Jump to content

Democracy-Dictatorship Index

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Democracies and dictatorships in 2008[1]
Democracies and dictatorships in 1988[1]

Democracy-Dictatorship (DD),[1] index of democracy and dictatorship[2] or simply the DD index[3] or the DD datasets was the binary measure of democracy and dictatorship first proposed by Adam Przeworski et al. (2010), and further developed and maintained by Cheibub, Gandhi, and Vreeland (2009).[4] Note that the most recent dataset was updated 2008.

Based on the regime binary classification idea proposed by Alvarez in 1996,[5] and the Democracy and Development (or DD measure, ACLP dataset) proposed by Przeworski et al. (2010), Cheibub, Gandhi, and Vreeland developed a six-fold regime classification scheme, resulting what the authors called as the DD datasets.[1]: 68

The DD dataset covers the annual data points of 199 countries from 1946 (or date of independence) to 2008.[1]: 68 The figures at the left show the results in 1988 and 2008.

Six-fold regime classification scheme and its rules

[edit]

The DD index first classifies the regimes into two types: democracies and dictatorships. For democracies, it categorizes them into three types: parliamentary, semi-presidential and presidential democracies. For dictatorships, monarchic, military and civilian dictatorship.[1] " Based on a "minimalist" theory of democracy, the index relies on rules regarding the existence of competitive elections.[1][3] Resorting to democratic concepts by Karl Popper and Joseph Schumpeter, Przeworski defended the minimalist approach, citing Popper that "the only system in which citizens can get rid of governments without bloodshed."[6]

Four rules

[edit]

For a regime to be considered as a democracy by the DD scheme, it must meet the requirement of four rules below:[1]: 69[3]

  1. The chief executive must be chosen by popular election or by a body that was itself popularly elected.
  2. The legislature must be popularly elected.
  3. There must be more than one party competing in the elections.
  4. An alternation in power under electoral rules identical to the ones that brought the incumbent to office must have taken place.

Some regimes may meet the first three rules, but lack an alternation in power in its historical past; these regimes are classified as dictatorships because of cases where the incumbent only allows elections as long as they keep winning, and would refuse to step down if they lost. However, since they might also give up power willingly, the regime is marked with a type II value to signal potential classification errors where a democratic regime may be falsely classified as dictatorship.[1]: 70. This does not indicate cases of semi-democracy or semi-dictatorship.[1]: 71. The authors acknowledged that the last rule is more complicated to implement, but stated that it helps researchers to control potential errors and removes subjective judgement from the classification.[1]: 70

Countries

[edit]

The Democracy-Dictatorship Index has the main regime types of "democracy" and "dictatorship" and three sub-types for each as well. Democracies can be either parliamentary, semi-presidential, or presidential and dictatorships can be civilian, military, or royal. Many countries which are seen as otherwise democratic are dictatorships because there has yet to be an alternation in power since their incumbent government has never lost an election. Therefore, it is impossible to know if the regime is a democracy or a dictatorship, so DD Index considers them dictatorships until an alternation in power occurs.

