towards constructing an egyptian democracy index€¦ · noha abed deputy director, scc ... towards...

The Social Contract Center

August 2014

Towards Constructing An Egyptian Democracy Index

(A glance on the International Indexes)

By : Mai Maher ElGammalGovernance Specialist

2014

Mahmoud El KholyDirector, SCC

Noha AbedDeputy Director, SCC

Governance & Anti-Corruption UnitYasmin Khodary, PhD.MahUnit Head

Mai El Gammal

Quality Control UnitNadia Abd El AzimUnit Head

Communication UnitWesam GhaziUnit Head

Aya Noureldeen

Towards Constructing An Egyptian Democracy Index

(A glance on the International Indexes)


Towards Constructing an Egyptian Democracy Index ( A Glance on the International Indexes) Towards Constructing an Egyptian Democracy Index ( A Glance on the International Indexes)

2

Introduction ..............................................................................................................

1. What is Democracy? ................................................................................. • Definition ........................................................................................................................ • Types of Democracy ........................................................................................................ • Democracy Components ................................................................................................. • Requirements of Democracy ........................................................................................... • Advantages & Disadvantages of Democracy ...................................................................

2. Democracy Measurements & Indexes ............................................................. • Why Measuring Democracy? .................................................................................. o International Assessment ............................................................................................. o National Self-Assessment ............................................................................................. • International Democracy Indexes ........................................................................... o Democracy Index (Economic Intelligence Unit - The Economist) .................................. o Arab Democracy Index (Barometer) - Arab Reform Initiative ........................................ o Freedom in the World - Freedom House ....................................................................... o Transformation Index BTI - Bertelsmann Stiftung ......................................................... o Polity IV - Maryland University (USA) ........................................................................... o Worldwide Governance Indicators - World Bank ........................................................... o Afrobarometer ............................................................................................................... o Ibrahim Index of African Governance (IIAG) .................................................................. o Fragile States Index - FSI (Fund for Peace) ..................................................................... o World Audit for Democracy and Human Rights (World ConcernInstitute - UK) ............ o Global Democracy Ranking (Democracy Ranking Association - Vienna) ....................... • Other International and National Sources of Indicators Related to Democracy ........... • Challenges and Criticism of Democracy Measurements ...........................................

3. Towards Constructing an Egyptian Democracy Index (Major Highlights) .................. • A Proposed General Framework for Constructing an Egyptian Democracy Index ...........

Conclusion ................................................................................................................

References ................................................................................................................

Table of contents

3

555678

111111111313161819212224252729303134

3537

39

40

Towards Constructing an Egyptian Democracy Index ( A Glance on the International Indexes)

3

Democracy is an old universal principle, which is having different practices and implications in each

country according to its social, political, and economic systems, and the evolution of these systems

as well.

Although there are many definitions and applications for democracy in each country according to its

political, social, economic context, however, there is a consensus that democracy must be built on

“The rule of people” and according to the values of “freedom, equality, rule of law, participation,

and accountability” which foster political and social consensus, stability, and development. It is

worth mentioning that democracy is not an end in itself, but it is a means for reaching bigger goals.

Many are restricting democracy to elections, although fair and free elections are very important

components to give people voice and select their own representatives, yet democracy is a day to

day activity for each citizen that is associated to values, process and practices.

Applying democracy is very challenging especially in countries in transitional phases, post revolution,

or post conflict and in countries with turbulent nature. However, democracy is necessary to ensure

that citizens have a voice in their countries and have the right to choose, to monitor, to hold their

governments accountable and to replace them. It is a guarantee for citizens to have equal political

and civil rights, freedom of speech and security.

In the current phase of Egypt’s history and since Egypt’s revolution in 2011, when people went

to streets calling for “bread, freedom, social justice, and human dignity”, democracy became

a necessity for reform, and for building the new state “which believes in democracy as a path, a

future, and a mode of living” as was mentioned in the Egyptian constitution in 2014.

Although there are lots of efforts to measure democracy and formulate international democracy

indexes worldwide, yet most of these efforts adopt the concept of “one size fits all” as they do not

take into consideration the specifity and the nature of each country and the differences in their

political, economic, social, and institutional systems.

Based on this, a great need arised to define democracy, set democratic standards and measure

democracy on a national basis, and develop a national homemade democracy index that fits the

national context, and the political, social, economic, institutional, and legal system in Egypt.

Introduction


4

Developing this index nationally will make a sense of ownership for reform; and not only for improving

Egypt’s image outside and compete with other countries, but rather to enable monitoring and

tracking the level of democracy in Egypt over time and according to political, social and economic

changes.

This paper aims to set a general framework for an Egyptian democracy index that takes into consid-

eration the pillars of democracy within the national context. Such framework is set in the light of

democracy indexes and measurements that are conducted by international and regional organizations.

The paper consists of three parts. The first part tackles the definition of democracy; its components,

values, standards, requirements and challenges, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of

democracy. The second part reviews democracy measurements and indexes that are conducted at

international levels, and presents a brief overview of their methodologies and Egypt’s score on each

one of them. The third and last part presents major highlights for an Egyptian democracy index

that should be agreed upon through a participatory consultation and discussions which engage

different stakeholders to identify the most important areas and components that the index should

tackle, ending up by proposing a general framework for Egypt’s Democracy Index.


5

Definition There are many definitions of democracy, but they all come from the broad and general definition

which is “The rule of the people”1

. Another specific definition is “government by the people in

which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected

agents under a free electoral system.” In a phrase of Abraham Lincoln, “democracy is a government

of the people, by the people, and for the people.”2

However, democracy is not only about the selection of representatives and ruling the state, as many

scholars limited democracy to voting and election, but democracy is a day to day activity that affects

citizen’s life and organize the state – citizens relationship, and citizens-citizens relationship based on

values of pluralism, freedom, equality, respect of human rights, building consensus, tolerance, and

strengthening the majority rule, while respecting minority rights.

There are lots of ways to classify democracies; the most common way is to classify them to: direct

democracy, and representative democracy:

Direct democracy: Is applied within small groups, where all the people gather together and make

a direct voting to make a decision. This is the original form of democracy, where no intermediaries

exist, and each citizen has equal right to vote and influence decisions directly. However, this system

is hard to implement except in small groups.

Representative democracy: As political communities changed and evolved, the second major type

of democracy evolved too, where an intermediary political actor is assigned between the individual

and the policy outputs of the state. Through an electoral process, one person or a group of people

are elected and assigned with the task of making decisions on behalf of the group of citizens that

they represent. It is worth mentioning that while the power of individual diminished slightly, political

representatives are still beholden to the group that they represent, also known as their “constituency.”

These types of democracy are practiced according to each state’s system, whether it is parliamentary,

presidential, or mixed system.

Types of Democracy 3

1 Gerardo L. MUNCK, Jay Verkuilen, «Conceptualizing and Measuring Democracy: Evaluating Alternative Indices», Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 35 No. 1, February 2002. http://dingo.sbs.arizona.edu/~ggoertz/qmir/munck_verkuilen2002.pdf2 Howard Cincotta, «What is Democracy?», U.S. Department of State›s Bureau of International Information Programs, 1998.: http://www.ait.org.tw/infousa/zhtw/docs/whatsdem/whatdm2.htm3 The Saylor Foundation: http://www.saylor.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/POLSC221-4.1.5-TypesDem-FINAL.pdf

1 - what’s democracy ?


6

Democracy Components 4

According to the UN General Assembly resolution in 2004, there are seven essential elements for any

country to be democratic, which are:

Separation and balance of power: Means the independence of the legislative, executive and

judiciary authorities, and the separation of power between them. Although each political

system (presidential or parliamentary) designs the relationship between the executive and

the legislative bodies, democracy stresses on not to concentrate the power in one body in

order to give the chance to the parliament or the legislative body to monitor the performance

of the government (executive body) and to set it accountable.

Independence of the judiciary: It is a very essential component in democracy because the

independence of judiciary from the executive and legislative body guarantees the process

of accountability, the settlement of the disputes over elections violations and resolution of

internal conflicts. Moreover, equality in front of the law and law enforcement enhances the

status of democratic states.

