Yet another international survey has been released – this time by Freedom House.

Their annual survey, “Freedom in the World” showed some progress for Kyrgyzstan, which managed to buck the general global trend which, according to Freedom House, indicates a “fall” in the level for the fifth year running.  This five year trend is a record in the 38 year history of the survey.

The list of results does not rank countries as such but allocates them to different groups: Free, Partly Free and Not Free.  A Free country is defined as one where there is broad scope for open political competition, a climate of respect for civil liberties, significant independent civic life, and independent media.  Partly Free countries are characterized by some restrictions on political rights and civil liberties, often in a context of corruption, weak rule of law, ethnic strife, or civil war.  A Not Free country is one where basic political rights are absent, and basic civil liberties are widely and systematically denied.

Of the 194 countries surveyed, (plus 2 related territories and 12 disputed territories), 25 showed significant declines in freedom whereas only 11, (including Kyrgyzstan), showed “noteworthy” signs of improvment.  There were five countries where the situation worsened to the extent that their status was downgraded, (Djibouti, Ethiopia, Mexico, Nagorno-Karabak – technically classified as a “Disputed Territory” – and the Ukraine), and two countries that improved their status this year: Guinea and Kyrgyzstan, which both moved from the Not Free to the Partly Free category.

Kyrgyzstan’s “political rights rating” improved which led to the change of its overall status.  The report says that this improvement was due to “the adoption of a new constitution designed to dismantle the super presidential system, and genuinely competitive, multiparty parliamentary elections held in October 2010”, and despite the events that followed the revolution in April and “a wave of persecution against the ethnic Uzbek minority in which hundreds are believed to have been killed.”

Of course, as I often say, “statistics raise more questions than they answer”, and the typical questions start with “Who did the survey?”; “What did they do?”, (about the “data collection” – what data did they use and how did they gather it?); and “How did they reach their conclusions?”, (about their analysis) and How did they present their results?

Those are basically factual, descriptive questions about the survey but there are other questions of a more “qualitative” nature, such as: What are their motives behind the survey?, (and is there a hidden agenda?); Did they miss anything out?, (what factors could they, should they, have considered?); Are their results valid?, (are they consistent with what we know from other sources?) and What do the results actually tell us?, (do, for example, they tell us anything useful?”)

Then there are the questions which are not about the survey itself, but about its use once it has been released into the public domain: Who uses it?, quotes from it?, refers to it?, and what are they trying achieve?; not to mention, Are their comments fair and valid?

.

I am not going to try and assess the survey, it was only published over the weekend and I haven’t had chance to digest it all and, anyway, it’s not my job and not my domain.  I will, however, venture the following comments and observations:

Freedom House:

Freedom House claims to be an “independent watchdog” organization that supports the expansion of freedom around the world.  In itself, that raises several interesting questions and issues, especially when considered that it receives a large proportion of its funding from US governmental sources.

For the record, apparently there have been other contributors including governments and international bodies, including Australia, Ireland, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Norway, the European Union, and the United Nations Democracy Fund, but in one year about 7/8 of its income was drawn from US government grants.  They say that they never accept funds in the form of contracts from government institutions, (including those of the US), and, in particular, they do not accept funds for research and analysis from governments of those countries which are evaluated in that research.  Hence the global surveys, such as “Freedom in the World” and “Freedom of the Press”, are entirely privately funded.

It was founded in 1941 by several prominent Americans who were concerned about the U.S. policy of isolationism as Nazism threatened to engulf Europe. The name was deliberately chosen to reflect the “Brown House”, which was the Nazi party headquarters in Germany where Adolf Hitler maintained an office.  It has the informal support of the President, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Eleanor Roosevelt served for some time as Honorary Chairman in its early years.  It was, however, a bi-partisan grouping drawing support from a wide range of prominent people, including the 1940 Republican Presidential nominee Wendell Willkie.

Time passes and situations change.  After World War II, for example, Freedom House turned its focus to the “struggle against Communism”, (despite this it opposed “McCarthyism” in the 1950’s), and other threats to freedom “irrespective of ideology” and embraced a mission to “expand freedom worldwide” and to “strengthen human rights and civil liberties in the United States”.

Freedom House says that it supports democratic change, monitors freedom, and advocates for democracy and human rights and in particular “nonviolent civic initiatives in societies where freedom is denied or under threat”.  They also say that they “stand in opposition to ideas and forces that challenge the right of all people to be free”, acting “as a catalyst for freedom, democracy and the rule of law through its analysis, advocacy and action.”

They currently employ about 15 staff and operate offices throughout the world.

They claim to work on three fronts: Analysis, as represented by the annual survey and a variety of publications; Advocacy, regularly testifying before Congress, provide briefings to Congress, the State Department, and other agencies, and argue the case for freedom at conferences, in articles and editorials and through appearances in the media and Action, working with activists and civil society leaders around the world, providing training, advice, grants and exchange opportunities.

In Kyrgyzstan they established the Media Support Center Foundation, (MSCF), as “a nonprofit printing press” in November 2003 after two years preparation and lobbying – albeit with finance from the US State Department Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights & Labor.

For the record: there have been other contributors including the Open Society Institute and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway.  The government of the Kyrgyz Republic also has representatives on the Supervisory Board.

MSCF claims to be an independent commercial enterprise which accepts “print orders” from anyone, regardless of political affiliation and their list of clients includes a number of government newspapers as well as those that can be classified as belonging to the “opposition”.  Indeed, in 2007, an early morning police raid on the printing press, supposedly in response to mass demonstrations which had recently been held, confiscated copies of several publications and ordered that the production files be destroyed.    Despite this, there are those who see it as having “interlocks” with “U.S. government bodies such as Radio Free Europe and the CIA, and has long served as a virtual propaganda arm of the (U.S.) government and international right wing.”