Countries by regime type (2008)[7][needs update]
Regime Type Subtype Reason for Dictatorship[7]
 Afghanistan Dictatorship Civilian Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power
 Albania Democracy Parliamentary Democracy
 Algeria Dictatorship Civilian Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power
 Andorra Democracy Parliamentary Democracy
 Angola Dictatorship Civilian Dictatorship 1. Executive not elected
 Antigua and Barbuda Democracy Parliamentary Democracy
 Argentina Democracy Presidential Democracy
 Armenia Democracy Semi-Presidential Democracy
 Australia Democracy Parliamentary Democracy
 Austria Democracy Semi-Presidential Democracy
 Azerbaijan Dictatorship Civilian Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power
 Bahamas Democracy Parliamentary Democracy
 Bahrain Dictatorship Royal Dictatorship 1. Executive not elected
2. No parties
 Bangladesh Dictatorship Civilian Dictatorship 1. Executive not elected
2. No Legislature
3. No legislative parties
 Barbados Democracy Parliamentary Democracy
 Belarus Dictatorship Civilian Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power
 Belgium Democracy Parliamentary Democracy
 Belize Democracy Parliamentary Democracy
 Benin Democracy Presidential Democracy
 Bhutan Democracy Parliamentary Democracy
 Bolivia Democracy Presidential Democracy
 Bosnia and Herzegovina Dictatorship Civilian Dictatorship 1. Executive not elected
 Botswana Dictatorship Military Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power
 Brazil Democracy Presidential Democracy
 Brunei Dictatorship Royal Dictatorship 1. Executive not elected
2. Legislature not elected
3. One party
 Bulgaria Democracy Semi-Presidential Democracy
 Burkina Faso Dictatorship Military Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power
 Burundi Democracy Presidential Democracy
 Cambodia Dictatorship Royal Dictatorship 1. Executive not elected
3. No legislative parties
 Cameroon Dictatorship Civilian Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power
 Canada Democracy Parliamentary Democracy
 Cape Verde Democracy Semi-Presidential Democracy
 Central African Republic Dictatorship Military Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power
 Chad Dictatorship Military Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power
 Chile Democracy Presidential Democracy
 China Dictatorship Civilian Dictatorship 3. All parties are in regime
 Colombia Democracy Presidential Democracy
 Comoros Democracy Presidential Democracy
 Congo Dictatorship Military Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power
 Costa Rica Democracy Presidential Democracy
 Ivory Coast Dictatorship Civilian Dictatorship
 Croatia Democracy Semi-Presidential Democracy
 Cuba Dictatorship Military Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power
 Cyprus Democracy Presidential Democracy
 Czech Republic Democracy Parliamentary Democracy
 DR Congo Dictatorship Civilian Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power
 Denmark Democracy Parliamentary Democracy
 Djibouti Dictatorship Civilian Dictatorship 3. One legislative party
 Dominica Democracy Parliamentary Democracy
 Dominican Republic Democracy Presidential Democracy
 East Timor Democracy Semi-Presidential Democracy
 Ecuador Democracy Presidential Democracy
 Egypt Dictatorship Military Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power
 El Salvador Democracy Presidential Democracy
 Equatorial Guinea Dictatorship Military Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power
 Eritrea Dictatorship Civilian Dictatorship 1. Executive not elected
2. Legislature not elected
3. All parties banned
4. No alternation in power
 Estonia Democracy Parliamentary Democracy
 Ethiopia Dictatorship Civilian Dictatorship 3. All parties are in regime
4. No alternation in power
 Fiji Dictatorship Military Dictatorship 1. Executive not elected
2. No Legislature
3. No Legislative parties
 Finland Democracy Semi-Presidential Democracy
 France Democracy Semi-Presidential Democracy
 Gabon Dictatorship Civilian Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power
 Gambia Dictatorship Military Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power
 Georgia Democracy Semi-Presidential Democracy
 Germany Democracy Parliamentary Democracy
 Ghana Democracy Presidential Democracy
 Greece Democracy Parliamentary Democracy
 Grenada Democracy Parliamentary Democracy
 Guatemala Democracy Presidential Democracy
 Guinea Dictatorship Military Dictatorship 1. Executive not elected
 Guinea-Bissau Democracy Semi-Presidential Democracy
 Guyana Dictatorship Civilian Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power
 Haiti Dictatorship Civilian Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power
 Honduras Democracy Presidential Democracy
 Hungary Democracy Parliamentary Democracy
 Iceland Democracy Semi-Presidential Democracy
 India Democracy Parliamentary Democracy
 Indonesia Democracy Presidential Democracy
 Iran Dictatorship Civilian Dictatorship
 Iraq Dictatorship Military Dictatorship All parties in regime
 Ireland Democracy Semi-Presidential Democracy
 Israel Democracy Parliamentary Democracy
 Italy Democracy Parliamentary Democracy
 Jamaica Democracy Parliamentary Democracy
 Japan Democracy Parliamentary Democracy
 Jordan Dictatorship Royal Dictatorship 1. Executive not elected
 Kazakhstan Dictatorship Civilian Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power
 Kenya Democracy Presidential Democracy
 Kiribati Democracy Parliamentary Democracy
 Kuwait Dictatorship Royal Dictatorship 1. Executive not elected
3. All parties legally banned
 Kyrgyzstan Democracy Semi-Presidential Democracy
 Laos Dictatorship Military Dictatorship 3. Legally single party state
 Latvia Democracy Parliamentary Democracy
 Lebanon Democracy Parliamentary Democracy
 Lesotho Dictatorship Civilian Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power