A pluralistic system of political parties and organizations: The existence of a system that

guarantees freedom of formulation of parties, unions, and other civil society organizations

which allows pluralism and ensure representation of all the groups in the political life.

Respect for the rule of law: Where everyone is equal in front of the law. And rules and laws

are binding and enforceable. The judiciary also is independent and impartial.

Accountability and transparency: People have the right to access information about the

activities of the government, to monitor its activities, and to set the government accountable.

Free, independent and pluralistic media: Media freedom is important for democracy, as

it serves all other democracy aspects. In particular, a free media plays an essential role in

guaranteeing the freedom of expression and freedom of information, both of which are

necessary for facilitating the effective participation of citizens in democratic processes,

transparency and accountability.

Respect for human and political rights: This includes freedoms of association and expression

and the right to vote and to get elected.

o

o

o

o

o

o

o

4 Michael Meyer-Resende,» International Consensus: Essential Elements of Democracy», Democracy Reporting International (DRI), October 2011. http://www.democracy-reporting.org/files/essential_elements_of_democracy_2.pdf


7

Requirements of DemocracyMany scholars and politicians claim that democracy is a double edged weapon, and it has many

consequences, especially if it is applied in countries that are not ready for democracy yet. This claim

caused many countries to delay its democratic transition fearing chaos and collapse of the state,

international interference and occupation, civil war, terrorism and violence, division of the society

and partition of the state. Although all these fears are legitimate yet they are not an excuse to

delay democracy, violate human rights, restrict freedom, and overlook rule of law. Moreover, some

countries do not put democracy on their priority agenda, especially if they are suffering from poverty,

illiteracy and many other economic, social and political problems.

On contrary, other scholars have adopted another point of view: that democracy is an engine for

development and we do not have to wait till states be ready for democracy, rather countries can

adopt democracy by practicing.

To have a healthy democratic society there are some important supporting elements that help in

fostering democratic transition such as: civic education, women empowerment, supporting the civil

society organizations like: labor unions, student unions, political parties, NGOs, local independent

press and citizen Journalism.5

Scholars have stated some political, economic and cultural prerequisites

that enhance establishing democracy such as6

:

Constitution and laws: Existence of an enforced constitution and laws that guarantee democratic

standards, human rights, freedom, and equality.

Institutions: Existence of strong independent institutions: government, civil society organizations,

and private sector.

Culture: Having a culture of democracy is very essential. This culture can be built by education and

raising awareness of people about their rights and responsibilities, respect, compromise, tolerance….

Economy: Poverty is the main challenge for democracy, as it hinders democratic practicing and people

rights to choose freely. From another side, when democracy expands, development increases, as it

was proved that a country which switches from non-democracy to democracy achieves an increase

of about 20% in GDP per capita over the subsequent three decades7

.

5 Bahram Maskanian, «The Six Essential Components For Democracy», The Venues Project Foundation: http://www.venusproject.org/keywords/the-six-essential-components-for-democracy.html6 Roger D. Congleton, «Economic and Cultural Prerequisites for Democracy», Rational Foundations of Democratic, Cambridge University Press , 2003: http://www.rdc1.info/forthcoming/dempre.pdf. And Axel Hadenius, Jan Teorell, «Cultural and Economic Prerequisites of Democracy:Reas-sessing Recent Evidence», Studies in Comparative International Development, 2003: http://pschmid.net/ir127/old/SCIDexample.pdf7 Daron Acemoglu and others, «Democracy Causes Economic Development?», VOX Research Bases Policy Analysis, and commentary from leading economists, May 2014. http://www.voxeu.org/article/democracy-and-growth-new-evidence


8

Advantages and disadvantages of Democracy 8

Advantages of Democracy

« No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is

the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time ,

There is no perfect form of government, but any other form of government than democracy has more

disadvantages than democracy. Until today, no other form of government has better implications on

public affairs than democracy9 »

The former British Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)

Peacful transition of authority: Democracy can offer smooth and peaceful transition between

governments, without crises, violence, or revolution. Where in a democratic system authority

can be reassigned from one party to another by elections.

Stability and responsibility of administration: Democracy makes public administration more

stable and efficient because the system is based on independent, stable and responsible

institutions which provide equal and efficient services for people regardless of the tenure of

the elected government.

Avoid Monopoly: As democracy ensures pluralism and the rule of people, even when the

majority win the elections, the minority rights have to be protected too, that is why democracy

ensures that no party or group of people will monopolize authority.

Serves the citizens interest based on public will: Elected government has a feeling of gratitude

to its citizens who trusted and chose it and a feeling of commitment and responsibility towards

them. It also works in favor of its citizens, not in favor of its own interests. It is argued that

social, economic and political interests of the individuals are served better under democratic

systems.

Social responsibility of the citizens: When citizens participate in choosing their own

government or removing it, they have the sense of control, belonging, and ownership. This

stimulates citizens to participate more and work more.

Enhance equality: Democracy is based on equality. All members of the state enjoy equal

social, political and economic rights and the state cannot discriminate between them on the

basis of religion, sex, ethnicity, economic status, or political views…etc.

o

o

o

o

o

o

8 Tusha Gupta, «What Are The Advantages And Disadvantages Of Democracy?», Preserve Article For Eternity: http://www.preservearticles.com/2012051632245/what-are-the-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-democracy.html , And Mansi Chitranshi, «Advantages and Disadvantages of Democracy», INFOJUG, March 2006: http://www.infojug.com/articles/advantages-and-disadvantages-of-democracy.html9 Markus G. Jud, «Definition of Democracy», Democracy Building, 2004. http://www.democracy-building.info/definition-democracy.html


9

Disadvantages of Democracy

Democracy is a school for citizens: Democracy serves as a training school for citizens. When

people have the right to vote and to take the responsibility to choose and when they feel that

their voice counts, they will be more eager to read, learn and know about their representatives,

political parties programs, public policy agenda.This creates political consciousness among

the people.

o

Rule of the incompetent: While every citizen has equal right to choose his elected government,

many citizens may not have enough information about the political circumstances, especially

when illiteracy rate is high in some countries. This may lead to wrong choices in selection.

Scholars say it is government selected by amateurs.

Quantity VS Quality: When there are high turnover rates among governments and elected

representatives, these governments might lose focus and start to work hard to gain the next

election, instead of working for the sake of the citizens. In this case they might focus on

prestigious projects that make more propaganda or quick win benefits, rather than important

and more sustainable projects, i.e. focusing on quantity over quality.

The influence of the group: A further disadvantage of democracy is that people are affected

in their decisions by their groups (religious, tribes, family…..) regardless of whether what

they think is right or wrong. Moreover, the majority who won will serve the interests and

priorities of their parties and groups and not the actual needs required by the society.

The myth of equality: Some scholars argued that equality is not fair because it goes against

the rule of nature as people are not equal, they differ in their abilities, talents…etc. so it is not

fair to treat them on equal footing.

High voting turnout rate: Voters might go to vote out of feeling of responsibility or because

they are convinced of their candidates. But if citizens lost their interest, or trust in the

elections, they will not participate, so there will be high voting turnout rate.

Immoral practices: In the election process, where many candidates compete, this may open

the door for corrupt and unethical practices, starting from bribes, cheating, and assassination…

etc.

Democracy is a government of the rich: There is a claim that modern democracy is capitalistic,

where money speaks louder. The rich candidates purchase votes and control the media and

the public opinion.

o

o

o

o

o

o

o


10

Misuse of money and time: There is an argument that democracy is a waste of time and

resources because it is costly to adopt a participatory approach and build consensus among

citizens to pass a law or take a decision in a participatory way. Moreover, a lot of money is

spent during elections propaganda and campaigns.

Hard to reach consensus: When no party gets absolute majority, coalition governments

are formed, where conflict of interest and clashes happen which make high turnover of

governments.

Dictatorship of majority: Although democracy is meant to eliminate monopoly, yet

democracy may establish dictatorship of majority. While the majority is required to safeguard

the interests of the minority yet in actual practice it does not. After winning election the

majority forms the government and they exclude the opposition and minorities, further they

may oppress them.

o

o

o


11

Why Measuring Democracy ?

