Measuring Democracy

Kapur’s and Herrera’s article on improving data quality does an excellent job of describing some of the problems and dilemmas faced in data collection. The piece begins with the authors views on what problems currently exist with data sets. They use a framework of validity, coverage, and accuracy to measure data quality where

Validity refers to the relationship between theoretical concepts and collected information; coverage refers to the completeness of data sets; and accuracy refers to the correctness or avoidance of errors in data sets (366).

The rest of the article boils down to an assessment of all the actors in the data collection process. Kapur and Herrara recognize a problem with the data sets as outlined by their above framework of validity, coverage, and accuracy, and they attempt to account for these problems with a look into the incentives and capabilities of each individual actor in the data collection process.

For example, respondents to survey’s or questionnaires have particular incentives for answering questions a certain way. They include “opportunity costs, fear of punishment, political support, and material gain” (372). A respondent’s capabilities may refer to the time available to fill out a survey, knowledge of the actual material they are being asked about, or level of physical or mental health.

Through the author’s analysis of each actor’s incentives and capabilities, the reader is able to understand the potential problems that arise from data collection. If research is conducted, and data collected, with these types of issues in mind, it can only serve to better the quality of the data and improve research in any area of study.

There is no simple answer to the question of “what is democracy”, evident by the multitude of research on the very topic of coming up with a proper definition. In scholarly work, it is crucial to have a definition that fits, as your research and theories are at risk if you do not have the fundamental concept (democracy) down.

Defining democracy is so complicated because there are plethora of different types and approaches to democracy. Not only that, but some governments try to label themselves as democratic, or they may appear to be (with institutions such as “parliaments”),  but really they are far from democratic countries. Grandma, think the new “democracy” in Myanmar, or Russia: do you feel like those countries really operate under democratic principles? The issue of defining democracy is further complicated by problems of complexity within a definition (minimalist vs. complex like Dahl).

In simple conversation, democracy is best defined by freedom, whether it be in elections, citizen’s right to vote, or civil liberties. I tend to align with Dahl’s criteria for democracy, which are:

1. Freedom to form/ join organizations
2. Freedom of expression
3. Right to vote
4. Right to run for office
5. Right to campaign
6. Access to multiple sources of information
7. Free and fair elections
8. Elections determine government

To me, free and open elections with a underlying society with the universal right to vote, and the elections actually determining the government are the key components of what democracy is. Although Dahl doesn’t flat out say it, I also agree with Schmitter and Karl (and I think it is beneath the surface is Dahl’s criteria): in democracies, we are able to hold our leaders accountable for their actions.

With so much going on in the Middle East, Myanmar is in the midst of democratic change as well. From what I gather, Myanmar has been under military rule for the last 40 years or so. The military government held free elections last November for the first time since 1990, although many pro-democracy groups denounce the results as fraudulent, as the military party won over 80% of the votes.

There is little opposition to this party. The  current dictator, Than Shwe, could easily win the first presidential election if he decides to run (and he likely will). To read more about the situation in Myanmar, here is an article from the Economist detailing the new democratic processes taking place.

This topic is particularly relevant considering our ongoing discussions on how we define democracy. Clearly, in this instance, Myanmar is not democratic: the opposition party boycotted the last elections because the leader of the NDF was under house arrest. The military government (and it’s party) control way too much of the parliament to allow for any sort of political opposition.

In Canada

In Errol Mendes piece entitled “Dollars and Democracy“, the author uses the term “one-sided democracy” to describe the potential state of Canadian politics if the Harper ends up cutting public funding from elections. Basically, if the funding was cut, it would make Harper’s party the only viable party for office in Canada, thus eliminating the possibility of other parties gaining control of the government.

In this case, the use of the adjective is to show how Canada could possibly slip into a “diminished subtype” of democracy. Harper could essentially make it so his party would be the only one to afford a reuptable campaign in the next election, thus eliminating the “full contestation” attribute of the minimal definition of democracy.

In China

As I have mentioned in previous posts, I know little about Chinese politics. But considering the amount of current debate Chinese political issues, I am going to learn as much as I can about it this term. From what I gathered this weekend, seems like the Communist party pretty much locks down the whole country. Although there are elections at various levels of the government, the Communist’s block out other parties and make it so there is no other party to vote for.

I found an article called “China’s Tentative Steps Toward Democracy“. The author uses two different adjectives: “deliberative democracy” and “representative democracy”. Particularly interesting was this idea of “deliberative democracy”, by which the author evidently means town hall type decision making with an infusion of technology to tally votes an and participants opinions on a wide range of issues. He contemplates “China evolving into some sort of innovative democratic experiment, combining tricameralism with all the high-tech features of deliberative democracy methods to mold a new type of political accountability, as well as separation of powers”.

In this instance, the author is going down Levitsky and Collier’s ladder towards increasing differentiation. It does serve the article well though, as this type of technologically infused democracy is a concept foreign to me, and it helps to separate the author’s view of the potential democracy in China from others.

An area I know little about: China. I am pretty unclear as to how things work over there, other than the fact that it is NOT democratic, human rights are at times infringed upon, and that Chinese officials are stubborn as hell when it comes to exchange rate policy.

But a topic I am MOST interested in is the potential that the internet has on influencing and strengthening the public, all around the world, in all types of regimes. I mean to say, the internet can facilitate the government’s accountable to the public in democracies, just as in un-democratic countries it can help the people share information and mobilize against oppressive regimes.

