From the latest Perceptions of Democracy index, from NIRA Data:
Ukrainians are among the most skeptical of the democratic processes in their country. Meanwhile, even a country as hotly contested as Venezuela, faith in elections is skyrocketing. And this is gathered by a western org run by a NATO official.
As always, I would like to point out that these kinds of surveys of public opinion are not really evidence of anything besides public opinion itself.
You cannot assert that a certain country has more or less of some quality simply because more people in that country said they think they do more frequently than people in a different country did.
For example if you asked Americans (particularly those in the south or rural areas) if they thought their country was more “free” than the rest of the world, you would probably get higher numbers than you would from most other regions of the world despite the fact that America is not that free relative to much of the world.
So would you say, that actively hostile imperialist western nations and their propaganda apparatus know more about democracy in Venezuela than Venezuelans?
For example if you asked Americans (particularly those in the south or rural areas) if they thought their country was more “free” than the rest of the world, you would probably get higher numbers than you would from most other regions of the world
Trends in perception, as well as comparison, does tell a good story. In many ways it’s a superior method of data gathering on democracy than the standard method of defining democracy as whatever the Nordics are doing, and then grading everyone based on how closely they follow that.
Direct comparison of perception of democracy by people who have lived in both countries would be much clearer evidence of differences in democracy itself.
However, the raw perception of democracy without any other reference to other democracies does not allow for comparison/measurement of democracy itself but rather indicates how happy individuals feel within their current democracy.
The data is a good story and it does encode information, but that information is more significantly influenced by culture, current events, and overall happiness of the populace than it is by “level of democracy”
Sure. When I mean comparison, I mean in trends. If a country scores lower in one year while another scores higher, and this trend repeats, it’s a sign of improving and decaying conditions. Democracy isn’t really something you can measure directly, which makes the entire subject pretty muddy.
that’s why I put quotes around “level of democracy.” If everyone in a country had to vote directly for any and all government action, that is kind of the purest democracy possible, but it would not be a very effective method of government especially for large countries.
In order to rank democracy in a meaningful way, one would need to decide on what the desired outcomes of a “good” democracy are and which outcomes are most important etc. which would make the scale subjective.
Even that would not be democratic, as it ignores the role of ownership of production and distribution. In a capitalist economy, such would still be subject to the same mechanisms preventing bourgeois democracy from following the will of the proletariat.
From the latest Perceptions of Democracy index, from NIRA Data:
Ukrainians are among the most skeptical of the democratic processes in their country. Meanwhile, even a country as hotly contested as Venezuela, faith in elections is skyrocketing. And this is gathered by a western org run by a NATO official.
As always, I would like to point out that these kinds of surveys of public opinion are not really evidence of anything besides public opinion itself.
You cannot assert that a certain country has more or less of some quality simply because more people in that country said they think they do more frequently than people in a different country did.
For example if you asked Americans (particularly those in the south or rural areas) if they thought their country was more “free” than the rest of the world, you would probably get higher numbers than you would from most other regions of the world despite the fact that America is not that free relative to much of the world.
So would you say, that actively hostile imperialist western nations and their propaganda apparatus know more about democracy in Venezuela than Venezuelans?
Maybe this data will surprise you then:
Haha funnily enough that’s the graph I first had this argument with cowbee about lol
Trends in perception, as well as comparison, does tell a good story. In many ways it’s a superior method of data gathering on democracy than the standard method of defining democracy as whatever the Nordics are doing, and then grading everyone based on how closely they follow that.
Direct comparison of perception of democracy by people who have lived in both countries would be much clearer evidence of differences in democracy itself.
However, the raw perception of democracy without any other reference to other democracies does not allow for comparison/measurement of democracy itself but rather indicates how happy individuals feel within their current democracy.
The data is a good story and it does encode information, but that information is more significantly influenced by culture, current events, and overall happiness of the populace than it is by “level of democracy”
Sure. When I mean comparison, I mean in trends. If a country scores lower in one year while another scores higher, and this trend repeats, it’s a sign of improving and decaying conditions. Democracy isn’t really something you can measure directly, which makes the entire subject pretty muddy.
that’s why I put quotes around “level of democracy.” If everyone in a country had to vote directly for any and all government action, that is kind of the purest democracy possible, but it would not be a very effective method of government especially for large countries.
In order to rank democracy in a meaningful way, one would need to decide on what the desired outcomes of a “good” democracy are and which outcomes are most important etc. which would make the scale subjective.
Even that would not be democratic, as it ignores the role of ownership of production and distribution. In a capitalist economy, such would still be subject to the same mechanisms preventing bourgeois democracy from following the will of the proletariat.