• International Assessment

There was a new global trend to conceptualize and assess democracy and regimes performance in

order to conduct comparison between countries, ranking, labeling, “naming and shaming” 10

; creating

a tool for advocacy; raising awareness and pushing forward towards democratization. However many

scholars think it is not fair and not even possible to make comparison between countries because

each country has different economic, social, political and legal system.

On the other hand, the consequences of not conducting assessment and benchmarking are that

countries will never know where they stand and whether they are doing well or bad according to

democratic values. Moreover, we cannot control what we cannot measure and if we want to advocate

for more democracy among countries, this should be based on evidence and data.

It is worth mentioning that democracy assessment mainly started as a result of the flow of foreign

aid to promote democracy in many developing countries, which required an assessment mainly from

donors or from international community to measure the impact of those donors’ interventions from

one side, and to motivate countries to improve their image on democracy basis in order to get more

foreign assistance and stimulate investment.

• National Self-Assessment

From another side, many international initiatives encourage countries to undertake self-assessment,

so that there will be a kind of ownership of democracy, to improve their indicators and result in better

impact and policies, to improve their international image and to compete with other countries.

Self-assessment is essential because each country will set its definition of democracy and its priorities

and will conduct an assessment tailored to its legal, political, social, economic and institutional

conditions.

Many countries have conducted their own self-assessment for democratic governance with the help

of the United Nation Development Program 11

, Oslo Governance Center and International Institute for

Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) 12 that developed manuals and guidelines for democracy

assessment and provided technical support for countries to do self-assessment.

10 «Naming and Shaming»: The activity of saying publicly that a person, company, etc. has behaved in a bad or illegal way.11 Governance Assessment Portal – United Nations Development Program: http://gaportal.org/areas-of-governance/democracy12 International Institute of Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA): http://www.idea.int/

2 - Democracy Measurements & Indexes


12

It is worth mentioning that some of the countries that undertook a national self-assessment exercise

of democracy managed to adopt an action plan for reform to avoid the drawbacks that arise in the

assessment (such as problems in transparency, accountability, fighting corruption, development of

civil society…) also each country managed to decide which area of democracy and governance it

wants to focus on as an entry point for reform.

For example some of these countries focused on parliament formulation and elections while others

focused on local governance and democracy. Moreover, the continuity and sustainability of the

assessment was assured as national led assessment continued to be conducted regularly after raising

the demand on the data collected from the scholars, politicians, media, activists, parliamentarians,

and government officials themselves. 13

In the next part we are going to review some of the international democracy indexes that were

conducted by international organizations and point to Egypt’s score and rank on them, in addition to

illustrate the challenges that face these indexes in assessment and finally try to draw major highlights

for Egypt’s democracy index that is nationally conducted.

13 Hasbat Hula, «Assessing Oneself: The Case of Mongolia», Governance Assessment Portal, United Nations Development Program, 2007. http://gaportal.org/resources/detail/assessing-oneself-the-case-of-mongolia


13

International Democracy Indexes• Democracy Index (Economic Intelligence Unit (EIU)-The Economist)

14

Democracy Index is one of the most famous indexes for measuring democracy. It is produced by

“The Economist Intelligence Unit” based in London, UK, which is an independent business affiliated

to a multinational media company that provides economic and financial analysis. The democracy

index measures democracy in 167 countries. The index focuses on 5 major topics which are:

14 The Economist Intelligence Unit: http://www.eiu.com/public/topical_report.aspx?campaignid=DemocracyIndex2011

Electoral process and pluralism: That measures (free and fair election, free and fairpolitical

practices in constitution, in parties and civic organizations formulation).

Civil liberties: That measures (existence of free media and internet, freedom of expression

and protest, the non- existence of torture by the state, the independence of the judiciary,

religion tolerance, , equality between citizens, protected property rights, personal freedom,

non - existence of discrimination among citizens).

Functioning of government: It measures (responsibility and authority of government

and its sovereignty and power, existence of accountability mechanisms, and people’s

confidence in the government).

Political participation: It measures (voter participation and turn out rate, participation

of women and minorities, participation in civic, political practices and peaceful

demonstrations).

Political culture: It measures (level of consensus and cohesion in the society, perception

of leadership, military rule, rule by experts and technocrats, perception of democracy and

religious institutes).

•

•

•

•

•


14

These 5 categories are based on 60 indicators (questions), mainly collected from expert interviews

and supported by some data from public opinion surveys. The index measurement took place in

2006, 2008, 2010, 2011, and 2012. The indicators are a weighted average of the answers of the survey

questions, and represented on scale from 0 to 10 degrees, where 10 represents full democracy.

The scale of the analysis is classified to 4 categories (0-3.9 authoritarian regime15

), (4 – 5.9 Hybrid

regime16

), (6- 7.9 flawed democracy17

), and (8 -10 fully democratic8

).

15 Authoritarian regime: A regime that lacks political pluralism, civil liberties, free media, independent judiciary, fair and free elections. Although some formal institutions of democracy may exist, but these have little substance. 16 Hybrid regime: A regime that elections have substantial irregularities that often prevent them from being free and fair, government pressure on opposition parties, candidates and media. Serious weaknesses in political culture, functioning of government and political participation, rule of law, and civil society. Corruption tends to be widespread, and the judiciary is not independent.17 Flawed democracy: A regime of free and fair elections and even if there are problems (such as infringements of media freedom), basic civil liberties are respected. There are significant weaknesses in other aspects of democracy, including governance, political culture and political participation.18 Full democracies: Countries where political freedoms and civil liberties are respected, the functioning of government is satisfactory, media are independent. Checks and balances are effective; the judiciary decisions are independent and enforced. These definitions are extracted from: The Economist Intelligence Unit report: Democracy index 2012,Democracy at a standstill: https://portoncv.gov.cv/dhub/porton.por_global.open_file?p_doc_id=1034


15

If we look to Egypt’s score over time we can find that it increased from 3.90 in 2006 to 4.56 in 2012.

It is obvious that the political changes that took place in 2011 have made slight difference in Egypt

score, although it remains very week. This shows too with countries that made remarkable changes

like Tunisia. The Democracy Index report 2012 19 says “Despite the pro-democracy upheavals in the

region and improvement in the region’s average democracy score, the Middle East and North Africa

(MENA) remains the most repressive region in the world, 12 out of 20 countries in the region are

still categorized as authoritarian. Only in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and Yemen there has been a significant

progress in democratization. Elsewhere there has even been regression in reaction to popular

protests - most notably in Syria, but also in Bahrain and Lebanon”.

Egypt’s Score

In 2012 Democracy Index, Egypt ranked 109 of 167 countries with an overall score of 4.56 out of 10

(Hybrid regime). When we look to the category score, we can find that Egypt scored (the higher the

better):

• 3.42 out of 10 in Electoral process and pluralism.

• 4.64 out of 10 in Functioning of government.

• 5 out of 10 in political participation.

• 5.63 out of 10 in political culture.

• 4.12 out of 10 in Civil liberties.

19 Dmocracy Index -2012, A report from the Economist Intelligence Unit: http://www.eiu.com/public/topical_report.aspx?campaignid=Democ-racyIndex12


16

• Arab Democracy Index (Barometer) - Arab Reform Initiative 20

The Arab Democracy Index was established in 2005 by scholars from both the Arab world and the

United States of America. The Initiative was undertaken mainly by the University of Michigan and

Princeton University in the U.S. and by universities and research centers from some Arab countries

like Jordan, Palestine, Morocco, Algeria and Kuwait. In 2010, a partnership was formed with the Arab

Reform Initiative in order to expand the project’s scope and range of activities.

The Arab Barometer was also developed in consultation with Global Barometer Project, which is

a network composed of regional barometers in Latin America, Sub-Saharan Africa, East Asia and

South Asia. Like other regional Democracy Barometers, the objectives of the Arab Barometer are

to produce scientifically reliable data on the politically-relevant attitudes of ordinary citizens, to

disseminate and apply survey findings in order to contribute to political reform and to strengthen

institutional capacity for public opinion research.

The Arab Barometer was conducted in 3 phases: the first phase in 2006-2008, the second phase in

2009, and the third phase in 2013 (not published yet). The data is collected through various sources

of data and household surveys for at least 10 Arab states (Sudan, Tunisia, Iraq, Lebanon, Saudi

Arabia, Palestine, Jordan, Egypt, Algeria, Yemen). Country reports and regional comparative reports

are available.

