While it is commonly agreed on, that being able to measure democracy precisely has become increasingly important in political science, different approaches can be taken to measure democracy. This paper compares and evaluates Freedom House (FH) and Vanhanen’s approaches and applies those to the United Public of Tanzania from 1974 to the present. While both approaches agree that Tanzania cannot be classified as a democracy, Vanhanen determines the degree of democracy on the basis of elections and their outcomes and FH by looking at the implementation of preconditions of democracy.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Measuring Democracy: Freedom House versus Vanhanen
Conclusion
Objectives and Topics
The paper aims to compare and evaluate two distinct approaches to measuring democracy—the Freedom House (FH) survey and Vanhanen’s index—by applying them to the political development of Tanzania from 1974 to the present to determine their suitability for assessing such contexts.
- Comparative analysis of qualitative vs. quantitative democracy indices
- Evaluation of the Freedom House methodology and its application to Tanzania
- Critical review of Vanhanen’s electoral competition and participation metrics
- Examination of Tanzania's political history in the context of democracy indices
- Discussion of potential biases and subjectivity in standardized global measurements
Excerpt from the Book
Measuring Democracy: Freedom House versus Vanhanen
The Freedom in the World survey conducted by FH aims to measure the extent of freedom of a country since 1972, taking a quantitative approach. The survey rates countries on a seventh-point scale (one representing the most free, seven the least free countries) in the categories of political rights and civil liberties. FH further divides civil liberties into four and political rights into three subcategories, extensively addressing several aspects of democracies. The mean of the political rights- and civil liberties scores then determine whether FH regards a country as ‘Free’, ‘Partially Free’ or ‘Not Free’. The survey therefore provides a trichotomous categorization of democracy through a continuous scale. Furthermore, FH classifies countries that meet a certain standard in the electoral process and in the level of competition as electoral democracies. The measurement relies on country visits, reports from NGO’s, foreign and domestic news reports, academic analyses, and individual professional contacts (Freedom House, 2010a).
Summary of Chapters
Introduction: This section presents the research problem regarding the accurate measurement of democracy and outlines the comparative approach used to evaluate Freedom House and Vanhanen's methods in the context of Tanzania.
Measuring Democracy: Freedom House versus Vanhanen: This chapter details the methodologies of both approaches, analyzes Tanzania’s political history and electoral developments, and identifies specific flaws in how these indices interpret Tanzanian data.
Conclusion: This final section synthesizes the findings, arguing that qualitative approaches like that of Freedom House are currently more appropriate for understanding Tanzania’s political situation than purely numerical indices.
Keywords
Democracy, Tanzania, Freedom House, Vanhanen, Index of Democratization, Political Rights, Civil Liberties, Electoral Participation, Electoral Competition, Comparative Political Systems, Political History, Quantitative Measurement, Qualitative Assessment, Governance, Political Reform
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research paper?
The paper focuses on evaluating and comparing two major international methods for measuring democracy—Freedom House and Vanhanen—using Tanzania's political trajectory since 1974 as a case study.
Which indices are specifically analyzed in the text?
The paper examines the Freedom House 'Freedom in the World' survey and Tatu Vanhanen’s 'index of democratization'.
What is the primary research objective?
The objective is to determine which of the two methodologies provides a more accurate and meaningful assessment of the level of democracy in Tanzania.
What methodology does the author employ?
The author employs a comparative evaluation method, contrasting the qualitative, holistic approach of Freedom House with the quantitative, indicator-based approach of Vanhanen.
What themes are covered in the main body of the paper?
The main body covers the theoretical frameworks of the indices, the historical political context of Tanzania (including the dominance of the CCM party), and the discrepancies between the two measurements regarding Tanzania's democratization status.
What are the essential keywords characterizing this work?
Key terms include democracy measurement, Freedom House, Vanhanen, political rights, civil liberties, and the specific political history of Tanzania.
Why does the author argue that Vanhanen’s index might be misleading in Tanzania’s case?
The author highlights that Vanhanen uses population-based metrics that may not reflect political reality and notes that the index's rigid thresholds can arbitrarily exclude countries from being labeled democracies due to minor statistical fluctuations.
How does the author characterize the role of the CCM party in Tanzania?
The CCM is described as the dominant political party in Tanzania since independence, whose control and electoral practices are central to why Tanzania has struggled to be classified as a democracy by both indices.
What is the final verdict of the author regarding these measurements?
The author concludes that while neither is perfect, the qualitative approach offered by Freedom House is more appropriate for a country like Tanzania, as it accounts for the broader context of political rights rather than relying on potentially distorted numerical variables.
- Quote paper
- Lea Kliem (Author), 2010, Measuring Democracy in Tanzania, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/192866
