic development, and population growth– the priorities of the administration are different. Hence, using the same indicators for analysis leads to an incomplete understanding of the motives and principles of governance in these countries.
The region also has a unique socio-political situation; there are several border and security concerns in the region. For example, India has an issue of insurgency from Bangladesh and Pakistan. Pakistan, too, faces security threats from India and Afghanistan. Hence, armed forces in the region are awarded extensive power and are heavily funded. The volatility of the region is a significant reason for the political influence of the military in both Pakistan and Bangladesh.
Additionally, South Asia is known for its diversity in religious beliefs, practices, and identities. Hence, the region is prone to sub-national movements, ethnic conflicts, and violent protests. The Northern European countries, which are considered “full democracies”, are highly homogenous spaces. In Norway for example, which has the highest score in the report, the Sami minority population accounts for just 1.2% of the population, while immigrants account for just 16.8%. Yet, immigrants are known to have lower salaries than Norwegian citizens. However, since they comprise such a highly minuscule part of the population, Norway's ranking is unaffected by this.
While various indexes that rank countries based on the success of democratic institutions exist, what needs to be acknowledged is the individuality of each region and the countries within it. The formulation of any objective ranking or scoring system cannot fully capture the unique and diverse nature of governance in each country using the same parameters for each. This is especially true for South Asia, whose unique history and present make it virtually impossible to export traditional models used analyse the successes and failures of governments. Hence, a ranking system with region-specific indicators must be established to successfully understand the performance of democratic institutions in countries across the world.
References:
Bush, S. (2017). Should We Trust Democracy Ratings? New Research Finds Hidden Biases. Washington Post. Accessed on 6 February, 2020 at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/11/07/why-do-we-trust-certain-democracy-ratings-new-research-explains-hidden-biases/.
Jha, A. (2019). Measuring South Asian Democracy: An Assessment of 2018. South Asian Voices. Accessed on 6 February, 2020 at https://southasianvoices.org/measuring-south-asian-democracy-an-assessment-of-2018/.
Manish, S. (2019). India Moves Up a Rank On The Economist’s Democracy Index 2018. Business Standard. Accessed on 6 February, 2020 at https://www.business-standard.com/article/economy-policy/india-moves-up-a-rank-on-the-economist-s-democracy-index-2018-119010900782_1.html.
Parthasarthy, G. (2018). Democracy Booster Shot in South Asia. The Hindu Business Line. Accessed on 6 February, 2020 at https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/columns/g-parthasarathy/democracy-booster-shot-in-south-asia/article25835268.ece#.
Pei, M. (1999). Economic Institutions, Democracy and Development. Carnegie Endowment. Accessed on 6 February, 2020 at https://carnegieendowment.org/1999/02/26/economic-institutions-democracy-and-development-pub-66.
PTI. (2018). India Slips to 42nd Place on EIU Democracy Index; US at 21. Economic Times. Accessed on 6 February, 2020 at https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/india-slips-to-42nd-place-on-eiu-democracy-index-us-at-21/articleshow/62724396.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst.
PTI. (2020). India Falls to 51st Position in EIU’s Democracy Index. Economic Times. Accessed on 6 February, 2020 at https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/india-falls-to-51st-position-in-eius-democracy-index/articleshow/73519661.cms.
Tasker, P. (2016). Peter Tasker: The Flawed ‘Science’ Behind Democracy Rankings. Nikkei Asian Review. Accessed on 6 February, 2020 at https://asia.nikkei.com/NAR/Articles/Peter-Tasker-The-flawed-science-behind-democracy-rankings.
Baqai, H. (2005). Democratic Deficit in South Asia. Pakistan Horizon, Vol. 58, No. 4 (October 2005), 43-52.
Bollen, K.A. (1980). Issues in the Comparative Measurement of Political Democracy. American Sociological Review, Vol. 45, No. 3 (Jun., 1980), 370-390.
Christie, K. (1998). Illiberal Democracy, Modernisation and Southeast Asia. A Journal OF Social and Political Theory, No. 91, Frontiers of Thought (June 1998), 102-118.
Ganguly, S. (2007). India’s Unlikely Democracy: Six Decades of Independence. Journal of Democracy, Vol. 18 No. 2 (April 2007), 30-40.
Ganguly, S. (2017). India’s Democracy at 70: The Troublesome Security State. Journal of Democracy, Vol. 28, No. 3 (July 2017), 117-126.
Ginzberg, E. (2017). The economist intelligence unit's democracy index vs. countries’ own perceptions. Cogito: Multidisciplinary Research Journal, 9(3), 34-41.
Kekic, L. (2007). The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Index of Democracy. Economist Intelligence Unit.
Kurki, M. (2010). Democracy and Conceptual Contestability: Reconsidering Conceptions of Democracy in Democracy Promotion. International Studies Review, Vol. 12, No. 3 (September 2010), 362-386.
The Economist. (2019) Democracy Index 2019: A Year of Democratic Setbacks and Popular Protests. (pp. 1-69). London: The Economist.
Image Source: George 2018