The Arab Democracy Index uses two kinds of indicators: those that measure the means of democratic

transition (such as legislation) and those that measure the practices of democratic transition (such as

elections). The indicators are also divided into four categories, i.e. principles or values:

The Arab democracy index ranges from 0 to 1000 points (higher is better), where (0 - 399 is

undemocratic condition), (from 400 - 699 democratic tendencies), and (from 700 - 1000 advanced

democratic transition).

The strength and accountability of public institutions (e.g. the separation of powers or

the accountability of government).

Respect for rights and freedoms (e.g. the freedom of political parties or ability to organize

demonstrations and protests).

The rule of law (e.g. the independence of the judiciary or the non-prevalence of arbitrary

detention).

Equality and social justice (e.g. gender equality, illiteracy rates among men and women,

and the proportion of male and female university graduates).

•

•

•

•

20 Arab Reform Initiative: http://www.arab-reform.net/annual-reports, And Arab Barometer: http://www.arabbarometer.org/content/about-center


17

Egypt’s Score

Egypt scored 569 points out of 1000 in 2010, which means that it has (democratic tendencies), taking

into consideration that this assessment was conducted before the revolution in 2011. According to

the report “The State of Reform in the Arab World 2011”21

six indicators scored zero which are:

mistreatment of prisoners, trying civilians before military courts, violation of the constitutions,

obstructing political parties’ activities, and arresting people violently in demonstrations. Moreover,

Egypt scored higher points with regard to the availability of means of democracy, while it scored a

little bit lower points concerning the democratic practices.

On the regional level, Egypt ranked 8th among the 12 surveyed countries in 2010. It is worth

mentioning that it ranked second among the countries surveyed for the availability of means of

democracy, and the sixth when it comes to the practice level. The report recommendations were

mainly about respect for rights, freedoms, and the rule of law.

21 The State of Reform in the Arab World - 2011: http://www.arab-reform.net/sites/default/files/ari-rep11%20ang%20final%20.pdf


18

• Freedom in the World - Freedom House 22

Freedom in the World is a yearly survey conducted by Freedom House Organization (an independent

watchdog organization, founded in 1941 in the United States of America, dedicated to the expansion

of freedom around the world and advocating for democracy and human rights). Freedom in the

World attempts to measure the degree of democracy and political freedom in countries and many

disputed territories.

Freedom in the World was launched in 1973. It produces annual scores representing the levels of

political rights and civil liberties - on 195 countries, and 14 territory - on a scale from 1 (most free)

to 7 (least free). Depending on the ratings, the nations are then classified as “Free” (1.0-2.5), “Partly

Free” (2.51-5.5), or “Not Free” (5.51-7.0).

Egypt’s Rank

Egypt status in 2013/2014 is “Not Free”. Freedom rating is (5.5 out of 7 where less is better), which

includes:

• Political rights: Scored (6 out of 7 where less is better), which measures electoral process, political

pluralism and participation, and functioning of government.

• Civil liberties: Scored (5 out of 7 where less is better), which measures freedom of expression and

belief, associational and organizational right, rule of law, and individual rights.

Egypt’s rank has ranged from 5 to 6 over years in both political rights and civil liberties. The report

“Freedom in the world 2014” 23

said that: “Egypt’s political rights rating declined from 5 to 6 and its

status declined from Partly Free to Not Free due to the overthrow of the elected president Mohamed

Morsi in July, violent crackdowns on Islamist political groups and civil society, and the increased role

of the military in the political process”.

22 Freedom House: http://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2014/egypt-0#.U5_vWPmSzg823 Freedom in the World -2014, the Democratic leadership Gap, Freedom House: http://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/FIW2014%20Booklet.pdf


19

• Transformation Index BTI - Bertelsmann Stiftung 24

The Bertelsmann Stiftung’s Transformation Index (BTI) analyzes and evaluates the quality of

democracy, the market economy and the political management in 128 developing and transitional

countries. It measures successes and setbacks on the path towards a democracy based on the rule

of law and the market economy flanked by sociopolitical safeguards. Within this framework, the BTI

publishes two rankings: the Status Index and the Management Index.

In-depth country reports provide the qualitative data used to assess these countries’ transformation

status and challenges and to evaluate the ability of policymakers to carry out consistent and targeted

reforms. The BTI is the first cross-national comparative index that uses self-collected data to measure

the quality of governance and provide a comprehensive analysis of countries’ policymaking success

during processes of transition.

uses self-collected data to measure the quality of governance and provide a comprehensive analysis

of countries’ policymaking success during processes of transition.

The Status Index ranks the countries according to their state of democracy and market economy as

of spring 2011. The Management Index ranks the countries according to their leadership’s political

management performance between 2009 and 2011.

The Transformation Index (BTI) is produced by the Bertelsmann Stiftung which was founded by

Reinhard Mohn in 1977, based in Germany. The Bertelsmann Stiftung functions exclusively as a

private foundation. It is mainly dedicated to serving the common good.

The index is produced every two years, and is based on a qualitative expert survey in which written

assessments are translated into numerical ratings.

The Status Index ranks the countries according to their state of democracy and market economy as

of spring 2011. The Management Index ranks the countries according to their leadership’s political

management performance between 2009 and 2011.

The Transformation Index (BTI) is produced by the Bertelsmann Stiftung which was founded by

Reinhard Mohn in 1977, based in Germany. The Bertelsmann Stiftung functions exclusively as a

private foundation. It is mainly dedicated to serving the common good.

The index is produced every two years, and is based on a qualitative expert survey in which written

assessments are translated into numerical ratings.

24 Bertelsmann Stiftung: http://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/cps/rde/xchg/SID-33323B3A C8195DBC/bst_engl/hs.xsl/269.htm. And Transfor-mation Index BTI 2014: http://www.bti-project.org/index/status-index/


20

In 2014, Egypt ranked the 82 among 129 countries on the status index, with a score of 5.08 out of 10

(the higher the better). The index is composed of:

• Political transformation: Egypt ranked the 70th among the countries with a score of

5.45 out of 10 (the higher the better), the political transformation is a composite of:

o Stateness – criteria of the state (6 out of 10)

o Political participation (6.5 out of 10)

o Rule of law (4.8 out of 10)

o Stability of democratic institutions (4.5 out of 10)

o Political and social integration (5.5 out of 10)

• Economic transformation: Egypt ranked the 80th among the 129 countries, with a

score of 4.71 out of 10 (the higher the better), the economic transformation index consists of:

o Level of socio economic development (3 out of 10)

o Organization of the market and competition (6 out of 10)

o Currency and price stability (6 out of 10)

o Private property (7 out of 10)

o Welfare regime (3 out of 10)

o Economic performance (4 out of 10)

o Sustainability (4 out of 10)

On the Management index: Egypt ranked the 82 among the 129 countries, with a core of 4.50 out of

10 (the higher the better), the management index is composed of:

• Level of difficulty (5.8 out of 10)

• Steering capability (4.7 out of 10)

• Resource efficiency (4.0 out of 10)

• Consensus building (5.2 out of 10)

• International cooperation (6 out of

10)

Egypt’s Rank


21

• Polity IV - Maryland University (USA) 25

The Polity data series is a widely used data series in political science research. The latest version,

Polity IV, contains annual information on the level of democracy for all independent states with

greater than 500,000 total populations and covers the years from 1800–2011. Polity’s conclusions

about a state’s level of democracy are based on an evaluation of the state’s elections, openness and

level of participation. For each year and country a Polity Score ranges from -10 to +10, where (10)

represents full democracy, (6 to 9) democracy, (1 to 5) open anocracy, (-5 to 0) closed anocracy, (-10

to -6) autocracy. The index mainly depends on academic coding of regime characteristics based upon

published materials.

Polity IV is produced currently by the Center of Systematic Peace, University of Maryland (USA). It

is worth mentioning that an improved and enhanced Polity 5 version in the series is currently in

development.

