Democracy-Dictatorship Index

Democracy-Dictatorship (DD)[1], index of democracy and dictatorship[2] or simply the DD index[3] or the DD datasets refers to 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] Though the most recent data set is only updated for 2008, there is planning by Cheibub to update it to the present year.

Not to be confused with Democracy Index.
Democracies and dictatorships in 2008.[1]
Democracies and dictatorships in 1988.[1]

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

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

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

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]
Regime Type Subtype Reason for Dictatorship[7]
 AfghanistanDictatorshipCivilian Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power
 AlbaniaDemocracyParliamentary Democracy
 AlgeriaDictatorshipCivilian Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power
 AndorraDemocracyParliamentary Democracy
 AngolaDictatorshipCivilian Dictatorship 1. Executive not elected
 Antigua and BarbudaDemocracyParliamentary Democracy
 ArgentinaDemocracyPresidential Democracy
 ArmeniaDemocracySemi-Presidential Democracy
 AustraliaDemocracyParliamentary Democracy
 AustriaDemocracySemi-Presidential Democracy
 AzerbaijanDictatorshipCivilian Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power
 BahamasDemocracyParliamentary Democracy
 BahrainDictatorshipRoyal Dictatorship 1. Executive not elected

2. No parties

 BangladeshDictatorshipCivilian Dictatorship 1. Executive not elected

2. No Legislature

3. No Legislative Parties

 BarbadosDemocracyParliamentary Democracy
 BelarusDictatorshipCivilian Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power
 BelgiumDemocracyParliamentary Democracy
 BelizeDemocracyParliamentary Democracy
 BeninDemocracyPresidential Democracy
 BhutanDemocracyParliamentary Democracy
 BoliviaDemocracyPresidential Democracy
 Bosnia and HerzegovinaDictatorshipCivilian Dictatorship 1. Executive not elected
 BotswanaDictatorshipMilitary Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power
 BrazilDemocracyPresidential Democracy
 BruneiDictatorshipRoyal Dictatorship 1. Executive not elected

2. Legislature not elected

3. One party

 BulgariaDemocracySemi-Presidential Democracy
 Burkina FasoDictatorshipMilitary Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power
 BurundiDemocracyPresidential Democracy
 CambodiaDictatorshipRoyal Dictatorship
  1. Executive not elected
  2. No parties
 CameroonDictatorshipCivilian Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power
 CanadaDemocracyParliamentary Democracy
 Cape VerdeDemocracySemi-Presidential Democracy
 Central African RepublicDictatorshipMilitary Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power
 ChadDictatorshipMilitary Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power
 ChileDemocracyPresidential Democracy
 ChinaDictatorshipCivilian Dictatorship 3. All parties are in regime
 ColombiaDemocracyPresidential Democracy
 ComorosDemocracyPresidential Democracy
 CongoDictatorshipMilitary Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power
 Costa RicaDemocracyPresidential Democracy
 Ivory CoastDictatorshipCivilian Dictatorship
 CroatiaDemocracySemi-Presidential Democracy
 CubaDictatorshipCivilian Dictatorship 3. Legally single party state
 CyprusDemocracyPresidential Democracy
 Czech RepublicDemocracyParliamentary Democracy
 DR CongoDictatorshipCivilian Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power
 DenmarkDemocracyParliamentary Democracy
 DjiboutiDictatorshipCivilian Dictatorship 3. One legislative party
 DominicaDemocracyParliamentary Democracy
 Dominican RepublicDemocracyPresidential Democracy
 East TimorDemocracySemi-Presidential Democracy
 EcuadorDemocracyPresidential Democracy
 EgyptDictatorshipMilitary Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power
 El SalvadorDemocracyPresidential Democracy
 Equatorial GuineaDictatorshipMilitary Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power
 EritreaDictatorshipCivilian Dictatorship 1. Executive not elected

2. Legislature not elected

3. All parties banned

4.. No alternation in power

 EstoniaDemocracyParliamentary Democracy
 EthiopiaDictatorshipCivilian Dictatorship 3. All parties are in regime

4. No alternation in power

 FijiDictatorshipMilitary Dictatorship 1. Executive not elected

2. No Legislature

3. No Legislative parties

 FinlandDemocracySemi-Presidential Democracy
 FranceDemocracySemi-Presidential Democracy
 GabonDictatorshipCivilian Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power
 GambiaDictatorshipMilitary Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power
 GeorgiaDemocracySemi-Presidential Democracy
 GermanyDemocracyParliamentary Democracy
 GhanaDemocracyPresidential Democracy
 GreeceDemocracyParliamentary Democracy
 GrenadaDemocracyParliamentary Democracy
 GuatemalaDemocracyPresidential Democracy
 GuineaDictatorshipMilitary Dictatorship 1. Executive not elected
 Guinea-BissauDemocracySemi-Presidential Democracy
 GuyanaDictatorshipCivilian Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power
 HaitiDictatorshipCivilian Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power
 HondurasDemocracyPresidential Democracy
 HungaryDemocracyParliamentary Democracy
 IcelandDemocracySemi-Presidential Democracy
 IndiaDemocracyParliamentary Democracy
 IndonesiaDemocracyPresidential Democracy
 IranDictatorshipCivilian Dictatorship 1.All parties in regime