.

Freedom:

The “philosopher” in me reacts to the name given to both the organization and the survey.  “Freedom” is one of those “Motherhood and Apple Pie” words … who could possibly argue against them?

On the other hand, it is a strange, difficult and nebulous concept.  It sounds “positive” but is in fact “negative” in that it is based on the “absence” of something, the absence of external controls.  Indeed, the history of the philosophy of the concept of Freedom, and how it has developed, is a fascinating topic.

It is also one of those opaque words that can mean different things to different people, in different cultures, contexts and societies.  Freedom is not an absolute.  One man’s freedom can impinge on the freedom of others, for example, and as the adage goes: “One man’s Freedom Fighter is another man’s terrorist.”

To give another example, as one of my correspondents pointed out to me over the weekend after I commented on the recent International Ranking of Economic Freedom, (conducted by the American Research Institute Heritage Foundation and the Wall Street Journal), greater “economic freedom” leads to “greater income inequality”.

So how does Freedom House define this concept which they attempt to assess across almost two hundred different societies?

They say that they define Freedom as “the opportunity to act spontaneously in a variety of fields outside the control of the government and/or other centers of potential domination.”

In their research and analysis they claim to “measure” freedom according to two broad categories: Political Rights and Civil Liberties.

They define political rights as those provisions which enable people to participate freely in the political process through the right to vote, to compete for public office and to elect representatives who have a decisive impact on public policies and who are accountable to the electorate.

Civil liberties covers those provisions that allow for expression and belief, the rights of association and being able to organize collectively, the rule of law, and personal autonomy without interference from the state.

This “definition” is derived, they say, in large measure from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which provides for the freedom of religion, expression, and assembly; freedom from torture; and the right to take part in the government of his or her country.  The Declaration was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948 and so these can be considered as standards that apply to all countries and territories, irrespective of geographical location, ethnic or religious composition, or their level of economic development.

.

The Survey:

The survey was first conducted in 1972 and featured 152 countries and territories, classifying 44 of them as Free, (29%), 38 as Partly Free (25) and 69 as Not Free (46%).  The latest survey divides the 194 countries and territories surveyed into 87 as Free, (45%), 60 as Partly Free (31) and 47 as Not Free (24%).  Despite the apparent improvement in these statistics, the last few years have seen a tendency for some of the indicators to decline and the current survey is subtitled: “The authoritarian challenge to Democracy”.

Bearing in mind that the definition of Freedom is quite difficult and nebulous, how they arrive at these demarcations.  They describe the process like this:

Each country and territory in the survey is assigned a numerical rating, from 1 to 7, for both political rights and civil liberties.  (A rating of 1 represents the “most free” whilst a 7 represents the “least free”.)  These ratings are based on an analysis of 10 questions relating to Political Rights and 15 relating to Civil Liberties.  Scores are allocated for each on a scale of 0 to 4, with 4 representing the greatest degree of “freedom”.  These scores are then averaged and a status allocated on the following basis: Free (those with an average score of 1.0 to 2.5), Partly Free, (scores of 3.0 to 5.0), or Not Free, (scores of 5.5 to 7.0). There is also Freedom House also assigns upward or downward trend arrows to certain countries which saw general positive or negative trends during the year  that were not significant enough to result in a ratings change from the previous year.

As might be expected, there is a close correspondence between the two factors, Political Rights and Civil Liberties, (with a correlation coefficient of 0,9442 – that’s pretty close to 1.0, the sign of a perfect correlation).  In fact, of the 194 countries and territories, 107 have the same score for both.  According to the survey report, in 55 countries and territories the population experience greater freedom with regard to Civil Liberties than Political Rights, whilst in 32 countries the score for Political Rights is better than that for Civil Liberties, but only just, by just one point.

Personally, however, I am not sure how the numerical demarcation of status as Free, Partly Free and Not Free, (which seems to be fairly arbitrary to me), tallies with the narrative description of those categories.

That’s not all, however, as the survey also assigns a couple of other indicators but as these are not the “headline results” I won’t consider them further here.

.

A Snapshot:

So, what are we to make of the recent publication of the most recent results?

I suppose that, first of all, we have to welcome the apparent improvement in Kyrgyzstan’s rating and status, especially in the light of the tragic events and difficult times that we have experienced over the last year.  It is good to see the considerable work and effort invested in the reforms that took place have been recognized and have achieved some result.

It is important to note, however, that this represents just a “snapshot”, taken at a particular time and from a particular standpoint, and that another snapshot taken at a different time and from a different standpoint might well reveal different results.

The fact that the survey has been conducted over a considerable period of time enables a longitudinal review allowing for comparisons and the detection and description of trends and tendencies, which is useful.  It is, however, an abstract and academic instrument.

The concept of “freedom” is, however, a difficult and nebulous one.  The Freedom House justification of the choice of the parameters they use assumes that, because they are drawn from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, they are universally applicable.  The declaration was may well be considered “universal” but it has not been without controversy.  Its provisions, for example, concerning gender, education, property rights and religious freedom have all attracted criticism and comment.

The amorphous and abstract concepts of “democracy” and “freedom”, although important, (fundamental even), they are not near the base of the Hierarchy of Needs.  Of course they are related to wellbeing, happiness and but physical safety and needs are far more important to, (and a priority for), the man in the street.

It is interesting to note that, before he was deposed, the regime of Kurmanbek Bakiev was considering the nature of Democracy, (another difficult and nebulous concept), and there were suggestions that the “Western” concept of democracy was in fact alien and inappropriate for Central Asian countries with their distinct cultural legacy and the social and economic conditions being experienced by the people in the country.

So, the survey and its findings provide an interesting and useful indicator, but it will be interesting to see the reactions and how it is received: who says what about the results.