Denmark, Finland and Belgium have best democracies: study

Jan 27, 2011

A new democracy barometer from the University of Zurich and the Social Science Research Center Berlin (WZB) shows the development of the thirty best democracies in the world. Den-mark, Finland and Belgium have the highest quality of democracy, whereas Great Britain, France, Poland, South Africa and Costa Rica the lowest. Moreover, the barometer shows no evidence of a crisis of democracy.

Diagnoses of a crisis of are as old as democracy itself; they are a common theme in the political discourse of the Western world. However, until now there was no instrument that allowed a systematic measurement of the quality and stability of democracy in highly developed across national borders and over long periods of time. A democracy barometer that has analyzed the development of the most important aspects of the world's thirty foremost democracies since 1990 has now been presented at the University of Zurich.

The barometer uses 100 empirical indicators to measure how well a country complies with the three democratic principles of freedom, equality and control as well as the nine basic functions of democ-racy. The comparison of thirty established democracies between 1995 and 2005 has revealed that Denmark is leading the way, followed by Finland and Belgium. "In the comparison, the lowest quality is exhibited by the democracies in Poland, South Africa and Costa Rica," says Marc Bühlmann from the University of Zurich. While Italy, as might be expected, finds itself towards the bottom end of the scale, it is surprising that Great Britain (26th) and France (27th) are also so far down the ranking. Equally surprising is the fact that Switzerland (14th) is only mediocre and lags behind 11th- placed Germany.

Quality of democracy on the rise

The democracy barometer can also be used to measure the quality of democratic systems over time. "There was, however, no evidence of an overall crisis or a decline in the quality of democracy," according to Bühlmann. Quite the contrary: if the quality of democracy in all thirty countries is seen as a whole, an increase in the quality of democracy from 1995 to 2000 can be observed and, despite a slight dip again between 2000 and 2005, it is still at a higher level in 2005 than in 1995. Consideration of the individual countries reveals that nine democracies exhibit a lower quality than in 1995 (ITA, CZE, POR, USA, CRC, FRA, IRL, AUS and GER), whereas the quality of democracy has risen in the remaining twenty-one countries.

The democracy barometer registers the differences in the quality of political participation, representa-tion and transparency as well as those concerning the rule of law, individual liberties or the ability of a government to actually implement democratic decisions. If the countries are viewed as a whole, an increase in the quality of transparency and representation becomes apparent, but so does a slight decline in the rule of law. The positive trend can be attributed – among other things – to the ever-better integration of women in the political process and the increase in transparency virtually forced into being by citizens, audit divisions, ombudsmen, NGOs and the media. On the other hand, the rule of law is losing ground due to an increasing unequal treatment of minorities. Here, too, there are ma-jor differences between the individual countries. Positive developments are apparent in younger de-mocracies such as South Africa and Cyprus, which are making up a lot of ground in terms of develop-ing and protecting personal liberties, whilst a decline was evident in George W. Bush's America and Silvio Berlusconi's Italy.

"Democracy is still a work in progress," say the two project leaders Marc Bühlmann (Zurich) and Prof. Wolfgang Merkel (Berlin). Sustainable democratization is needed, even in established democracies." Our democracy barometer shows the strengths and weaknesses of the democracies in the individual . But it also reveals where progress and success have been achieved and where it is worth studying the best practices of successful democracies more closely," say Merkel und Bühlmann.

Country comparison (average quality of democracy 1995-2005):

Denmark: 88.3
Finland: 87.7
Belgium: 85.1
Iceland: 83.5
Sweden: 82.9
Norway: 82.1
Canada: 79.4
Netherlands: 79.0
Luxembourg: 75.2
USA: 74.9
Germany: 73.2
New Zealand: 72.1
Slovenia: 69.6
Switzerland: 67.8
Ireland: 67.0
Portugal: 66.7
Spain: 66.6
Australia: 65.5
Hungary: 63.2
Austria: 63.1
Czech Republic: 58.2
Italy: 57.0
Cyprus: 55.5
Malta: 54.2
Japan: 45.8
Great Britain: 44.6
France: 42.8
Poland: 42.0
South Africa: 39.8
Costa Rica: 32.7

Explore further: Evolution of lying

Provided by University of Zurich

4.8 /5 (12 votes)

Related Stories

Democracy not good at helping poor people

Oct 19, 2006

A group of U.S. political scientists has concluded democracy may not be more beneficial to the poor than other political systems, contrary to prior findings.

Deforestation prevented, in part, by democracy: study

Sep 24, 2010

Democratic countries suffer less from deforestation. That seems logical enough. But forests also do well under a strong dictatorship. This remarkable conclusion was reached by Wageningen environmental scientists.