 Liberia Democracy Presidential Democracy
 Libya Dictatorship Military Dictatorship 1. Executive not elected
2. Legislature is appointed
3. No parties
 Liechtenstein Democracy Parliamentary Democracy
 Lithuania Democracy Semi-Presidential Democracy
 Luxembourg Democracy Parliamentary Democracy
 Macedonia Democracy Semi-Presidential Democracy
 Madagascar Democracy Semi-Presidential Democracy
 Malawi Democracy Presidential Democracy
 Malaysia Dictatorship Civilian Dictatorship 3. All parties in regime
4. No alternation in power
 Maldives Democracy Presidential Democracy
 Mali Democracy Semi-Presidential Democracy
 Malta Democracy Parliamentary Democracy
 Marshall Islands Democracy Parliamentary Democracy
 Mauritania Dictatorship Military Dictatorship 1. Executive not elected
2. No Legislature
3. No Legislative parties
 Mauritius Democracy Parliamentary Democracy
 Mexico Democracy Presidential Democracy
 Micronesia Democracy Presidential Democracy
 Moldova Democracy Parliamentary Democracy
 Mongolia Democracy Semi-Presidential Democracy
 Montenegro Dictatorship Civilian Dictatorship[clarification needed] 4. No alternation in power
 Morocco Dictatorship Royal Dictatorship 1. Executive not elected
 Mozambique Dictatorship Civilian Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power
 Myanmar Dictatorship Military Dictatorship 1. Executive not elected
2. No Legislature
3. No Legislative parties
 Namibia Dictatorship Civilian Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power
 Nauru Democracy Parliamentary Democracy
   Nepal Democracy Parliamentary Democracy
 Netherlands Democracy Parliamentary Democracy
 New Zealand Democracy Parliamentary Democracy
 Nicaragua Democracy Presidential Democracy
 Niger Democracy Semi-Presidential Democracy
 Nigeria Democracy Presidential Democracy
 North Korea Dictatorship Civilian Dictatorship 1. Executive not elected
 Norway Democracy Parliamentary Democracy
 Oman Dictatorship Royal Dictatorship 1. Executive not elected
2. Legislature is closed
3. No Legislative parties
 Pakistan Democracy Parliamentary Democracy
 Palau Democracy Presidential Democracy
 Panama Democracy Presidential Democracy
 Papua New Guinea Democracy Parliamentary Democracy
 Paraguay Democracy Presidential Democracy
 Peru Democracy Presidential Democracy
 Philippines Democracy Presidential Democracy
 Poland Democracy Semi-Presidential Democracy
 Portugal Democracy Semi-Presidential Democracy
 Qatar Dictatorship Royal Dictatorship 1. Executive not elected
2. Legislature not elected
3. No Legislative parties
 Romania Democracy Semi-Presidential Democracy
 Russia Dictatorship Civilian Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power
 Rwanda Dictatorship Military Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power
 Samoa Dictatorship Royal Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power
 San Marino Democracy Parliamentary Democracy
 São Tomé and Príncipe Democracy Semi-Presidential Democracy
 Saudi Arabia Dictatorship Royal Dictatorship 1. Executive not elected
2. Legislature not elected
3. No Legislative parties
 Senegal Democracy Semi-Presidential Democracy
 Serbia Democracy Semi-Presidential Democracy
 Seychelles Dictatorship Civilian Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power
 Sierra Leone Democracy Presidential Democracy
 Singapore Dictatorship Civilian Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power
 Slovakia Democracy Semi-Presidential Democracy
 Slovenia Democracy Parliamentary Democracy
 Solomon Islands Democracy Parliamentary Democracy
 Somalia Dictatorship Civilian Dictatorship 2. Legislature not elected
3. No Legislative parties
 South Africa Dictatorship Civilian Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power
 South Korea Democracy Presidential Democracy
 Spain Democracy Parliamentary Democracy
 Sri Lanka Democracy Presidential Democracy
 Saint Kitts and Nevis Democracy Parliamentary Democracy
 Saint Lucia Democracy Parliamentary Democracy
 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Democracy Parliamentary Democracy
 Sudan Dictatorship Military Dictatorship 1. Executive not elected
2. Legislature not elected
 Suriname Democracy Presidential Democracy
 Swaziland Dictatorship Royal Dictatorship 1. Executive not elected
3. Legally single party state
 Sweden Democracy Parliamentary Democracy
  Switzerland Democracy Presidential Democracy
 Syria Dictatorship Military Dictatorship 3. All parties in regime
 Taiwan Democracy Semi-Presidential Democracy
 Tajikistan Dictatorship Civilian Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power
 Tanzania Dictatorship Military Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power
 Thailand Democracy Parliamentary Democracy
 Togo Dictatorship Civilian Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power
 Tonga Dictatorship Royal Dictatorship 1. Executive not elected
2. Legislature not elected
3. All parties legally banned
4. No alternation in power
 Trinidad and Tobago Democracy Parliamentary Democracy
 Tunisia Dictatorship Military Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power
 Turkey Democracy Parliamentary Democracy
 Turkmenistan Dictatorship Civilian Dictatorship 3. Legally one party state
 Tuvalu Democracy Parliamentary Democracy
 Uganda Dictatorship Civilian Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power
 Ukraine Democracy Semi-Presidential Democracy
 United Arab Emirates Dictatorship Royal Dictatorship 1. Executive not elected
2. No Legislature
3. No Legislative parties
 United Kingdom Democracy Parliamentary Democracy
 United States Democracy Presidential Democracy
 Uruguay Democracy Presidential Democracy
 Uzbekistan Dictatorship Civilian Dictatorship 3. One party
4. No alternation in power
 Vanuatu Democracy Parliamentary Democracy
 Venezuela Dictatorship Civilian Dictatorship 1. Executive not elected