2. No alternation in power

3.No Legislative parties

 IraqDictatorshipMilitary Dictatorship 3. All parties in regime
 IrelandDemocracySemi-Presidential Democracy
 IsraelDemocracyParliamentary Democracy
 ItalyDemocracyParliamentary Democracy
 JamaicaDemocracyParliamentary Democracy
 JapanDemocracyParliamentary Democracy
 JordanDictatorshipRoyal Dictatorship 1. Executive not elected
 KazakhstanDictatorshipCivilian Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power
 KenyaDemocracyPresidential Democracy
 KiribatiDemocracyParliamentary Democracy
 KuwaitDictatorshipRoyal Dictatorship 1. Executive not elected

3. All parties legally banned

 KyrgyzstanDemocracySemi-Presidential Democracy
 LaosDictatorshipMilitary Dictatorship 3. Legally single party state
 LatviaDemocracyParliamentary Democracy
 LebanonDictatorshipMilitary Dictatorship
 LesothoDictatorshipCivilian Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power
 LiberiaDemocracyPresidential Democracy
 LibyaDictatorshipMilitary Dictatorship 1. Executive not elected

2. Legislature is appointed

3. No parties

 LiechtensteinDemocracyParliamentary Democracy
 LithuaniaDemocracySemi-Presidential Democracy
 LuxembourgDemocracyParliamentary Democracy
 North MacedoniaDemocracySemi-Presidential Democracy
 MadagascarDemocracySemi-Presidential Democracy
 MalawiDemocracyPresidential Democracy
 MalaysiaDictatorshipCivilian Dictatorship 3. All parties in regime

4. No alternation in power

 MaldivesDemocracyPresidential Democracy
 MaliDemocracySemi-Presidential Democracy
 MaltaDemocracyParliamentary Democracy
 Marshall IslandsDemocracyParliamentary Democracy
 MauritaniaDictatorshipMilitary Dictatorship 1. Executive not elected

2. No Legislature

3. No Legislative parties

 MauritiusDemocracyParliamentary Democracy
 MexicoDemocracyPresidential Democracy
 F.S. MicronesiaDemocracyPresidential Democracy
 MoldovaDemocracyParliamentary Democracy
 MongoliaDemocracySemi-Presidential Democracy
 MontenegroDictatorshipCivilian Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power
 MoroccoDictatorshipRoyal Dictatorship 1. Executive not elected
 MozambiqueDictatorshipCivilian Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power
 MyanmarDictatorshipMilitary Dictatorship 1. Executive not elected

2. No Legislature

3. No Legislative parties

 NamibiaDictatorshipCivilian Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power
 NauruDemocracyParliamentary Democracy
   NepalDemocracyParliamentary Democracy
 NetherlandsDemocracyParliamentary Democracy
 New ZealandDemocracyParliamentary Democracy
 NicaraguaDemocracyPresidential Democracy
 NigerDemocracySemi-Presidential Democracy
 NigeriaDemocracyPresidential Democracy
 North KoreaDictatorshipCivilian Dictatorship 1. Executive not elected
 NorwayDemocracyParliamentary Democracy
 OmanDictatorshipRoyal Dictatorship 1. Executive not elected

2. Legislature is closed

3. No Legislative parties

 PakistanDictatorshipCivilian Dictatorship
 PalauDemocracyPresidential Democracy
 PanamaDemocracyPresidential Democracy
 Papua New GuineaDemocracyParliamentary Democracy
 ParaguayDemocracyPresidential Democracy
 PeruDemocracyPresidential Democracy
 PhilippinesDemocracyPresidential Democracy
 PolandDemocracySemi-Presidential Democracy
 PortugalDemocracySemi-Presidential Democracy
 QatarDictatorshipRoyal Dictatorship 1. Executive not elected

2. Legislature not elected

3. No Legislative parties

 RomaniaDemocracySemi-Presidential Democracy
 RussiaDictatorshipCivilian Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power
 RwandaDictatorshipMilitary Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power
 Western SamoaDictatorshipRoyal Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power
 San MarinoDemocracyParliamentary Democracy
 São Tomé and PríncipeDemocracySemi-Presidential Democracy
 Saudi ArabiaDictatorshipRoyal Dictatorship 1. Executive not elected