Egypt’s Rank

Egypt got the score from -5 to 0 in 2013 (the higher the better) to be labeled as (closed anocracy26

),

the analysis from the country report, explains that the data is usually presented in a blue line,

the red lines in the graph means “Factionalism 27

“that represents the era from 1945 to 1952, 1996

-2010, and from 2013 till now. The Green small color is a transition period in 2011. The letter (X) in

1952/1953 represents (Autocratic Backsliding event), and the letter (C) in 2013 (coup d’Etat 28 ).

25 The polity IV project, European Data Center for Work and Welfare: http://www.edac.eu/indicators_desc.cfm?v_id=63, And Egypt, Polity IV: http://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/egy2.htm26 Anocracy: is a type of regime where power is exercised in small elite group (competing together) rather than the public. 27 Factionalism: Polities with special or ethnic-based political factions that compete for political influence in order to promote special agendas.28 Coup d›Etat: a sudden and decisive action resulting in a change of government illegally or by force.


22

• Worldwide Governance Indicators - World Bank 29

It is a worldwide set of governance indicators that reports aggregate and individual governance

indicators for 215 countries over the period 1996–2012, for six dimensions of governance:

• Voice and Accountability

• Political Stability and Absence of Violence

• Government Effectiveness

• Regulatory Quality

• Rule of Law

• Control of Corruption

These aggregate indicators combine the views of a large number of enterprise, citizen and expert

survey respondents in industrial and developing countries. They are based on 32 individual data

sources produced by a variety of survey institutes, think tanks, non-governmental organizations,

international organizations, and private sector firms.

Egypt’s Rank

According to the world governance indicators (WGI) in 2012, Egypt scores on a scale from 0 to 100

(higher is better) is:

• Voice and Accountability (26.54)

• Political stability and absence of violence (7.58)

• Government effectiveness (25.36)

• Regulatory quality (33.01)

• Rule of law (40.28)

• Control of Corruption (34.45)

29 Worldwide Governance Indicators –World Bank: http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.aspx#reports

The Graph below shows Egypt’s performance on WGI over time (1996 - 2012) :


23

Worldwide Governance Indicators - Egypt

(1996 - 2012)

Source: http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.aspx#reports


24

• Afrobarometer 30

The Afrobarometer is an independent research project that measures the social, political, and

economic atmosphere in Africa. It is mainly conducting national public surveys on democracy

and governance. Presently, Afrobarometer surveys are conducted in 35 African countries and are

repeated on a regular cycle, which allows comparability between countries and over time.

The Afrobarometer which was conducted for 5 rounds, since 1999, is collecting data about democracy,

governance, participation, livelihood, macroeconomics, social capital, taxation, gender issues,

globalization and service delivery through household surveys.

Egypt’s Rank

Egypt scores are only available in 2013 (round 5) as it is the only round Egypt has participated

in. The data was compiled by Michigan University. Afrobarometer survey in Egypt was

conducted in collaboration with Arab Barometer and the Arab Reform Initiative with

fieldwork completed by Mada Foundation for Media Development. The survey in Egypt was

conducted on a sample of 1200 households on economic condition, security, freedom of

expression, government control on people life, gender equality, and democracy, the results

showed that:

• 25% of the sample see Egypt now as undemocratic, 14% see it as semi democratic.

• 54% of the sample see that the most essential characteristic of democracy is to provide

basic necessities like food, clothing and shelter for everyone. 50% stated that Politics is

clean and free from corruption. And 24% see that Legislature closely monitors the actions

of the President is the most important aspect of democracy.

30 Afrobaromete round 5, Summary of results for Egypt 2013: http://www.afrobarometer.org/files/documents/summary_results/egy_r5_sor.pdf


25

• Ibrahim Index of African Governance (IIAG) 31

The index was established in 2007, it is interested in collecting data about safety and rule of law,

participation and human rights, sustainable economic development, and human development in

Africa. It is conducted by “The Mo Ibrahim Foundation” which was established in 2006 with a focus

on the critical importance of leadership and governance in Africa. It was founded by Dr. Mo Ibrahim,

a Sudanese philanthropist and businessman.

The IIAG is compiled using many international and African sources and other international

organizations like: the World Bank, UNDP, African Development Bank and others. It was first

published in 2007 to rank the performance of the 48 countries in sub-Saharan Africa. In 2009, the

Index included 52 African countries, including those in North Africa. The index is analyzed on scale

from 0 to 100 (where higher is better).

Egypt’s Score

In 2013, Egypt ranked 19th

among the 52 countries, with a score of 55 out of 100 (where higher is

better), as it scores higher degree than the continental average (51.6) and higher than the regional

average (54.0) for North Africa. Egypt sub-indexes showed:

• Safety and rule of law: (50.8 out of 100) higher is better

o Rule of law: (49.7 out of 100) higher is better

o Accountability: (40.4 out of 100) higher is better

o Personal safety: (28.3 out of 100) higher is better

o National security: (84.9 out of 100) higher is better

• Participation and human rights: (36.8 out of 100) higher is better

o Participation (33.7 out of 100) higher is better

o Rights (36.5 out of 100) higher is better

o Gender (40.3 out of 100) higher is better

• Sustainable economic opportunity (60.8 out of 100) higher is better

o Public management (50.6 out of 100) higher is better

o Business environment (64.7 out of 100) higher is better

o Infrastructure (55.0 out of 100) higher is better

o Rural sector (72.9 out of 100) higher is better

31 Ibrahim Index of African Governance (IIAG) - Egypt 2013: http://www.moibrahimfoundation.org/interact/


26

• Human development (71.5 out of 100) higher is better

o Welfare (62.5 out of 100) higher is better

o Education (67.8 out of 100) higher is better

o Health (84.1 out of 100) higher is better


27

• Fragile States Index – FSI (Fund for Peace) 32

The Fragile States Index is produced by the United States think-tank “Fund for Peace”. A fragile state

has several attributes. Common indicators include a state whose central government is so weak

or ineffective that it has little practical control over its territory; non-provision of public services;

widespread corruption and criminality; refugees and involuntary movement of population; sharp

economic decline. Since 2005, the index has been published annually by the Fund for Peace and the

magazine “Foreign Policy”.

The index uses 12 factors to determine the rating for each nation, it includes: Social, economic,

political and military indicators. The Fragile State Index is based on The Fund for Peace’s proprietary

Conflict Assessment System Tool (CAST) analytical platform. Based on comprehensive social science

methodology, data from three primary sources is triangulated and subjected to critical review to

obtain final scores for the FSI. The index is analyzed on a scale from 0 to 120 (the lower is better).

Egypt’s Score

In 2014, Egypt ranked 31th

of 178 countries, with a score of 91 out of 120 (The lower the better) Egypt

status is (Alert). The indicators were averaged from:

• Social and Economic Indicators:

o Demographic pressure (disasters, environment, pollution, food scarcity…), Egypt got 7.1

out of 10 (where less is better).

o Refugees and internal displaced persons (displacement, camps,…..), Egypt got 6.4 out of

10 (where less is better).

o Group grievance (discrimination, violence, powerlessness..), Egypt got 8.6 out of 10

(where less is better).

o Human flight and brain drain (migration, human capital…), Egypt got 5.1 out of 10 (where

less is better).

o Uneven economic development (Gini coefficient, urban rural services, income share…),

Egypt got 6.8 out of 10 (where less is better).

o Poverty and economic decline (economic deficit, unemployment, inflation, GDP…),


32 Fragile State Index 2014: http://ffp.statesindex.org/rankings-2014


28

From 2006 to 2011, Egypt experienced a generally improving trend, with only one year bucking that

trend. The country experienced a highly significant uptick in pressures between 2011-2012, a trend

that has continued to worsen through 2013.

o State legitimacy (political participation, corruption, electoral process, Government

effectiveness, democracy level, protests and demonstration…), Egypt got 9 out of 10

(where less is better).

o Public services (infrastructure, health care, education, literacy, policing…), Egypt got 5.7

out of 10 (where less is better).

o Human rights and rule of law (press freedom, civil liberties, torture, execution, human

trafficking, political prisoners, religious persecution..), Egypt got 9.7 out of 10 (where less

is better).

o Security apparatus (internal conflict, protests, military coups, rebel activity, bombing…),


o Factionalized elite (flawed election, power struggle, defectors, political competition..),


o External intervention (presence of UN mission, peacekeeping, foreign assistance, foreign

military intervention…..), Egypt got 7.4 out of 10 (where less is better).

