【长文】“民主指数”背后的意义——开倒车极其后果

本文为原创,转载请注明出处。


考虑到浏览本站的一些读者个人原因,没有时间阅读全文可以自行选择阅读黑线部分和结论部分。


文章除引用外,其余为个人观点。


(一)简介

“民主指数”是经济学信息社创造的一种衡量国家民主程度的方式,由政治选举、政府运作、政治参与、政治文化和公民自由五个部分组成。中文维基百科这一条目与英文有较大区别,没有详细解释很多深层问题而仅引用了大量数据,但相比英文版,列出近十年来所有国家的民主指数变化也算是给了不少参考资料。英文版的这个词条处于保护状态,有遭到破坏嫌疑,因此相比起来阅读英文版显然比中文版更有价值。

为了给英文不好的人提供“民主指数”的内幕,这里本人翻译一下英文维基词条“民主指数”(democratic index)的计算方法:

民主指数为上述五个项目相关的60条问题取平均得分最终得到。问题的创建由领域专家提供,或来自国家的实地调查,若该国某项调查缺失,则由类似国家的数据作为参考修正。60问题有“是”“否”两个选项,个别问题增加“中等”这个选项,是计1分,否计0分,中计0.5分。所有问题得分完毕后相加,乘10,再除以60.值得一提的是,有一些问题具有连带影响性,若一项得0分则可能导致其他问题自动计0.

比如“这个国家的选举是否公平?”“投票人是否得到保护?”第一个问题,选举在中国根本不存在,得0分。第二个自然也计0.


根据最终得分为全世界所有国家或地区划分为四个级别:完全民主、部分民主、混合政权、独裁政权。各含义定义如下:

完全民主(得分X,8.00<X<=10):该国家拥有完整民主制度不仅广泛得到推崇还有完整政策和法律监督,具有一套人民监视政府的运程、独立的司法系统和媒体,仅存少量可能的民主运作问题。


部分民主(6.00<X<=8.00):该国家的政治选举公平且公民自由获得尊重,但会有一些瑕疵(比如批评政府的言论压制及媒体自由被干涉),且制度上存在可能的其他潜在问题,如公民政治参与度较低。


混合政权(4.00<X<=6.00):该国家有较平常的选举问题,促使其并不公正和民主。政府会频繁干涉反对言论,司法不独立,较为频繁的腐败问题、干涉新闻自由及其他比部分民主国家更严重的潜在问题。


独裁政权(0.00<=X<=4.00):该国家的政治选举不存在或受到严重限制。常见政治制度为君主专制或文官专制,可能有一些传统保留下来的民主但会受严重的政府干预。侵犯公民自由和人权的现象十分常见。选举(如果存在的话)不公平,媒体及司法系统被政府掌控,且对政府批评有严重的审查和压制。


(2018-2019年美国、日本、中国、香港、中华民国、朝鲜的民主指数比较)

                         2019年      2018年

美国                   7.96            7.96

日本                   7.99           7.99

中华民国             7.73           7.73

香港                   6.02           6.15

中国                  2.26           3.32
  
朝鲜                  1.08           1.08


结论:“开倒车”的表现还真不是吹的,全世界所有国家分数在短短一年时间降低最大的国家只有中国了,足足降了1.06分,被越南和伊朗超越,排名倒退23位。香港则一贯在“部分民主”的边缘,跌落至“混合政权”有望。(澳门不在列表内


(二)“民主指数”的计算方式是否公平?

本人其实很早以前就思考过这个问题,结合维基英文词条里“对民主指数计算方式的批评”和墙内文章《“民主指数”背后的傲慢与偏见》,链接地址:http://www.xinhuanet.com/politics/2016-10/08/c_129313752.htm(墙内文章慎入)本人有一些自己的思考。

英文词条里给出的批评意见为民主指数缺乏透明度和接纳度,而创作问题的所谓“专家”并非来自不同国家,因而“专家”意见并不适用于每个国家。

墙内文章实则本词条批评的具体化,阅读全文提出主要批评意见,其实可以容纳为一句:政治选举不是决定一个国家是否民主的关键问题,而民主指数测试国家之前注重于本问题就会让“人民是不是当家作主”的本质被扭曲。(中国的民主指数过低原因是没有进行西方政治选举)

姑且不谈这篇墙内文章由于墙内审查问题而可能对西方意见进行妖魔化,这种理解和质疑政治选举决定民主的想法是否有道理?