Civic education conducive to a more democratic America

Oct 23, 2008

Successful democracies depend on an informed, thoughtful, and engaged electorate. However, social scientific research shows the American electorate to be poorly informed and often disengaged. In an article in the 2008 Yearbook of ...

Should compulsory voting be adopted worldwide?

Nov 06, 2008

(PhysOrg.com) -- Is compulsory voting the most effective way of ensuring a true democracy? A University of Adelaide study will help address this question and could provide a global solution to addressing declining levels ...

Recommended for you

Evolution of lying

May 16, 2013

(Phys.org) —Ultimately, our ability to convincingly lie to each other may have evolved as a direct result of our cooperative nature.

How teenagers cope with inner-city risks

May 15, 2013

With concerns often expressed about youth crime and violence in the UK, researchers have been investigating what young people really think about living in an inner-city neighbourhood that has high levels of deprivation, crime ...

User comments : 20

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Yellowdart
4 / 5 (4) Jan 27, 2011
Hey, the USA isnt a democracy...It's a democratic republic!! :)

In all seriousness, why is control listed as one of their criteria?

The whole point of democracy is to empower the people to pursue life liberty and happiness, not to control them or do all those things for them.

Or is that how they are attempting to measure decline?
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (4) Jan 27, 2011
Anyone notice that, with very few exceptions, the more progressive a country is the worse it rates on this scale.

It would be interesting to see how the relative ranking on this scale correlates to relative ranking on things like crime, poverty, inflation, GDP, debt/deficit as a % of GDP, etc...

Only one democracy, South AFrica, is in the top 10 per capita murder rate, while two more democracies are 19th and 20th, being Poland and Costa Rica. All three of these nations rated dead last on the above scale.

It should be pointed out that the U.S. is 24th worst nation in per capita murder rate, and 4th worst democracy in per capita murder rate.

However, it doesn't corellate well, because Great Britain, Japan, and France have very low per capita murder rates. France is only 1/3rd as bad as the U.S., while Britain is slightly better than them, but Japan has ten times less murder per capita than the U.S.

At least they are protecting the "right to life"...
geokstr
2.1 / 5 (7) Jan 27, 2011
Hey, the USA isnt a democracy...It's a democratic republic!! :)

In all seriousness, why is control listed as one of their criteria?

The whole point of democracy is to empower the people to pursue life liberty and happiness, not to control them or do all those things for them.

Or is that how they are attempting to measure decline?

This "study" is probably weighted towards "social democracy" as being the barometer of perfection, as practiced in Europe, not a republic designed to protect the liberty of the individual. They don't much believe in the rights of the individual over there like "equality under the law" and "freedom of speech", with the "right to bear arms" being especially odious. "Social rights" and "social justice" are way more important concepts to them.

Note the criticism of the Bush era, which was no less transparent that the Obama era, where nearly all of Bush's policies have been adopted.
jjoensuu
not rated yet Jan 27, 2011
yea I have been wondering about the reason and motivation of this an that other recent report, the one ranking countries by "happiness" (in which Finland and Denmark also where listed near the top). Just makes me wonder because I happen to be from one of those countries...
Phideaux
5 / 5 (1) Jan 27, 2011
I don't see how anyone can doubt that personal liberty took a shellacking under the Bush administration. The question is was (or is) it justified for reasons of national security.
Paljor
not rated yet Jan 27, 2011
I have also heard that dennmark is one of the safest countries in the world.
geokstr
1 / 5 (2) Jan 27, 2011
I don't see how anyone can doubt that personal liberty took a shellacking under the Bush administration. The question is was (or is) it justified for reasons of national security.

Perhaps you can tell us all the myriad ways in which your personal liberty took a shellacking?

And how it's improved so much under Obama, who has mainly continued all the policies under Bush.
bg1
5 / 5 (4) Jan 27, 2011
Anyone notice that, with very few exceptions, the more progressive a country is the worse it rates on this scale....


You've got it backwards, the countries at the top of the list are the most socialist.
Quantum_Conundrum
1 / 5 (4) Jan 27, 2011
bgt:

Honestly there aren't as many correlations as I first thought.

It is weird that regardless of where a country ranks on this list, most of the more socialist democracies have much lower murder rates than the U.S., including several that rank near the bottom of this list, but also certainly including denmark.

Maybe social or fiscal extremes help prevent murder, while "moderate" counries don't do enough...
Yellowdart
1 / 5 (1) Jan 27, 2011
Maybe social or fiscal extremes help prevent murder, while "moderate" counries don't do enough...


Well, there is that whole iRobot idea that if you quarantine everyone, they obviously cant murder one another.
Yellowdart
3 / 5 (2) Jan 27, 2011
I don't see how anyone can doubt that personal liberty took a shellacking under the Bush administration. The question is was (or is) it justified for reasons of national security.

