Asia Democracy Index

Myanmar ranks at the bottom; Japan tops the Asia Democracy Index 2005

OVERVIEW
by Paul D. Scott, Ph. D.

Introduction
The Asia Democracy Index (ADI) has been designed to more accurately survey, measure, evaluate, and report on the scope of political freedoms as perceived by Asians. This survey is the first of its kind where “politically aware” individuals have been asked to assess the level of democratic development of their respective political systems. This is in contrast to relying on the views of experts from outside the region, in particular, those from Western countries.

Many of the existing indexes that rank governments on various political variables examine only the externalities and the visible structures of governmental processes. As a result, these studies may not accurately reflect the real political situations in Asia. The ADI seeks to address these shortcomings and in so doing provide a more nuanced perspective about the state of democracy in the various societies. Overall, existing indexes tend to suffer from one or more of the following problems:

One, excessive reliance on information provided by governments. Because of this, many of the more critical dimensions of society, including the views of minority and non-mainstream sectors, are often hidden from fact-finding missions who often find themselves being led and briefed by governments. By polling the citizens, the ADI overcomes the problem of relying only on information provided by the state.

Two, over-reliance on economic indicators. To circumvent the problem of mixing up economic indicators with political ones, the present study polls its respondents exclusively on democracy and human rights statements. It is acknowledged that democratic development may well enhance economic growth and vice versa. For the purposes of the ADI, however, the focus is on assessing states according to how much they respect and practice that system of government which best guarantees political freedom and human rights.

Three, adoption of a non-prescriptive approach. Another strength of the Index is that it is not only descriptive and analytical, but also prescriptive. The partner organisations have been asked to proffer solutions for the problems cited in their reports.

Four, polling communities that may have little understanding and knowledge of the countries being studied. A survey is conditioned by the nature of the questions asked as well as the make-up of the respondents. Asking the foreign business community about the political openness of a country is vastly different than asking the local civil society. By relying on citizens living in the country for their views, the ADI ensures that its respondents are familiar with the systems that they are asked to rate. In addition, the ADI will rank Asian governments according to their democratic or authoritarian practices. This will provide a snapshot of which governments are making progress as far as democracy is concerned.

The Survey Design Team comprising of academics, activists, lawyers and political consultants was assembled in Taipei, Taiwan in January 2005. The team identified the areas of study and formulated the survey items. It was decided that the following aspects of democracy would be assessed: “Civil Rights”, “Elections and Political Processes”, “Governance and Corruption”, “Media”, “Rule of law,' and “Participation and Representation”. Each category is further defined by more detailed statements. Respondents were then asked to rate their political systems according to how much they agreed or disagreed with these statements.

The difficulties of finding reliable country partners coupled with the logistics of conducting the survey over such a large and diverse region were enormous. Nevertheless, the ADI Team managed to identify local partner organisations and individuals who were then tasked with conducting the survey. These organisations were also asked to interpret the results of the poll as well as to write a country report. Each country report consists of a country profile, a brief description of the political system, presentation and interpretation of the survey results, and recommendations for the development of democracy.

Methodology
Sampling method and sample size. The sampling size depended on the capacity and various political conditions in each country. In principle, the partner organisation would survey samples as diverse as possible. The minimum number of respondents each country had to poll was 100.

A total of 16 countries/territories were surveyed: Bangladesh, Cambodia, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Mongolia, Myanmar (the name Myanmar has been used to reflect the political climate of those living under the current regime. In no way does the use of the name Myanmar denote any recognition of legitimacy), Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, and Thailand. The following countries were not included due to budget constraints, security problems, or the lack of country partners: Afghanistan, Brunei, China, India, Laos, North Korea, Tibet, Timor Lestè, and Vietnam.


Geographically, Asia begins (or ends) in Gaza. Which countries were included in this edition of the Asia Democracy Index depended on the exigencies of budget and time constraints as well as the ability to contact survey partners. In closed polities like Brunei, China, Laos, North Korea and Vietnam it was impossible to ensure the safety of those conducting the survey or writing the report. For India and Timor Lestè, the issue was also one of time and budget. In China, there was discussion over using the Internet as way to conduct the survey but we could not guarantee safety and security. In Afghanistan we had reliable country partners but unfortunately the budget for this first ADI did not allow us to have the survey conducted there.  Thus, not including these countries in this report was not an oversight but rather a consideration of time. There could even be a debate over whether Australia and New Zealand should be included as "Asian" nations.


It is hoped that in the 2007 Index we will be able to include every country east of Pakistan.


Survey period. Surveys were implemented within a five-month period between February and June 2005.


Survey method. The following categories and items were given to each partner organisation. An explanation of the purpose and methodology of ADI was also given to each country partner by mail or in person. The respondents were assured that neither their names nor any information identifying them would be disclosed or used for other purposes.