(1)本人站在客观的角度去套路,确实应当质疑,如果可能,我必须找到60道题具体是什么,从中获得参考信息才能回答这个问题。然而,原维基英文词条在这一项上没有列出来源,今天花了些时间也没能从网上查到具体60道题究竟是什么。(如果对此有兴趣的朋友能帮我找到60道题到底都是些什么,希望能给我指出通道,感激不尽)

(2)没有找到具体问题是否意味着这个问题不能继续讨论下去?答案是否定的。因为我可以肯定问题至少囊括了五个听上去有道理的方面:即民主指数的上述五个面。没有找到具体问题,因此本人只能暂时采取折中方式:通过五方面的相应国家具体评分,根据五方面定义去预估这个算法是否科学。

结论:确实没有足够的证据来证明“民主指数“的计算方式是否可靠,但具有参考价值,能够体现一个国家存在的某些问题。


(三)“政治选举”是“民主指数”提升的关键?

根据墙内文章提示,由于政治选举对最终得分貌似“影响过大”,我赞成文章批评,在此基础上由用民主指数原框架为蓝本对五个项目分别取加权平均来对数值进行修正,或干脆将政治选举这一栏砍掉,其他四项取平均值。深思后认为前一种较为科学。

这个方式并不意味着我发明了一种“科学测量一个国家民主程度“的方式,因为毕竟原来的做法是否科学就受到质疑,但至少我认为比原算法科学了一些,从批评文章里阐述的”政治选举不是衡量一个国家民主程度“的说法出发,我决定就用这篇文章的方式把其中一个可能重要的方面扩大权重。

那么哪方面是权重较大的?我认为应该是“公民自由”

政治选举对很多独裁国家来说或许较为遥远,但公民感到自由与否不正是体现这个问题的关键?批评文章并没有把这个核心问题指出来,显然是只揪出了政治选举问题,因此并不科学

这里,我将公民自由这一项取权重为40%,其他四项分别降低为15%,然后取加权平均修正,上过初中的应该都能算出来。

只看中国的计算结果,根据五项评分,0.00(政治选举)4.29(政府运作)3.33(政治参与)2.50(政治文化)1.18(公民自由)

最终结果为1.99,比原计算结果2.26更低。

不是说好的政治选举不是影响民主程度的关键吗?怎么降低权重反而让倒车开得更厉害?

答案并不难解释:公民自由这一项我提高了权重,而这一项恰恰是中国为什么一年以后下降了指数的关键,2018年中国的公民自由这一项的得分是6.37,一年后变成了1.18

值得一提的是,我这种算法会给很多“公民自由”这一项得分较高的国家提高民主指数(如台湾),而与之相反的国家则会降低民主指数(如印度)。


结论:所谓“政治选举”会影响“民主指数”的评论完全是胡说,墙内批评文章这这个论点上根本不成立。但有一点值得商讨:为什么民主指数的评分方式没有把经济指标加进去?这可能是中国政府最喜欢炫耀的方面,加进入可以从这个方面堵住“妖魔化中国”的嘴。


为什么我提议把经济加进去?因为经济毕竟也是民主的重要组成部分,而这些年刁某人开倒车的统治手段可能会导致这个最大的遮羞布都没有了。


如果能够找到60道原题,我可以根据每道题所代表的情况来修正答案分数,同时加入经济项目,让最终结果更科学。


事实上,一个国家民主与否到底该怎么去衡量是一件很复杂的事。不过在我看来,普世价值的存在性和政府对言论自由的开放程度是不变的关键,而墙国显然在这两个方面完全就是死穴。