• Political and Military Indicators:


29

World Audit is in an international nonprofit company, registered in England by the registered charity,

World Concern. Its aim is to provide a global geopolitical perspective because the prevalence of

corruption, human rights abuses, vote stuffing, miscarriages of justice, and press censorship should

be publicized to as wider audience as possible.

World Audit offers a one-stop site for measurement of democracy and human rights; it collects

statistics and reports from other agencies such as (Freedom House, Transparency International,

Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, The International Commission of Jurists) which are

concerned mainly with political rights, civil liberties, press freedom, perceptions of corruption,

human rights, and the rule of law, where countries ranked are 149.

Egypt’s Rank

• World Audit for Democracy and Human Rights (World Concern Institute - UK)33

Political rights: Egypt ranked 6 on a scale from 1 to 7 (lower is better), it measures; free and

fair elections, freedom of political parties and political participation, absence of domination

from other countries, and from military rule.

Civil liberties: Egypt ranked 5 on a scale from 1 to 7 (lower is better), which measures;

freedom of expression, of religious institutions, of demonstration, and assembly,

independent judiciary.

Press freedom: Egypt ranked 114 on a scale from 0 to 150 (lower is better); which is

concerned with the freedom of the media.

Corruption: Egypt ranked 92 on a scale from 0 to 149 (lower is better), this index came from

the corruption perception index, produced by Transparency International.

o

o

o

o

33 World Audit - World Democracy Profile (Egypt): http://www.worldaudit.org/countries/egypt.htm


30

• Global Democracy Ranking (Democracy Ranking Association - Vienna) 34

The Democracy Ranking is being carried out by the Democracy Ranking Association (Förderung von

Demokratiequalität” in Vienna, Austria). The Democracy Ranking measures the quality of democracy

through mixing between measuring some political aspects and other nonpolitical dimensions, as

50% of the measurement relies on political aspects, while the other 50 % relies on other aspects like:

gender (socio-economic and educational gender equality); economy (economic system); knowledge

(knowledge-based information society, research and education); health (health status and health

system); environment (environmental sustainability), The index is analyzed on a scale from 1 (poorest)

to 100 (strongest).

The index mainly relies on data that are prepared by other international organizations like (Freedom

house, Transparency international, CIA world fact book, Global Gender Gap Report..)

Egypt’s Rank

Egypt ranked 103 of 115 countries, with a score of (41.2 i.e. low quality of democracy) in 2011/2012

with an increase of 6 degrees from 2008 / 2009 (35.1) (the higher the better), putting into consideration

that The Democracy Ranking 2013 covers countries that are categorized by Freedom House as “free”

or “partly free” in the years 2011 and 2012. Therefore scores for Egypt and other countries such as

Bahrain, China, Libya, the Russian Federation, Syria, and Yemen are “virtual scores”.

34 Global Democracy Ranking: http://democracyranking.org/, And Democracy Ranking, 2013 Scores: http://democracyranking.org/word-press/ranking/2013/data/Scores_of_the_Democracy_Ranking_2013_letter.pdf


31

Other International and National Sources of Indicators Related to Democracy: Some of the international indexes have mentioned that they rely on other sources of data to

calculate democracy index, especially those organizations working in fields of human rights, equality,

corruption, integrity, justice as these are essential components for democracy, some of these national

and international indicators will be illustrated briefly below:

World Values Survey35

: Is a global network of social scientists studying changing values

and their impact on social and political life. It is conducted by the World Values Survey

Association in Stockholm, Sweden. The survey, which started in 1981, is conducted in

almost 100 countries, using a common questionnaire, asking about political, social, and

other aspects related to democracy like political participation.

Corruption Perceptions Index36

: Is issued by Transparency International (TI) an independent

German foundation, where it is annually ranking countries by their perceived levels of

corruption, as determined by expert assessments and opinion surveys. The CPI ranks 177

countries on a scale from 100 (very clean) to 0 (highly corrupt).

Human Development Report37

: (United Nation Development Program UNDP): is a series of

publications focused on challenges and opportunities for human development. The reports

are carried out by an independent team of scholars and researchers, and published by

UNDP. Global, regional and national reports are issued periodically tackling different issues

related to human development like education, health, empowerment and other issues

related to democracy like political participation, equality…….

Human Rights Watch38

: Is an international non-governmental organization that conducts

research and advocacy on human rights. It was established in 1978 in USA, and now it has

branches in several countries. Human Rights Watch defends the rights of people worldwide,

investigates abuses, exposes the facts widely, and pressures those with power to respect

rights and secure justice. It produces country reports about the status of human rights in

countries and advocate for them.

Amnesty International 39

: Is a non-governmental organization focusing on human rights

with over 3 million members and supporters around the world. The stated objective of

the organization is to conduct research and generate action to prevent and end abuses

of human rights, and to demand justice for those whose rights have been violated. It was

•

•

•

•

35 World Values Survey: http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/wvs.jsp36 Transparency International: http://www.transparency.org/research/cpi/overview37 Egypt Human Development Report: http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/egypt-human-development-report-38 Human Rights Watch - Egypt: http://www.hrw.org/middle-eastn-africa/egypt39 Amnesty International: http://www.amnesty.org/


32

founded in London UK, and its areas of focus are defending rights of women, children, and

minorities; defending prisoners right and ending torture, and protecting human dignity.

International Commission of Jurists 40

: Is an international human rights non-governmental

organization. It is dedicated to respecting international standards of human rights, rule of

law, justice and judiciary independence. It was established in 1952 and its headquarter is

in Geneva, Switzerland, but it has programs in most of the regions.

Direct Democracy Database (International Institute for Democracy and Electoral

Assistance, IDEA) 41

: It provides a unified database about voter turnout, electoral systems,

gender quota, political finance…. Etc. IDEA is an intergovernmental organization, established

in 2005, based in Sweden with international country offices. Its main aim is to provide

knowledge to democracy builders, provide policy development and analysis, and support

democratic reform.

Elections Guide (International Foundation of Electoral Systems, IFES) 42

: IFES is an

international non-profit organization founded in 1987 in USA that provides assistance

and support for elections in new and emerging democracies. It produces a guide that

gives information about election as part of democratic process like: electoral systems,

referendums, coming elections, voter’s turnout ratios …..Etc.

Public Opinion Poll Center–Information and Decision Support Center, IDSC (Egyptian

Cabinet) 43

: Was established in 2003 as part of IDSC to measure Egyptian public opinions

(through telephone interviews) about various issues in Egypt. It conducts lots of polls in

the field of political participation, democracy, citizenship, freedom and rights, and other

related issues.

Baseera 44

: Is an Egyptian independent private research center, focusing on conducting

public opinion polls through different tools (face to face interviews, telephone, internet…..),

it has many contributions in conducting polls and surveys in elections, political participation,

women role….and other topics related to democracy.

Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs): Some Egyptian NGOs are producing reports

about democracy in Egypt, raising awareness about this issue and supporting it, like:

“(Mosharka) The Egyptian Association for Community Participation Enhancement”45

•

•

•

•

•

•

40 International Commission of Jurists: http://www.icj.org/41 Institute of Democracy and Electoral Assistance: http://www.idea.int/elections/dd/country.cfm?country=6942 International Foundation for Electoral Systems: http://www.ifes.org/43 Public Opinion Poll Center – Egyptian Cabinet Information and Decision Support Center: http://www.pollcenter.gov.eg/index.aspx44 Baseera – The Egyptian Center for Public Opinion Research: http://www.baseera.com.eg/home_en.aspx45 The Egyptian Association for Community Participation Enhancement: http://www.mosharka.org/index.php?newsid=484


33

which produces a monthly report about the state of democracy in Egypt, through monitoring

the situation, laws, and procedures. Also “The International Development Center”46 , which

produces also monthly report for monitoring and evaluating the protests, demonstrations,

violence and terrorism, the legislative and the presidential performance, and the political

movements.

