How to Measure Democracy

Democracy is a system of government in which the people choose their representatives and laws through free elections. It is also a set of principles that governs non-governmental organisations such as trade unions and cooperatives, as well as corporations through systems such as shareholder democracy. There are also some private schools that use a form of democratic governance, such as Sudbury schools. The word comes from the Greek words demos, meaning “people”, and kratos, meaning “rule”.

There are several ways to measure democracy, but International IDEA’s Global State of Democracy Indices is a good place to start. It uses a unique framework to combine 116 individual indicators into five broad attributes: Representative Government, Fundamental Rights, Checks on Power, Impartial Administration and Participatory Engagement. These attributes form the basis of the GSoDI’s multidimensional score, which allows a more nuanced analysis of democracy than traditional rankings of country performance.

The GSoDI score is a good proxy for the degree to which governments have succeeded in meeting their own commitments to’responsive, inclusive and participatory decision-making at all levels of government, underpinned by strong institutions’ under Sustainable Development Goal 16.7. This new approach to measuring democracy can help to address the shortfalls of traditional metrics, such as parliamentary transparency, by considering how governments are delivering on multiple dimensions of democracy at once.

Moreover, the GSoDI is a valuable tool for policymakers and journalists. It provides a clear picture of how countries are progressing on the road to democracy, and how trends differ across regions and within different types of societies. This is particularly useful when addressing the challenges of democracy in practice. The need for compromise and understanding among citizens and political parties is essential to the success of democracy, as are good government services and the trustworthiness of the political institutions that govern them. The importance of tackling issues like poverty, inequality and the lack of social mobility cannot be overlooked; they must go hand in hand with a more robust democracy.

Democracy is often justified along two separate dimensions: instrumentally, by reference to the outcomes it produces compared with other forms of political decision making; and intrinsically, by reference to values that are inherent to it. For example, one of the most common epistemic justifications for democracy is based on Scott Page and Lu Hong’s “diversity trumps ability” theorem (Hong & Page 2004; Landemore 2013). This argument posits that democracy is best equipped to take advantage of the cognitive diversity present in large groups of people by bringing many sources of information and perspectives to bear when making collective decisions.

However, there are also several reasons to believe that the benefits of democracy do not always play out in practice. One is the fact that it can be difficult to distinguish between government decisions and those made by ordinary people. Another is the evidence that many citizens are ill-informed and apathetic about politics, which makes it possible for corrupt politicians to manipulate the system and exploit its weaknesses for their own benefit. Finally, empirical research has shown that the democratic process can reinforce existing political identities and lead to motivated reasoning that seeks to affirm one’s own beliefs rather than make correct judgments.

Democracy is a system of government in which the people choose their representatives and laws through free elections. It is also a set of principles that governs non-governmental organisations such as trade unions and cooperatives, as well as corporations through systems such as shareholder democracy. There are also some private schools that use a form of democratic governance, such as Sudbury schools. The word comes from the Greek words demos, meaning “people”, and kratos, meaning “rule”. There are several ways to measure democracy, but International IDEA’s Global State of Democracy Indices is a good place to start. It uses a unique framework to combine 116 individual indicators into five broad attributes: Representative Government, Fundamental Rights, Checks on Power, Impartial Administration and Participatory Engagement. These attributes form the basis of the GSoDI’s multidimensional score, which allows a more nuanced analysis of democracy than traditional rankings of country performance. The GSoDI score is a good proxy for the degree to which governments have succeeded in meeting their own commitments to’responsive, inclusive and participatory decision-making at all levels of government, underpinned by strong institutions’ under Sustainable Development Goal 16.7. This new approach to measuring democracy can help to address the shortfalls of traditional metrics, such as parliamentary transparency, by considering how governments are delivering on multiple dimensions of democracy at once. Moreover, the GSoDI is a valuable tool for policymakers and journalists. It provides a clear picture of how countries are progressing on the road to democracy, and how trends differ across regions and within different types of societies. This is particularly useful when addressing the challenges of democracy in practice. The need for compromise and understanding among citizens and political parties is essential to the success of democracy, as are good government services and the trustworthiness of the political institutions that govern them. The importance of tackling issues like poverty, inequality and the lack of social mobility cannot be overlooked; they must go hand in hand with a more robust democracy. Democracy is often justified along two separate dimensions: instrumentally, by reference to the outcomes it produces compared with other forms of political decision making; and intrinsically, by reference to values that are inherent to it. For example, one of the most common epistemic justifications for democracy is based on Scott Page and Lu Hong’s “diversity trumps ability” theorem (Hong & Page 2004; Landemore 2013). This argument posits that democracy is best equipped to take advantage of the cognitive diversity present in large groups of people by bringing many sources of information and perspectives to bear when making collective decisions. However, there are also several reasons to believe that the benefits of democracy do not always play out in practice. One is the fact that it can be difficult to distinguish between government decisions and those made by ordinary people. Another is the evidence that many citizens are ill-informed and apathetic about politics, which makes it possible for corrupt politicians to manipulate the system and exploit its weaknesses for their own benefit. Finally, empirical research has shown that the democratic process can reinforce existing political identities and lead to motivated reasoning that seeks to affirm one’s own beliefs rather than make correct judgments.