附中国2011-2019民主指数变化:3.14-3.00-3.00-3.00-3.10-3.14-3.10-3.32-2.26


回顾2019年,各种政治动荡风云迭起,今年也许更不会是平静的一年,继续开倒车让不科学的“民主指数”按照原标准算低于2或许指日可待。虽然它不科学,但却能相对科学地体现国家存在的问题。未来什么时候会有光明?只有时间能告诉我们。


文章仅为个人观点,由于水平有限,错误在所难免,欢迎提出批评。
31
分享 2020-02-24

20 个评论

谢谢赐教。我现在知道民主指数是怎么算的了
说实话,这个民主指数其实还是非常粗糙的,桂枝的倒车其实远不是1年内倒出来的,而是过去至少5年一直在高速倒车极度倒退,而之所以过去一年才民主指数大幅下降,主要原因应该就是香港的反送中把桂枝的高速倒车在国际上显著的高光暴露了出来。这个ngo对于桂枝应该还是缺乏深入观察的,甚至于对于桂枝的观察渠道信息渠道很可能是有问题的被桂枝外宣操纵了的,直到香港反送中才惊醒。
民主指数为上述五个项目相关的60条问题取平均得分最终得到。问题的创建由领域专家提供,或来自国家的实地调查,若该国某项调查缺失,则由类似国家的数据作为参考修正。60问题有“是”“否”两个选项,个别问题增加“中等”这个选项,是计1分,否计0分,中计0.5分。所有问题得分完毕后相加,乘10,再除以60.值得一提的是,有一些问题具有连带影响性,若一项得0分则可能导致其他问题自动计0.


具体是哪六十个呀
[quote] [/quote]
我在文中已经阐述,在网上找了半天,都没有找到具体是哪60个问题,而这恰恰是我认为能验证这个算法是否科学的关键,有兴趣者建议帮我找找
主要是目前评判一个国家是否民主的标准和数据来源都不一样,遇到某些热爱数据造假的流氓国家(比如说你国),有些数值会虚高,在这个方面学术界一直都没有一个定论,就像你提议的将经济指数加进去,经济的发展确实能从侧面体现出一个国家民主程度(除过资源出口型国家外民主的环境对经济还是有一定的影响的),但是经济指数又容易被造假,所以这是一个争议性话题
主要是目前评判一个国家是否民主的标准和数据来源都不一样,遇到某些热爱数据造假的流氓国家(比如说你国)...

确实啊,所以文章阐明,这个方法也许不科学,衡量一个国家是否民主目前没有科学的方法,只能参考
我也觉得衡量一个国家的民主程度不能不考虑经济,而衡量经济民主应该有两个标准,一个是富裕程度,一个是贫富差距
en010272 黑名单
早期,美国移民法明文规定禁止共产党员移民美国。
在入境之后,如果被发现隶属共产党,将被递解出境。
恢复这条就行了。

捷克2002年於首都布拉格豎立了 共产主义受难者纪念碑。國會眾議院2011年6月制訂《反共產主義運動法》以獎勵反共產主義戰士。是凡在1989年共產政權垮台以前,曾參與反抗共產主義運動者、包括已過世者的家屬,都將獲現金獎勵,並提高部分人的退休金或撫恤金

2015年二戰胜利70周年纪念活动前夕,乌克兰政府内阁总理亚采纽克表示,内阁起草多项法律草案,包括谴责曾出現在乌克兰土地上的共产党納粹法西斯极权专制制度、取缔共产党及納粹等法西斯宣传,並禁止共产主义及納粹意识形态。法律草案已提交國會。乌克兰文化部长表示,共产党极权将被认定是犯罪制度,共黨政权在统治期间通过各种手段实施国家恐怖主义,給國家造成巨大破坏。烏克蘭也公開了秘密警察檔案。
烏克蘭司法部2014年7月發起訴訟,基輔行政法院2015年12月裁決同意取締烏克蘭共產黨,全面禁止共黨活動,包括取締兩個信奉共產主義的「工人与农民共产主义党」、「更新的乌克兰共产党」。此外,法院、司法部曾裁决禁止共党参加地方大选。基谢利斯说,乌克兰要想融入欧洲文明和接受普世民主价值,取缔共产党,去共产主义必不可少。