2. Legislature not elected

3. No Legislative parties

 SenegalDemocracySemi-Presidential Democracy
 SerbiaDemocracySemi-Presidential Democracy
 SeychellesDictatorshipCivilian Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power
 Sierra LeoneDemocracyPresidential Democracy
 SingaporeDemocracyParliamentary Democracy
 SlovakiaDemocracySemi-Presidential Democracy
 SloveniaDemocracyParliamentary Democracy
 Solomon IslandsDemocracyParliamentary Democracy
 SomaliaDictatorshipCivilian Dictatorship 2. Legislature not elected

3. No Legislative parties

 South AfricaDictatorshipCivilian Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power
 South KoreaDemocracyPresidential Democracy
 SpainDemocracyParliamentary Democracy
 Sri LankaDemocracyPresidential Democracy
 Saint Kitts and NevisDemocracyParliamentary Democracy
 Saint LuciaDemocracyParliamentary Democracy
 Saint Vincent and the GrenadinesDemocracyParliamentary Democracy
 SudanDictatorshipMilitary Dictatorship 1. Executive not elected

2. Legislature not elected

 SurinameDemocracyPresidential Democracy
 EswatiniDictatorshipRoyal Dictatorship 1. Executive not elected

3. Legally single party state

 SwedenDemocracyParliamentary Democracy
  SwitzerlandDemocracyPresidential Democracy
 SyriaDictatorshipMilitary Dictatorship 3. All parties in regime
 TaiwanDemocracySemi-Presidential Democracy
 TajikistanDictatorshipCivilian Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power
 TanzaniaDictatorshipMilitary Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power
 ThailandDictatorshipMilitary Dictatorship
 TogoDictatorshipCivilian Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power
 TongaDictatorshipRoyal Dictatorship 1. Executive not elected

2. Legislature not elected

3. All parties legally banned 4. No alternation in power

 Trinidad and TobagoDemocracyParliamentary Democracy
 TunisiaDictatorshipMilitary Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power
 TurkeyDemocracyPresidential Democracy
 TurkmenistanDictatorshipCivilian Dictatorship 3. Legally one party state
 TuvaluDemocracyParliamentary Democracy
 UgandaDictatorshipCivilian Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power
 UkraineDemocracySemi-Presidential Democracy
 United Arab EmiratesDictatorshipRoyal Dictatorship 1. Executive not elected

2. No Legislature

3. No Legislative parties

 Great BritainDemocracyParliamentary Democracy
 United StatesDemocracyPresidential Democracy
 UruguayDemocracyPresidential Democracy
 UzbekistanDictatorshipCivilian Dictatorship 3. One party

4. No alternation in power

 VanuatuDemocracyParliamentary Democracy
 VenezuelaDemocracyPresidential Democracy
 VietnamDictatorshipCivilian Dictatorship 1. Executive not elected

3. One party

 YemenDictatorshipMilitary Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power
 ZambiaDictatorshipCivilian Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power
 ZimbabweDictatorshipCivilian Dictatorship 4. No alternation in power

Democracy classification
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.[8][9]: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.[9]:454 The government composes the chief executive and the heads of the executive departments. The chief executive can take many names including chancellor, prime minister, or premier and the heads of the executive departments can bear different names 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

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.[9]: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.[9]: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.[9]:456

Head of state

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.[10] 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.[9]: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.[9]:456

The head of state in most parliamentary democracies formally appoint the head of government.[9]: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 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

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.[8]

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

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. [9]:457

Comparison with other democracy-measuring data sets

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.[11]

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


References
  1. 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. Ristei, Mihaiela; Centellas, Miguel (Summer 2013). "The Democracy Cluster Classification Index". Political Analysis. 21 (3): 334–349. doi:10.1093/pan/mpt004.
  3. William R. Keech (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.; & Przewroski, A. (1996). "Classifying political regimes". Studies in Comparative International Development. 31 (2): 3–36. doi:10.1007/bf02719326. S2CID 154376266.
  6. Przeworkski, 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. "DD - José Antonio Cheibub". sites.google.com. Retrieved 2019-01-30.
  8. Cheibub, José Antonio; Gandhi, Jennifer; Vreeland, James Raymond (2010-04-01). "Democracy and dictatorship revisited". Public Choice. 143 (1): 67–101. doi:10.1007/s11127-009-9491-2. ISSN 1573-7101. S2CID 45234838.
  9. Clark, Robert Williams; Golder, Matt; Golder, Nadenichek (2018). Principles of Comparative Politics (3rd ed.). pp. 454–467. ISBN 978-1506318127.
  10. Cheibub, José Antonio; Gandhi, Jennifer; Vreeland, James Raymond (2010-04-01). "Democracy and dictatorship revisited". Public Choice. 143 (1): 67–101. doi:10.1007/s11127-009-9491-2. ISSN 1573-7101. S2CID 45234838.
  11. 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.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.