4. No alternation in power

 Vietnam Dictatorship Civilian Dictatorship 1. Executive not elected
3. One party
 Yemen Dictatorship Military Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power
 Zambia Dictatorship Civilian Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power
 Zimbabwe Dictatorship Civilian Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power

Democracy classification

[edit]
A flowchart for the classification of democracies. Note that the official names do not determine their classification.

Democracies are classified by the rules in which executives can be appointed or removed and can be either presidential, mixed or semi-presidential, or parliamentary.[1][8]: 454  It is important to note that these names do not have to correspond to the official or colloquial titles of any of the countries offices. For example, DD could classify a country which has a legislative assembly whose official name is "the parliament" but still classify it in any of the three categories. The classification depends on the rules outlining the relationship between a country's government, legislative assembly (often called the legislature), and head of state.[8]: 454  The government composes the chief executive and the heads of the executive departments. The chief executive can take many titles including chancellor, prime minister, or premier and the heads of the executive departments can bear different titles and be called different things. In the United Kingdom, for example, the chief executive is the prime minister, and the ministers are the heads of the executive departments, which together compose the government.

Legislative responsibility

[edit]

The first distinction made is whether a country has a government has legislative responsibility, i.e. whether a majority vote in the legislature can remove the sitting government without cause. The required majority needed to remove the sitting government varies between countries but is termed a vote of no confidence.[8]: 455  Some countries (such as Spain, Belgium, Germany, and Israel) require that the vote of no confidence also specify who is going to replace the sitting government to minimize the time without an interim government, essentially replacing one government with another. This type of vote is termed a constructive vote of no confidence.[8]: 455  Sometimes sitting governments will attach a vote of no confidence clause to a piece of legislation they want passed, effectively tying the survival of the government on the piece of legislation.[8]: 456 

Head of state

[edit]

The second distinction made is whether the head of state is popularly elected for a fixed term. The head of state may be unelected and still be classified as a democracy.[1] Popularly elected means that the head of state is directly elected by the citizens or elected by an assembly which then elects them (an example being the electoral college in the United States). In Germany, the head of state is elected by regional legislatures and not popularly elected.[8]: 457  Elected heads of state are usually referred to as "president." The phrase "fixed term" indicates the once the head of state is chosen, they serve a known and a limited number of years before another election is held, and they cannot be removed from the office in the meantime via a vote of no confidence.[8]: 456 

The head of state in most parliamentary democracies formally appoint the head of government.[8]: 465  Some countries, such as Greece and Bulgaria, stipulate who the head of state chooses as head of government. In the former, for example, the President must appoint as Prime Minister the leader of the largest party in parliament, who has three days to gain the confidence of a majority thereof.