波蘭2016年5月實施《去共產主義法》,禁止宣傳共產主義、專制極權制度,全國各地更改廣場、街道、道路、橋樑等具有共產主義、專制極權制度色彩的命名與地名。2017年10月21日再施行修正案,一年內要推倒境內所有象徵共產主義、專制極權的塑像、紀念碑、路堤、浮雕及各種標誌。

1980年,朝鲜劳动党第六次代表大会取消马列主义的指导思想地位,把金日成主体思想作为唯一指导方针。1992年,北韓修宪,删除有关马列主义的内容。2009年4月,北韓再度修宪,删除有关共产主义的内容。2010年9月28日,朝鲜劳动党第三次代表会议修改党章,删除有关马列主义和共产主义的内容。
根据这个计算,日本比美国高0.03分,那能够举例一些日本在民主方面比美国先进的地方吗?单纯的好奇,不是在杠这个指数。
根据这个计算,日本比美国高0.03分,那能够举例一些日本在民主方面比美国先进的地方吗?单纯的好奇,不...

这个,作为没有系统研究的人表示很难给你准确回答,因为本身数值只是参考,又没有具体六十道题目帮助了解哪些方面得分日本比美国高。不过我通过查找资料发现了一些端倪。

日本的政治参与程度比美国高了不少,美国有一半的不投票党,日本少得多。另外从日本生活上看,制度法律保障高了很多,尤其是对女性的保护,一个av盛行的国家能保证在法律框架下运转可能是很多国家达不到的。

但日本在文化方面如血腥暴力容忍程度低于美国,av也是必须打码的,其实后者可以看成是对人权的保护。而日本也并没有禁止在海外出版发行的游戏有血腥暴力内容
这里有其中的几个具体问题:
https://www.rcinet.ca/en/2020/01/27/2020-world-democracy-index-worrisome-decline/

#5 Can citizens cast their vote free of significant threats to their security from state or non-state bodies?

#16. Government is free of undue influence by the military or the security services

#28. Do ethnic, religious and other minorities have a reasonable degree of autonomy and voice in the political process?

#44. Is there a free electronic media?

#57. Extent to which citizens enjoy personal freedoms. Consider gender equality, right to travel, choice of work and study

#60. Extent to which the government invokes new risks and threats as an excuse for curbing civil liberties.

60道问题的全文在白皮书中可以找到,下载地址是http://www.eiu.com/Handlers/WhitepaperHandler.ashx?fi=Democracy-Index-2019.pdf&mode=wp&campaignid=democracyindex2019
稍微整理了一下:

I Electoral process and pluralism
1. Are elections for the national legislature and head of government free?
Consider whether elections are competitive in that electors are free to vote and are offered a range of choices.
1: Essentially unrestricted conditions for the presentation of candidates (for example, no bans on major parties).
0.5: There are some restrictions on the electoral process.
0: A single-party system or major impediments exist (for example, bans on a major party or candidate).

2. Are elections for the national legislature and head of government fair?
1: No major irregularities in the voting process.
0.5: Significant irregularities occur (intimidation, fraud), but do not significantly affect the overall outcome.
0: Major irregularities occur and affect the outcome.
Score 0 if score for question 1 is 0.

3. Are municipal elections both free and fair?
1: Are free and fair.
0.5: Are free, but not fair.
0: Are neither free nor fair.

4. Is there universal suffrage for all adults?
Bar generally accepted exclusions (for example, non-nationals; criminals; members of armed forces in some countries).
1: Yes.
0: No.

5. Can citizens cast their vote free of significant threats to their security from state or non-state bodies?
1: Yes.
0: No.

6. Do laws provide for broadly equal campaigning opportunities?
1: Yes.
0.5: Formally, yes, but, in practice, opportunities are limited for some candidates.
0: No.

7. Is the process of financing political parties transparent and generally accepted?
1: Yes.
0.5: Not fully transparent.
0: No.

