Bogaards identifies two broad possibilities how to capture a regime change. Either “[…] through a change of scores on a scale or index of democracy.” or “Trough a change of categories. These categories can come directly from categorical coding schemes or can be derived indirectly from scores.” (Bogaards, 2010) This paper compares two of those measures, namely National Elections across Democracy and Autocracy (NELDA) and Freedom House. These two will be subject to a cross-comparison with the case study of Germany.
Nelda is an almost exclusively dichotomous measure which is set up out of 58 questions concerned with the election procedure of a country. 55 measures are yes-no questions, hence dichotomous while three allow free-text answers. Nelda’s country selection follows the List of Independent States by Gleditsch and Ward. NELDA draws it’s out of a secondary data analysis of a variety of sources, including data handbooks for the specific regions and several official reports. (A full list of sources can be found at http://hyde.research.yale.edu/nelda/#sources)(Hyde & Marinov, 2012) For our purpose we only consider three variables out of the 58, namely Nelda 3 to 5 which measure whether opposition is allowed, whether more than one party was legal, and whether there was a choice of candidates on the ballot.
Freedom house is a NGO that conducts research on democracy, political freedom and human rights. Their most important annual publication is the Freedom in the World Report. (Freedom House, 2012) It measures Political right and civil liberty with a total of 25 questions using a continuous scale from four to zero. The results are transformed in a fixed mathematical procedure and countries are ranked in an again continuous final scale between one (most free) and seven (not free) in each category. After Combining the results countries are finally ranked as not free (5.5-7), partly free (3-5), or free (1-2.5). (Freedom House, 2012) It is important to notice that Freedom house as the name implies primarily is a measure of freedom - not democracy. However democracy is one part of the Freedom house analysis. To be considered as an electoral democracy a country only has to fulfill four criteria: A political system that allows for a plurality of parties and competition in between them, fair voting rights, secret, fair and regular elections, and free access to the political field and campaigning. (Bogaards, 2012)
Table of Contents
1. Main Body
2. References
3. Appendix
Research Objectives and Core Themes
This paper examines how different democracy measurement indices, specifically NELDA and Freedom House, capture regime change and political freedom when applied to the historical context of the two German states and their eventual reunification.
- Comparison of NELDA and Freedom House methodologies
- Analysis of democratic indicators in West Germany (FRG)
- Evaluation of political conditions in East Germany (GDR)
- Assessment of the transition period during German reunification
- Critique of categorical versus continuous democracy measures
Excerpt from the Book
Main Body
Bogaards identifies two broad possibilities how to capture a regime change. Either “[…] through a change of scores on a scale or index of democracy.” or “Trough a change of categories. These categories can come directly from categorical coding schemes or can be derived indirectly from scores.” (Bogaards, 2010) This paper compares two of those measures, namely National Elections across Democracy and Autocracy (NELDA) and Freedom House. These two will be subject to a cross-comparison with the case study of Germany.
Nelda is an almost exclusively dichotomous measure which is set up out of 58 questions concerned with the election procedure of a country. 55 measures are yes-no questions, hence dichotomous while three allow free-text answers. Nelda’s country selection follows the List of Independent States by Gleditsch and Ward. NELDA draws it’s out of a secondary data analysis of a variety of sources, including data handbooks for the specific regions and several official reports. (A full list of sources can be found at http://hyde.research.yale.edu/nelda/#sources)(Hyde & Marinov, 2012) For our purpose we only consider three variables out of the 58, namely Nelda 3 to 5 which measure whether opposition is allowed, whether more than one party was legal, and whether there was a choice of candidates on the ballot.
Freedom house is a NGO that conducts research on democracy, political freedom and human rights. Their most important annual publication is the Freedom in the World Report. (Freedom House, 2012) It measures Political right and civil liberty with a total of 25 questions using a continuous scale from four to zero. The results are transformed in a fixed mathematical procedure and countries are ranked in an again continuous final scale between one (most free) and seven (not free) in each category. After Combining the results countries are finally ranked as not free (5.5-7), partly free (3-5), or free (1-2.5). (Freedom House, 2012) It is important to notice that Freedom house as the name implies primarily is a measure of freedom - not democracy.
Summary of Chapters
1. Main Body: This chapter analyzes the methodological differences between NELDA and Freedom House and applies these metrics to evaluate the political systems of the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic.
2. References: This section provides a comprehensive bibliography of the scholarly works and official reports used for the data analysis and historical context.
3. Appendix: This section contains graphical visualizations of the democracy scores for the various German states across the examined timeframes.
Keywords
Democracy, Germany, NELDA, Freedom House, Reunification, Political Rights, Civil Liberties, Regime Change, GDR, FRG, Elections, Governance, Political Systems, Methodology, Authoritarianism
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this paper?
The paper evaluates and compares how two distinct measurement tools, NELDA and Freedom House, assess the democratic status and political development of West Germany, East Germany, and the unified German state.
What are the central themes discussed in this work?
The central themes include the validity of dichotomous versus continuous democracy scales, the reality of political freedom under the Socialist Unity Party in East Germany, and the impact of the 1990 reunification on democratic metrics.
What is the primary research goal?
The goal is to determine how misleading the name "German Democratic Republic" actually was when subjected to international standardized measures of democracy.
Which scientific methods are applied?
The author employs a comparative analysis of secondary data using the NELDA index (a dichotomous measure of election procedures) and the Freedom House index (a continuous scale of civil liberties and political rights).
What is covered in the main body?
The main body details the methodology of both indices, provides historical context on the German division, compares the scores for both German states, and discusses the shift in political structures leading up to 1990.
Which keywords characterize this work?
The work is characterized by terms such as democracy measurement, comparative political systems, NELDA, Freedom House, and the German reunification process.
How does NELDA categorize elections in the GDR?
While NELDA shows that some elections allowed for multiple parties and candidates, the paper clarifies that this did not equate to democracy, as opposition was never truly allowed and the ruling party maintained total control.
What does the Freedom House data reveal about East Germany?
Freedom House consistently rated East Germany with the worst possible scores for political rights and civil liberties throughout the observed timeframe, reinforcing its classification as a non-democratic state.
Why are the final years of the GDR significant in the data?
Both measures show a noticeable shift in democratic indicators just before 1990, highlighting the rapid political changes that culminated in the collapse of the Socialist Unity Party's regime.
What is the author's conclusion regarding the measurement indices?
The author concludes that both indices effectively distinguish between the democratic West and the non-democratic East, though they each offer different perspectives on how to capture the nuances of regime change.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Benjamin Niklas Scher (Autor:in), 2012, How misleading a name can be - Democracy in Germany, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/208438