46 International Development Center: http://idceg.blogspot.com/p/blog-page_20.html


34

Challenges and Criticism of Democracy MeasurementsAlthough there are many initiatives for measuring democracy worldwide, with different indexes’

perspectives, approaches and methodologies, there has always been criticism for each index

concerned mainly with the definition of democracy and how to operationalize it and make

it applicable; the sources of the data and its objectivity; whether it is collected from household

surveys, expert surveys, or others; does it rely on primary sources of data, newly collected data, or

other readymade indicators of other institutions; the selection of indicators and their calculations,

whether they measure single dimension of democracy like the status of the state (presidential,

parliamentary….) or a multidimensional focus of democracy through measuring the social, political,

legal, and economic factors too; the sensitivity of the indexes, and to what extent they reflect the

changes that happen in the countries.

Moreover, many scholars have stated that indexes should combine what is on papers, like existence

of laws and decrees, and the actual application and enforcement of these laws. Also, indexes should

go beyond measuring the existence of democracy to measuring the quality of democracy. However

regardless of the probability of errors, biasness, inaccuracy or misinterpretation, it is very important

to keep measuring and conducting assessment and to do self-correction, regardless of the limitation

of each measurement. 47

47 Yury V. Bosin, «Measuring Democracy: Approaches and Challenges Associated with Developing Democratic Indices», IFES Fellowships in De-mocracy Studies, 2007: http://www.ifes.org/~/media/Files/Publications/White%20PaperReport/2008/1512/Hybl_Fellow_Yury_Bosin_2007.pdf, And also see Gerardo L. MUNCK, Jay Verkuilen, «Conceptualizing and measuring Democracy: Evaluating Alternative Indices», Op.cit.: http://dingo.sbs.arizona.edu/~ggoertz/qmir/munck_verkuilen2002.pdf


35

Now comes the question: Do we really need an Egyptian democracy index? Why? And how are

we going to do it? And what is the difference between it and other indexes? With all these data

collected from international indexes and with the existence of these huge data sets of information

and indicators about Egypt status of democracy and its political, economic and social features, there

is no need to re-invent the wheel. However, there is a great demand to create an Egyptian democracy

index that is homemade, nationally owned, tailored to the Egyptian context, and to be for reform

purpose.

The Egyptian Constitution in 2014 states in its preamble that: “We believe in democracy as a path,

a future, and a mode of living; political pluralism and peaceful rotation of power. We affirm the

right of the people to make and determine their future. The Egyptian people, is the sole source of

authority. Freedom, human dignity, and social justice are the rights of every citizen. We and our future

generations are masters in a sovereign homeland that is master of its destiny”. Article 5 says: ”The

political system is based on political and partisan pluralism, peaceful rotation of power, separation

and balance of powers, the inevitable correlation between powers and responsibilities, and respect

for human rights and freedoms, as stated in the Constitution”.48

This forms a good base for democracy and raises a need to assess democracy in Egypt. What we are

suggesting here is a major highlight for democracy index based on the international experiences and

guidelines for democracy measurements:

Democratizing the process: Egypt’s Democracy Index should be democratized in itself, i.e.

following democratic steps in its formulation and measurement; adopting participatory approach;

engaging all the stakeholders (from different backgrounds and perspectives) in the process-

by creating an independent national committee - in order to create a sense of ownership,

inclusiveness in measurement and giving equal opportunity for all the citizens to express their

opinion and so guarantee objectivity and adoption of the assessment recommendation in the

future.

Framework: The general framework of democracy index should be based on the committee

recommendation, where a conceptual and operational definition of democracy should be

48 Constitution of Arab Republic of Egypt 2014: http://www.sis.gov.eg/Newvr/Dustor-en001.pdf

•

3- Towards Constructing an Egyptian Democracy Index (Major Highlights)


36

assigned. The institutional and legal framework for the Egyptian political system should be

reviewed, while putting into consideration the political history of Egypt.

Areas and levels of assessment: Determining the levels and areas of assessment, whether they

are at the national level, or the local level, as well as determining which areas will be tackled

(social, political, or economic…..).

Components and indicators: Defining the components of the democracy index. Although there

is a worldwide consensus on democracy components which are political participation, human

rights, freedom, accountability, transparency, integrity, each country has the right to design its

own index components according to its priorities and interest.

Data collection and data sources: The index methodology and data collection are the core issue

in formulating the index and it is the main step that tells if the index is biased or objective,

accurate or not. Most of the indexes mainly depend on the household surveys, expert interviews

and coding, or content analysis by scholars. Also, whether we need to collect our own data, or

to use readymade indicators should be detrmined. Each way has its own pros and cons and it

depends on the focus of the assessment, available data, and resources.

Dissemination: The wide dissemination of the data collected and the index results give more

credibility to the index and make it a public good and help raise the awareness of the citizens,

the civil society and the public officials of their rights and responsibilities. Moreover, the data and

the index results give more chance for the recommendation of the assessment to be adopted in

public policies, because they represent a pressure card on the government to make reform, and

an accountability tool to the civil society to monitor the government performance. In addition,

they represent a tool for self-review for the government itself.

Action plan: Public officials are encouraged to put an action plan and to adopt the recommendation

of the assessment on the public policies, because keeping doing assessments without being

accompanied by an action plan makes the public lose interest and trust and the assessment lose

its credibility.

Sustainability: Egypt Democracy Index should be hosted in a national independent organization

to guarantee sustainability and inistitualization - meantime remains as a public good available

for everyone. The Index should have all the required support (resources, data….) to be conducted

regularly in order to monitor Egypt’s performance on democracy over time and events.

•

•

•

•

•

•


37

A proposed General framework for Constructing an Egyptian Democracy Index: The proposed framework is inspired by the guide books produced by international organizations

for assessing democracy and the different international democracy indexes produced worldwide.

It represents a base for the elements that everyone agrees upon in democratic societies, and it is

supposed to be a core and a starting point for discussion with the national partners and stakeholders

in order to develop a nationally owned democracy index.

49 This framework is inspired by the Guides for assessing the quality of democracy produced by International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA): http://www.idea.int/publications/aqd/ And other international democracy indexes produced worldwide.

This Framework contains a list of indicators that is subject to discussions and amendments by the

experts and stakeholders according to the national priorities and goals. It aims to combine different

aspects together to measure democracy through a wider scope of indicators on:


38

Participation, which focuses on political pluralism; the right to participate in political, social and

economic activities; existence of a fair competitive environment, freedom of voting, or being elected;

joining associations and political parties, social engagement, volunteering, and activism.

Human rights which are a major part of democracy index, they include not only political rights but

also social and economic rights, i.e. the access to goods and services and a dignified life and the

absence of torture and abuse….etc.

Equity & Fairness which tackles mainly the existence of equal and fair opportunities for every citizen,

and that there is no discrimination on any basis (according to age, sex, ethnicity, religion, ideas…..).

Freedom, which measures: Freedom of expression, association, affiliation, choices, and practices on

the political, social and economic level.

Control and authority of the state is a very important component, although not popular, which

includes the existence of a strong state, security, sovereignty and legitimacy, the independency

of the state and its decisions, the credibility of the state and its institutions (media, parliament,

government……..) all these factors affect the democracy process.

Transparency which means openness of the state, and freedom of information.

Responsiveness which means that the needs and demands of people, parties, institutions are

answerable and are responded to.

Accountability is the existence of procedures and regulations that guarantee integrity and democracy

like: the balance of power between institutions, its independency, and separation of power, existence

of different types and levels of accountability (legal, financial, administrative, political, vertical,

horizontal, internal, mutual…..)

Rule of law, the existence of constitution and laws, laws enforcement, equality in front of the laws,

judiciary independence all of these aspects guarantee democratic principles and practices.

Combating corruption, measures to what extent the state is impartial on the administrative, political,

government, private sector, and civil society levels…….), and the existence of effective laws and

institutions that combat corruption.

Finally Solidarity, which measures the values that are spread in the society and between people

themselves like: the feeling of citizenship, belonging, ownership, pride, respect, tolerance, safety

and consensus, which spread peace and stability in the society.


39

Democracy now is mandatory to Egypt’s future if we want to accelerate the process towards

development and stability. Most of the international indexes show that Egypt did not progress

well according to democracy standards (participation, equality, human rights, and freedom…) and

there is still a long way to go.