8. Following elections, are the constitutional mechanisms for the orderly transfer of power from one government to another clear, established and accepted?
1: All three criteria are satisfied.
0.5: Two of the three criteria are satisfied.
0: Only one or none of the criteria is satisfied.

9. Are citizens free to form political parties that are independent of the government?
1. Yes.
0.5: There are some restrictions.
0: No.

10. Do opposition parties have a realistic prospect of achieving government?
1: Yes.
0.5: There is a dominant two-party system, in which other political forces never have any effective chance of taking part in national government.
0: No.

11. Is potential access to public office open to all citizens?
1: Yes.
0.5: Formally unrestricted, but, in practice, restricted for some groups, or for citizens from some parts of the country.
0: No.

12. Are citizens allowed to form political and civic organisations, free of state interference and surveillance?
1: Yes.
0.5: Officially free, but subject to some unofficial restrictions or interference.
0: No.

II Functioning of government
13. Do freely elected representatives determine government policy?
1: Yes.
0.5: Exercise some meaningful influence.
0: No.

14. Is the legislature the supreme political body, with a clear supremacy over other branches of government?
1: Yes.
0: No.

15. Is there an effective system of checks and balances on the exercise of government authority?
1: Yes.
0.5: Yes, but there are some serious flaws.
0: No.

16. Government is free of undue influence by the military or the security services.
1: Yes.
0.5: Influence is low, but the defence minister is not a civilian. If the current risk of a military coup is extremely low, but the country has a recent history of military rule or coups.
0: No.

17. Foreign powers and organisations do not determine important government functions or policies.
1: Yes.
0.5: Some features of a protectorate.
0: No (significant presence of foreign troops; important decisions taken by foreign power; country is a protectorate).

18. Do special economic, religious or other powerful domestic groups exercise significant political power, parallel to democratic institutions?
1: Yes.
0.5: Exercise some meaningful influence.
0: No.

19. Are sufficient mechanisms and institutions in place for ensuring government accountability to the electorate in between elections?
1: Yes.
0.5. Yes, but serious flaws exist.
0: No.

20. Does the government’s authority extend over the full territory of the country?
1: Yes.
0: No.

21. Is the functioning of government open and transparent, with sufficient public access to information?
1: Yes.
0.5: Yes, but serious flaws exist.
0: No.

22. How pervasive is corruption?
1: Corruption is not a major problem.
0.5: Corruption is a significant issue.
0: Pervasive corruption exists.

23. Is the civil service willing to and capable of implementing government policy?
1: Yes.
0.5. Yes, but serious flaws exist.
0: No.

24. Popular perceptions of the extent to which citizens have free choice and control over their lives.
1: High.
0.5: Moderate.
0: Low.
If available, from World Values Survey
% of people who think that they have a great deal of choice/control.
1 if more than 70%.
0.5 if 50-70%.
0 if less than 50%.

25. Public confidence in government.
1: High.
0.5: Moderate.
0: Low.
If available, from World Values Survey, Gallup polls, Eurobarometer, Latinobarometer
% of people who have a “great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in government.
1 if more than 40%.
0.5 if 25-40%.
0 if less than 25%.

26. Public confidence in political parties.
1: High.
0.5: Moderate.
0: Low.
If available, from World Values Survey
% of people who have a “great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence.
1 if more than 40%.
0.5 if 25-40%.
0 if less than 25%.

III Political participation
27. Voter participation/turn-out for national elections.
(Average turnout in parliamentary elections since 2000. Turnout as proportion of population of voting age.)
1 if above 70%.
0.5 if 50%-70%.
0 if below 50%.
If voting is obligatory, score 0. Score 0 if scores for questions 1 or 2 is 0.

28. Do ethnic, religious and other minorities have a reasonable degree of autonomy and voice in the political process?
1: Yes.
0.5: Yes, but serious flaws exist.
0: No.

29. Women in parliament.
% of members of parliament who are women.
1 if more than 20% of seats.
0.5 if 10-20%.
0 if less than 10%.