Some countries, such as Sweden, instead charge another person entirely with choosing the head of government, such as the presiding officer of the legislative assembly.

Classification

[edit]

The first distinction made is whether a democracy's government is responsible to the legislature. If it is not responsible, it is a presidential democracy. If it is, then a further distinction is made between democracies where the head of state is popularly elected and those where the head of state is not popularly elected. If the head of state is popularly elected for a fixed term then, the democracy is mixed or semi-presidential. If the head of state serves for life or is not popularly elected or a fixed term, then the democracy is parliamentary.[1]

The table below offers a full list of which countries are what type of democracy. Keep note that the head of state, chief executive, government, and legislatures can have their official names be seemingly contradictory to this classification. The name a democracy gives itself or its office does not indicate what type of democracy it is.

Definitions

[edit]

A presidential democracy has a government that does not need the majority support of a legislature to stay in power. A semi-presidential (mixed) democracy has a government that needs the majority of support from a legislature to exist and whose head of state is popularly elected for a fixed term. Parliamentary democracy is the same as semi-presidential but has heads of state which are not popularly elected for a fixed term, typically either monarchs or officials not chosen by popular elections. [8]: 457 

Comparison with other democracy-measuring data sets

[edit]

The DD dataset is limited to 199 countries after 1946, whereas Boix, Miller, & Rosato, 2013 proposed a data set from 1800 to 2007, covering 219 countries. The 2010 version of Polity data series covers 189 countries from 1800 to 2009.[9]

Gugiu & Centellas developed the Democracy Cluster Classification Index that integrates five democracy indicators (including the DD dataset, Polity dataset), clustering 24 American and 39 European regimes over 30 years.[2]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n Cheibub, José Antonio; Gandhi, Jennifer; Vreeland, James Raymond (April 2010). "Democracy and dictatorship revisited". Public Choice. 143 (1–2): 67–101. doi:10.1007/s11127-009-9491-2. JSTOR 40661005. S2CID 45234838.
  2. ^ a b Ristei, Mihaiela; Centellas, Miguel (Summer 2013). "The Democracy Cluster Classification Index". Political Analysis. 21 (3): 334–349. doi:10.1093/pan/mpt004.
  3. ^ a b c Keech, William R. (14 October 2013). Economic Politics in the United States. Cambridge University Press. pp. 17–. ISBN 978-1-107-00414-6. Retrieved 24 March 2014. Specifically, the DD index (for Democracy and Dictatorship) assesses the United States as a democracy from 1946, the first measured, through 2008, the last year of measurement. ... My definition of a democracy is minimalist, like the DD definition of Cheibub, Gadhi, and Vreeland (2010), but it adds a dimension. Like DD, it considers the presence of contested elections a necessary condition of ....
  4. ^ Haggard, Stephan; Kaufman, Robert R. (August 2012). "Inequality and regime change: democratic transitions and the stability of democratic rule". American Political Science Review. 106 (3): 495–516. doi:10.1017/S0003055412000287. S2CID 28273700.
  5. ^ Alvarez, M.; Cheibub, J. A.; Limongi, F.; Przeworski, A. (1996). "Classifying political regimes". Studies in Comparative International Development. 31 (2): 3–36. doi:10.1007/bf02719326. S2CID 154376266.
  6. ^ Przeworski, Adam (2003). "Minimalist Conception of Democracy: A Defense". In Robert Alan Dahl, Ian Shapiro& José Antônio Cheibub (ed.). The Democracy Sourcebook. MIT Press. p. 12. ISBN 978-0-262-54147-3. Retrieved 24 March 2014.
  7. ^ a b "DD - José Antonio Cheibub". sites.google.com. Retrieved 2022-09-05.
  8. ^ a b c d e f g h i Clark, Robert Williams; Golder, Matt; Golder, Nadenichek (2018). Principles of Comparative Politics (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications. pp. 454–467. ISBN 978-1506318127.
  9. ^ Boix, Carles; Miller, Michael; Rosato, Sebastian (December 2013). "A complete data set of political regimes, 1800–2007". Comparative Political Studies. 46 (12): 1523–1554. doi:10.1177/0010414012463905. S2CID 45833659.
[edit]