There is an increasing need to develop an “Egyptian Democracy Index” that is homemade and

nationally owned; that reflects the economic, social, political, and legal background of Egypt, and

that fits with the national context and priorities. The index should be used as a monitoring tool for

the progress of democracy; a raising awareness tool for people, civil society, and public officials; an

accountability tool to set the government accountable for its performance according to democracy

standards and finally as a self-review tool for the government to re-correct its attitude towards

democracy.

The major highlights for Egypt’s Democracy Index imply that it should be democratized in itself by

engaging stakeholders and forming a national participatory committee to supervise the formulation

of the index and to ensure that the index represents the different points of view on democracy.

Also, a wide dissemination of the index data is highly required to make it a public good and to give

more credibility to the index. The index results should be action oriented that feeds directly in the

public policy. Furthermore, the sustainability of the index is a crucial issue to guarantee reform.

A proposed framework of Egypt’s democracy index is based on a combination of components in

order to cover different aspects of democratic life, and accordingly gives a comprehensive overview

of Democracy status in Egypt, including participation and political rights, freedom, human rights,

Equity and fairness, the authority and the strength of the state, transparency, accountability, rule

of law, integrity, and finally the values that are spread in the society.

Conclusion


40

• Afrobaromete round 5, Summary of results for Egypt 2013.

http://www.afrobarometer.org/files/documents/summary_results/egy_r5_sor.pdf

• Amnesty International

http://www.amnesty.org/

• Arab Reform Initiative

http://www.arab-reform.net/annual-reports

• Axel Hadenius, Jan Teorell, “Cultural and Economic Prerequisites of Democracy: Reassessing Recent

Evidence”, Studies in Comparative International Development, 2003.

http://pschmid.net/ir127/old/SCIDexample.pdf

• Bahram Maskanian, “This Six Essential Components For Democracy”, The Venues Project Foundation

http://www.venusproject.org/keywords/the-six-essential-components-for-democracy.html

http://pschmid.net/ir127/old/SCIDexample.pdf

• Baseera – The Egyptian Center for Public Opinion Research

http://www.baseera.com.eg/home_en.aspx

• Bertelsmann Stiftung

http://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/cps/rde/xchg/SID-33323B3AC8195DBC/bst_engl/hs.xsl/269.

htm.

• Constitution of Arab Republic of Egypt 2014

http://www.sis.gov.eg/Newvr/Dustor-en001.pdf

• Daron Acemoglu and others, “Democracy Causes Economic Development?”, VOX ResearchBases

Policy Analysis, and commentary from leading economists, May 2014.

http://www.voxeu.org/article/democracy-and-growth-new-evidence

• Democratic, Cambridge University Press , 2003

http://www.rdc1.info/forthcoming/dempre.pdf.

• Democracy Index -2012, Democracy at a Standstill, A report from the Economist Intelligence Unit

https://portoncv.gov.cv/dhub/porton.por_global.open_file?p_doc_id=1034

• Egypt Human Development Report

http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/egypt-human-development-report-0

• Egypt, Polity IV

http://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/egy2.htm

References


41

• Fragile State Index 2014

http://ffp.statesindex.org/rankings-2014

• Freedom House

http://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2014/egypt-0#.U5_vWPmSzg8

• Freedom in the World -2014, the Democratic leadership Gap, Freedom House

http://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/FIW2014%20Booklet.pdf

• Gerardo L. MUNCK, Jay Verkuilen, “Conceptualizing and Measuring Democracy: Evaluating

Alternative Indices”, Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 35 No. 1, February 2002.

http://dingo.sbs.arizona.edu/~ggoertz/qmir/munck_verkuilen2002.pdf

• Global Democracy Ranking

http://democracyranking.org/

• Governance Assessment Portal – United Nations Development Program

http://gaportal.org/areas-of-governance/democracy

• Hasbat Hula, “Assessing Oneself: The Case of Mongolia”, Governance Assessment

Portal, United Nations Development Program, 2007.

http://gaportal.org/resources/detail/assessing-oneself-the-case-of-mongolia

• Howard Cincotta, “What is Democracy?”, U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of International

Information Programs, 1998.

http://www.ait.org.tw/infousa/zhtw/docs/whatsdem/whatdm2.htm

• Human Rights Watch – Egypt

http://www.hrw.org/middle-eastn-africa/egypt

• Ibrahim Index of African Governance (IIAG) - Egypt 2013

http://www.moibrahimfoundation.org/interact/

• International Commission of Jurists

http://www.icj.org/

• International Development Center

http://idceg.blogspot.com/p/blog-page_20.html

• International Foundation for Electoral Systems

http://www.ifes.org/

• International Institute of Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA)

http://www.idea.int/


42

• Mansi Chitranshi, “Advantages and Disadvantages of Democracy”, INFOJUG, March 2006.

http://www.infojug.com/articles/advantages-and-disadvantages-of-democracy.html.

• Markus G. Jud, “Definition of Democracy”, Democracy Building, 2004.

http://www.democracy-building.info/definition-democracy.html

• Michael Meyer-Resende,” International Consensus: Essential Elements of Democracy”, Democracy

Reporting International (DRI), October 2011.

http://www.democracy-reporting.org/files/essential_elements_of_democracy_2.pdf

• Public Opinion Poll Center – Egyptian Cabinet Information and Decision Support Center

http://www.pollcenter.gov.eg/index.aspx

• Roger D. Congleton, “Economic and Cultural Prerequisites for Democracy”, Rational Foundations

of Tusha Gupta, “What Are The Advantages And Disadvantages of Democracy?”, Preserve Article For

Eternity

http://www.preservearticles.com/2012051632245/what-are-the-advantages-and-disadvantages-

of-democracy.html

• The Economist Intelligence Unit

http://www.eiu.com/public/topical_report.aspx?campaignid=DemocracyIndex2011

• The Egyptian Association for Community Participation Enhancement

http://www.mosharka.org/index.php?newsid=484

• The polity IV project, European Data Center for Work and Welfare

http://www.edac.eu/indicators_desc.cfm?v_id=63

• The Saylor Foundation

http://www.saylor.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/POLSC221-4.1.5-TypesDem-FINAL.pdf

• The State of Reform in the Arab World -2011

http://www.arab-reform.net/sites/default/files/ari-rep11%20ang%20final%20.pdf

• Transformation Index BTI 2014

http://www.bti-project.org/index/status-index/

• Transparency International

http://www.transparency.org/research/cpi/overview

• World Audit - World Democracy Profile (Egypt).

http://www.worldaudit.org/countries/egypt.htm

• World Governance Indicators –World Bank.

http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.aspx#reports


43

• World Values Survey

http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/wvs.jsp

• Yury V. Bosin, “Measuring Democracy: Approaches and Challenges Associated with Developing

Democratic Indices”, IFES Fellowships in Democracy Studies, 2007.

http://www.ifes.org/~/media/Files/Publications/White%20PaperReport/2008/1512/Hybl_Fellow_

Yury_Bosin_2007.pdf

SCC was established in 2007 as a joint initiative between the Egyptian Cabinet’s Information and Decision Support Center, IDSC and the United Nations Development Program, UNDP, with the support of the Italian-Egyptian Debt for Development Swap Program and the Government of Japan.

SCC was established based on the recommendations of the Egyptian Human Development Report titled “Choosing Our Future: Towards a New Social Contract” which presents a vision of Egypt centered on the ambitious proposal of a new Social Contract. SCC’s mission is to provide technical support to the human development efforts in Egypt using a rights-based approach rooted in the principles of good governance and citizenship.

SCC aims to monitor progress towards the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in Egypt, and strives to build a national consensus on the concept of the Social Contract and its impli-cations, in addition to rebuilding trust between the government and citizens, as well as supporting efforts to empower civil society.

The Social Contract Center 106 Kasr El Aini St., Cairo Cente Bldg. Floor 13 – Cairo, Egypt Tel: 27923198/27922971Fax: 27961386Email: [email protected] contract.gov.eg

© All Rights Reserved, The Social Contract Center - 2014


towards constructing an egyptian democracy index€¦ · noha abed deputy director, scc ... towards...

Documents