1. Civil Rights
1.1 People can openly question and discuss official policy without fear.

1.2 The government allows citizens to demonstrate peacefully.

1.3 Civic association and political organisations can freely organize, mobilize, and advocate their views.

2. Elections and Political Processes
2.1 Voters can freely choose their preferred candidates/parties without interference.

2.2 There is free and fair competition among political parties.

2.3 The election authorities and election officials are independent, impartial, and effective in guaranteeing free and fair elections.

2.4 There is a legitimate, non-arbitrary, transparent process to amend the constitution and laws.

2.5 External interference is a significant problem in our political process.

3. Governance and Corruption
3.1 The government’s decision-making is transparent.

3.2 Elected officials and civil servants are held accountable for their actions.

3.3 The government is responsive to the public interest.

4. Media
4.1 The media is free and independent from government or other sources.

4.2 Journalists and the media present a diversity of political views.

4.3 The media contributes positively to democracy.

4.4 Journalists have adequate access to public information.

5. Rule of Law
5.1 The judicial system effectively protects human rights and democratic principles.

5.2 Constitutional and legal arrangements guarantee democratic process in practice.

5.3 All military, police, and security forces are subject to civilian control.

6. Participation & Representation
6.1 Political parties provide an effective avenue for citizens’ participation in politics.

6.2 Political parties adequately represent the interest of their constituents.

6.3 Civil society organisations effectively promote the public interest.

6.4 The rights and interests of vulnerable and threatened groups are adequately represented in the political system.

Overall Results
The average percentage score for all the countries/territories studied is 46.73%. This is not a strong score and demonstrates the overall weakness of democratisation in Asia. It would be interesting to see what score some of the other regions such as the European Union, Latin America, Africa, United States, etc. would get. Would Norway score 95? Would Zambia score higher than Myanmar?

The ranking of the countries shows Japan as the most democratic Asian state and Myanmar the least. These findings are hardly surprising. There are, however, four noteworthy observations:


One, Singapore ranks second from the bottom, just one place higher than Myanmar. In fact, Singapore comes in at last but one in the categories of “Civil Rights”, “Media”, “Rule of Law”, and “Participation and Representation”. This may surprise many who are not familiar with island-state's politics. Yet, the results of the ADI dispels the myth and shows Singapore for what it really is, a highly repressive society.

Two, Hong Kongers rank their own system as the second most democratic country after Japan. With the elections system denying universal suffrage to the voters, it is surprising that the Hong Kong respondents feels so upbeat about the Special Administrative Region. On the other, the finding can be explained by the fact that despite the undemocratic elections system, Hong Kongers seem to enjoy a high degree of political freedom.

Three, South Korea comes in at number 10. South Korea has always been at the forefront in championing for democracy. It thus seems strange that it ranks in the bottom half of the countries polled. A closer look at the South Korean country report will shed some light.

Four, the situation in Nepal is much harder to explain. The recent powergrab by King Gyanendra seemed to have had a polarising effect on the populace. This could account for the higher percentage scores for some of the categories even though the country's ranking is a dismal third from the bottom.

Apart from the production of the report, the ADI had the effect of linking democratic groups together in mutual support and awareness. ARDA itself was able to establish rapport with its partner organisations. As a consequence, there was a reinforcement of shared views and values.

Another consequence of conducting the ADI was the training of groups and individuals in carrying out the survey and collecting the data. While some groups like Pattan Development, Zorig Foundation, Burmese American Democratic Alliance (BADA) and Neutral and Impartial Commission for Free and Fair Elections NICFEC) were experienced in conducting surveys, other groups were new to the process. The less experienced partner organisations nevertheless performed their tasks admirably and, in the process, gained valuable training. With time, organisations trained in conducting democracy surveys and analyses will be developed in Asia.

On a less positive note, certain countries like Afghanistan, China, Laos, India, North Korea, Timor Lest? and Vietnam were not included in this study. This was due to a variety of factors including budget constraints and political restrictions. Future ADI reports will strive to include these countries.

Special mention must be made of BADA. Although the ADI had ruled out Myanmar because of perceived difficulties of implementing the survey in the country, BADA insisted on going ahead with the project. The risks the organisation took is testimony to the determination BADA to provide the international community with invaluable insights and information about the political situation in Myanmar.

The ADI Team had difficulty in finding partner organisations in Hong Kong, Japan and South Korea. Some organisations that ARDA approached in these countries said that the survey may portray these countries as unrealistically democratic. Others said that the questions were unsuitable or that the survey was too political.

How each country scores on the six categories and the country/territory reports are found in the hard copy of the Asia Democracy Index Report 2005. Please write to ARDA to request for the full report.