30. Extent of political participation. Membership of political parties and political non-governmental organisations.
Score 1 if over 7% of population for either.
Score 0.5 if 4-7%.
Score 0 if under 4%.
If participation is forced, score 0.

31. Citizens’ engagement with politics.
1: High.
0.5: Moderate.
0: Low.
If available, from World Values Survey
% of people who are very or somewhat interested in politics.
1 if over 60%.
0.5 if 40-60%.
0 if less than 40%.

32. The preparedness of population to take part in lawful demonstrations.
1: High.
0.5: Moderate.
0: Low.
If available, from World Values Survey
% of people who have taken part in or would consider attending lawful demonstrations.
1 if over 40%.
0.5 if 30-40%.
0 if less than 30%.

33. Adult literacy.
1 if over 90%.
0.5 if 70-90%.
0 if less than 70%.

34. Extent to which adult population shows an interest in and follows politics in the news.
1: High.
0.5: Moderate.
0: Low.
If available, from World Values Survey
% of population that follows politics in the news media (print, TV or radio) every day.
1 if over 50%.
0.5 if 30-50%.
0 if less than 30%.

35. The authorities make a serious effort to promote political participation.
1: Yes.
0.5: Some attempts.
0: No.
Consider the role of the education system, and other promotional efforts. Consider measures to facilitate voting by members of the diaspora.
If participation is forced, score 0.

IV Democratic political culture
36. Is there a sufficient degree of societal consensus and cohesion to underpin a stable, functioning democracy?
1: Yes.
0.5: Yes, but some serious doubts and risks.
0: No.

37. Perceptions of leadership; proportion of the population that desires a strong leader who bypasses parliament and elections.
1: Low.
0.5: Moderate.
0: High.
If available, from World Values Survey
% of people who think it would be good or fairly good to have a strong leader who does not bother with parliament and elections.
1 if less than 30%.
0.5 if 30-50%.
0 if more than 50%.

38. Perceptions of military rule; proportion of the population that would prefer military rule.
1: Low.
0.5: Moderate.
0: High.
If available, from World Values Survey
% of people who think it would be very or fairly good to have military rule.
1 if less than 10%.
0.5 if 10-30%.
0 if more than 30%.

39. Perceptions of rule by experts or technocratic government; proportion of the population that would prefer rule by experts or technocrats.
1: Low.
0.5: Moderate.
0: High.
If available, from World Values Survey
% of people who think it would be very or fairly good to have experts, not government, make decisions for the country.
1 if less than 50%.
0.5 if 50-70%.
0 if more than 70%.

40. Perception of democracy and public order; proportion of the population that believes that democracies are not good at maintaining public order.
1: Low.
0.5: Moderate.
0: High.
If available, from World Values Survey
% of people who disagree with the view that democracies are not good at maintaining order.
1 if more than 70%.
0.5 if 50-70%.
0 if less than 50%.
Alternatively, % of people who think that punishing criminals is an essential characteristic of democracy.
1 if more than 80%.
0.5 if 60-80%.
0 if less than 60%.

41. Perception of democracy and the economic system; proportion of the population that believes that democracy benefits economic performance.
If available, from World Values Survey
% of people who disagree with the view that the economic system is badly run in democracies.
1 if more than 80%.
0.5 if 60-80%.
0 if less than 60%.

42. Degree of popular support for democracy.
1: High.
0.5: Moderate.
0: Low.
If available, from World Values Survey
% of people who agree or strongly agree that democracy is better than any other form of government.
1 if more than 90%.
0.5 if 75-90%.
0 if less than 75%.

43. There is a strong tradition of the separation of Church and State.
1: Yes.
0.5: Some residual influence of Church on State.
0: No.

V Civil liberties
44. Is there a free electronic media?
1: Yes.
0.5: Pluralistic, but state-controlled media are heavily favoured. One or two private owners dominate the media.
0: No.

45. Is there a free print media?
1: Yes.
0.5: Pluralistic, but state-controlled media are heavily favoured. There is high degree of concentration of private ownership of national newspapers.
0: No.