In Nicholas Kristof’s article, Banned in Beijing, the author confronts the problems of internet censorship within Chinese borders.Imagine: you fly in to China, find some wifi, and can not sign on to Facebook. Devastation and withdrawal systems follow. But for the average Chinese internet surfer (there are 450 million of them) they know no Facebook, as the government has blocked it completely.

In China, any website, be it a blog, “microblog” or online community that posts negative material about the Chinese government is “harmonized”, to use Chinese terminology. That means internet moderators block the website or negative political content in order to bring harmony to society. In Facebook’s case, they know how easy it would be for people to log on and share harsh criticism with a vast network of citizens from across the land.

If you want to speak out against Chinese government within China, and your blog or statement draws enough public attention, it’s going to get shut down, just as Kristof’s microblog did. Officials simply don’t want to risk the possibility of people joining together over computer networks, as that may jeopardize the legitimacy of the government. If more citizen’s were aware of problems facing other countrymen in other regions of China, perhaps there would be a greater national movement to overthrow the current government in China.

The internet, and the resources it allows people to access almost instantly, will seriously shape the political arena in years to come. This article was a great example, first hand, of how internet censorship takes place, and the consequences that result from the lack of open and free information. If the internet allows more people to see the realities of the way their governing officials operate, it allows for the opportunity, or at least the desire, for change in government. Just as in the US, the internet has allowed us to hold our leaders more accountable, in China, it may just have the ability to help bring down a suppressive Chinese government.

Being a political science major deeply interested in the study of democracy, I have read a ton of articles on how to properly define the term. I realize the importance of coming to some sort of definition, but I must admit, it can get pretty tedious.

Schmitter and Karl, however, take a really interesting, intuitive approach to defining the term. First and foremost, they are realistic, as they don’t try to make democracy something that it is not. The step by step process by which they submit their definition and then break it down by “procedures” and “principles” is quite convincing.

The emphasis on competition stuck out to me, as in the first few days of class, my definition of democracy included elections. But as the authors submit, elections are not “it”. There needs to be a variety of other avenues for the citizenry to access and influence the political process.

Finally, the section on “What Democracy is Not” made me feel like the authors weren’t just ideological quacks. They realize the possibility that other forms of government can do certain things better (potentially). This brought me back to a thought that a talk show host, Dan Carlin, brought up years back. I forget what he was referencing, but the basic idea was that a scientist (Watson, the human genome guy) had come out with some research suggesting something completely different and backwards to what we all thought was fact, a given. Carlin, passionate about democracy and its capabilities, asked the question: what if it was proven that democracy was not the best way to govern a people? What if there is a proven better way to run society?

Living in the Western world, I feel like we are all brought up to hold democracy as the be all end all. What if that belief was challenged? Here, the authors do allow themselves to see the other side: that democracy is not the end game. And I think that is really important, as it gives you a proper perspective to study and assess the development of democracy around the world.

Jared Loughner’s attempted murder of a US Congresswoman two weeks ago is old news at this point (the front page of the New York Times this morning was something about Steve Jobs). But I feel like this tragic event points to some causes for alarm within American democracy.

The main argument submitted by the left is that the intense and bipolar political discourse caused the shooting. The Economist takes on the issue in their recent article, The Tucson shootings: The Blame Game. The author is quick to admit American politics is heated, perhaps more so than ever before, but then later dismisses it as just a part of American politics. To me, that is a cop out. There needs to be change in American democracy. There is no compromise, no willingness to find a middle ground to any particular debate. Congress is so bi-partisan right now that it is painful to look at the absurdity of the news everyday.

Loughner, as we now know, wasn’t driven purely out of political angst: he was insane and violent, the type of person to commit acts like this against anyone. But that should not lead us to deny the fact that the way in which American politicians interact right now is not working. Rather than the Democrats and Republicans fighting about who is to blame for the shooting, they should be talking about how they can change the political landscape so that this debate is not even necessary.

1. Thomas, if you have too many books in your apartment, why not add one more? Check out “Another Bull Shit Night in Suck City” by Nick Flynn for a seriously different, unique memoir (here’s a link to amazon). It touches on homelessness, drug abuse, and alcoholism, as well as the author’s struggle with his relationship with his father. A heavy book, but it changed the way I think about some of these issues.
2. A lot of people talk about traveling, or the desire to travel abroad. Lindsy, you specifically mentioned that you want to go somewhere way outside of your comfort zone: try Siem Reap, Cambodia. It is completely different than anything I’ve ever experienced. The people and culture there are amazing. Of course, there is the Angkor Wat and the rest of the temples to see, which are truly incredible. But I found the most enjoyable times I had there were in town, talking to people, bombing around on somewhat skeptical tuk tuks. And a trip there is ridiculously inexpensive, once you get over the cost of the plane tickets. Here is some more info.
3. Merrin, you mentioned you liked to fish and travel. I grew up fly fishing in Northern New Mexico and Colorado. You must check out the San Juan River. Some of the best fishing my father and I have ever experienced. Gorgeous country as well: I can’t wait to go back this May.

My name is Nick Knoop, I’m a 4th year political science major doing my best to graduate in May. Working on going to law school, but that is still a bit up in the air at this point.

From the US originally, came to Canada to experience something different and ski some Whistler powder. I’m a Boston sports fan, my family is from there and I’ve grown up watching the Sox and Celtics… And after living in Canada, I have learned that SportsCenter and SportsCentre are two entirely different things.

I am looking forward to this class: I love the idea that the work we are doing is current, as we see democracy developing, failing, and evolving everyday in the news. I feel like the fundamental question of politics is figuring out how true and accurate the democratic process really is, and I’m sure that is a question we will confront often in this class.

Welcome to UBC Blogs. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!