Perhaps you can tell us all the myriad ways in which your personal liberty took a shellacking?

And how it's improved so much under Obama, who has mainly continued all the policies under Bush.


In the hands of someone responsible, the Patriot Act is seen as a good thing. However, the danger of it is when, someone else uses that power for ill intentions.

In other words, Bush may have only actually used it against terrorists, leaving all other aspects alone. However, those under him may not have, or had we elected the next "Hitler" what they would use that same power for instead?

That is the prime danger in such an act. I'm not sure it was worth that risk.
sstritt
5 / 5 (3) Jan 27, 2011
I have also heard that dennmark is one of the safest countries in the world.

Unless you draw a cartoon of Mohammed. :-)


ryggesogn2
4 / 5 (4) Jan 27, 2011
the ability of a government to actually implement democratic decisions.

Does this mean that in a 'good' democracy 51% can control 49% of the population?

Except for Belgium, the top 'democracies' are all quite homogeneous and small. This enables social pressures, customs and norms to have more influence than the state. If US states were broken out in this study, I bet the smaller, more homogeneous rural states would be tops on the list.
Eikka
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 28, 2011

Does this mean that in a 'good' democracy 51% can control 49% of the population?


In the previous elections in Finland, the turnaround was 67.9% from a voting population of roughly 75% which turns around to just about 50.9% of the whole population.

Though if you count the three major parties in the parliament who collectively got 66.8% of the votes and 73% of the seats, it seems that only 34% of the people could make any meaningful impact on the actual politics through the way they chose to vote.

Though the actual political system in Finland works through a system where you vote for a person but the votes get pooled for the party, so who actually gets elected depends on the party itself, and the policies aren't necessarily decided by the people you chose to vote, but according to the party line which follows its own internal hierarchy and politics. It's known as "party dicipline".

So one could argue that overall, it matters very little how people vote in Finland.
Eikka
5 / 5 (1) Jan 28, 2011
And that fact is evident in the rhetorics of the Finnish members of the parliament themselves. They consider themselves as "deciders" instead of "representatives".

All in all, they have extensive suverenity in how the country is run, and many of the decisions are done in closed cabinets and only released to the public when they're about to implement them, which is considered a major problem by the people. The ministers on the other hand seem to openly regard the public feedback as a nuisance.

Bog_Mire
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 28, 2011
I found the Danes, Belgians and Fins a bit wound up and depressed. Maybe it was the weather.
geokstr
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 28, 2011
In the hands of someone responsible, the Patriot Act is seen as a good thing. However, the danger of it is when, someone else uses that power for ill intentions.

In other words, Bush may have only actually used it against terrorists, leaving all other aspects alone. However, those under him may not have, or had we elected the next "Hitler" what they would use that same power for instead?

That is the prime danger in such an act. I'm not sure it was worth that risk.

But your initial comment claimed that personal liberty had taken a shellacking under Bush. Your clarification is much more moderated, and unfortunately, applies to a lot of laws/regulations on the books today.

For instance, "net neutrality" has very modest aims, according to Genachowsky's FCC, but is it worth the risk, considering that it opens the door to content control? And Obama has asked for power to shut down the internet for "emergencies". Do you see any dangers here as well? Hint: look at Egypt right now.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (2) Jan 28, 2011
The ministers on the other hand seem to openly regard the public feedback as a nuisance.

So do most US members of Congress.
I found the Danes, Belgians and Fins a bit wound up and depressed. Maybe it was the weather.

Maybe it was the lack of economic opportunity and merit based salaries.
technicalengeneering
not rated yet Jan 28, 2011
They cannot be serious about Belgium being a democracy. Yes they are civilised and yes they live in a modern and free country but it's not democratic. Not because no one listens to the people but because they do. The next thing that happens is them breaking the world record of not agreeing with each other.
Daein
not rated yet Jan 30, 2011
This certainly isn't a measure of freedom.

More news stories

Evolution of lying

(Phys.org) —Ultimately, our ability to convincingly lie to each other may have evolved as a direct result of our cooperative nature.

Morocco to harness the wind in energy hunt

Morocco is ploughing ahead with a programme to boost wind energy production, particularly in the southern Tarfaya region, where Africa's largest wind farm is set to open in 2014.

US psychiatry gets makeover in new manual

The latest makeover to a massive psychiatric tome honored by some, reviled by others and even called the "Bible" of mental disorders is being released Saturday with a host of new changes.

New case of SARS-like virus in Saudi: ministry

A new case of the deadly coronavirus has been detected in Saudi Arabia where 15 people have already died after contracting it, the health ministry announced on Saturday on its Internet website.