46. Is there freedom of expression and protest (bar only generally accepted restrictions, such as banning advocacy of violence)?
1: Yes.
0.5: Holders of minority viewpoints are subject to some official harassment. Libel laws heavily restrict scope for free expression.
0: No.

47. Is media coverage robust? Is there open and free discussion of public issues, with a reasonable diversity of opinions?
1: Yes.
0.5: There is formal freedom, but a high degree of conformity of opinion, including through selfcensorship or discouragement of minority or marginal views.
0: No.

48. Are there political restrictions on access to the Internet?
1: No.
0.5: Some moderate restrictions.
0: Yes.

49. Are citizens free to form professional organisations and trade unions?
1: Yes.
0.5: Officially free, but subject to some restrictions.
0: No.

50. Do institutions provide citizens with the opportunity to petition government to redress grievances?
1: Yes.
0.5: Some opportunities.
0: No.

51. The use of torture by the state.
1: Torture is not used.
0: Torture is used.

52. The degree to which the judiciary is independent of government influence.
Consider the views of international legal and judicial watchdogs. Have the courts ever issued an important judgement against the government, or a senior government official?
1: High.
0.5: Moderate.
0: Low.

53. The degree of religious tolerance and freedom of religious expression.
Are all religions permitted to operate freely, or are some restricted? Is the right to worship permitted both publicly and privately? Do some religious groups feel intimidated by others, even if the law requires equality and protection?
1: High.
0.5: Moderate.
0: Low.

54. The degree to which citizens are treated equally under the law.
Consider whether favoured groups or individuals are spared prosecution under the law.
1: High.
0.5: Moderate.
0: Low.

55. Do citizens enjoy basic security?
1: Yes.
0.5: Crime is so pervasive as to endanger security for large segments.
0: No.

56. Extent to which private property rights are protected and private business is free from undue government influence
1: High.
0.5: Moderate.
0: Low.

57. Extent to which citizens enjoy personal freedoms.
Consider gender equality, right to travel, choice of work and study.
1: High.
0.5: Moderate.
0: Low.

58. Popular perceptions on protection of human rights; proportion of the population that think that basic human rights are well-protected.
1: High.
0.5: Moderate.
0: Low.
If available, from World Values Survey:
% of people who think that human rights are respected in their country.
1 if more than 70%.
0.5 if 50-70%.
0 if less than 50%.

59. There is no significant discrimination on the basis of people’s race, colour or religious beliefs.
1: Yes.
0.5: Yes, but some significant exceptions.
0: No.

60. Extent to which the government invokes new risks and threats as an excuse for curbing civil liberties.
1: Low.
0.5: Moderate.
0: High.
这个民主指数,评分过程不公开、不透明,缺乏可以验证性,某些国家评分明显与观感不符,没有参考价值。
其实比日本民主指数高的国家还有很多,图中没列出来

美日都不是民主顶尖的国家
>> 说实话,这个民主指数其实还是非常粗糙的,桂枝的倒车其实远不是1年内倒出来的,而是过去至少5年一...


不完全是这样。18年3月份包子称帝,年号庆丰元年。3月份开始大概到5、6月份,网络言论自由的围剿主要是针对开倒车、老司机疲劳驾驶等情况进行的。下半年开始,到19年达到阶段性(空前但是不绝后)顶点,真的是啥都不能说(请参考年底李文亮被训诫)。

所以19年民主指数明显低于18年和包子称帝也有关系。而且关系很大。我们可以设想一下,假设18年不称蒂,在大陆继续延续他13-17的做法,这个指数不会退步那么大
>> 这个,作为没有系统研究的人表示很难给你准确回答,因为本身数值只是参考,又没有具体六十道题目帮助...


“av也是必须打码”,所以不打码的av全部流向了美国
>> 其实比日本民主指数高的国家还有很多,图中没列出来美日都不是民主顶尖的国家

得分最高的是挪威,连续五年人类发展指数和民主指数都是双料第一,2006年以来,北韩永远都是倒数第一。

要发言请先登录注册

要发言请先登录注册

发起人

沉默的大多数

状态

  • 最新活动: 2020-12-16
  • 浏览: 11209