THE DEMOCRACY BAROMETER: ISRAEL’S DEMOCRACY IN A COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE

Maoz Rosenthal Ph.D.

Herzliya Conference

Political Indicators

Interdisciplinary Center(IDC) Herzliya

DEMOCRACY BAROMETER

• Time series 1990-2014

• 105 indicators sorted and aggregated with accordance to concepts amalgamate to

reflect the quality of democracies.

• Sample: established democracies (below 1.5 in Freedom House and above 9 in Polity IV).

• 30 blueprint countries that qualified and had sufficient data.

• The best practices in the blueprint states became 100 in relevant the democracy scale.

• The worst practices in the blueprints states became 0 in the relevant democracy scale.

• Then 40 established democracies (including Israel) were added to the sample and scaled with accordance to the blueprint states scales.

• Project based in WZB http://www.democracybarometer.org

DB MEASUREMENT PRINCIPLES

• Decreases the usage of experts’ evaluations.

• Minimizes measurement errors by using various sources.

• Assessing institutions, their policy environment and policy output.

• Minimizing missing values from core (blueprint) countries’ sample.

• Scaling of indicators value from 0 to 100 therefore allowing

indicators’ comparison and aggregation to components.

DB AGGREGATION PRINCIPLES

• Democratic Quality Aggregation: principles → functions → concepts → sub-

concepts → indicators

• Each concept has the same weight for aggregation.

• Points are added for known problems with democracy happening in specific cases.

• After giving each country in a given year on each indicator a number between 0 and 100 the aggregation rule goes as follows:

• 𝐷𝐵 = Π 𝑖=1𝑛

𝑥𝑖 + 500

1

𝑛− 500

• The 500 addition and subtraction aims to avoid zeros and negatives.

• This is done from indicators and up until the Democratic Quality measure.

QUALITY OF DEMOCRACY, PRINCIPLES AND FUNCTIONS

Quality of Democracy

Freedom Public Sphere

Rule of Law

Individual Liberties

Control Governmental Capability

Mutual Constraints

Competition

Equality Representation

Participation

Transparency

FREEDOM

Public Sphere Rule of Law Individual Liberties

Freedom of opinion

Freedom to

associate

Quality of the legal

system

Equality before the

law

Right to Free

Conduct of Life

Right to Physical

Integrity

• Constitutional

provisions

guaranteeing

freedom of

speech

• Media offer

• Political

neutrality of

the press

system

• Constitutional

provisions

guaranteeing

freedom to

associate

• Degree of

association

(economic

interests)

• Degree of

association

(public interest)

• Constitutional

provisions for

judicial profes-

sionalism

• Confidence in

the justice

system

• Confidence in

the police

• Constitutional

provisions for

impartial courts

• Effective

independence

of the judiciary

• Effective

impartiality of

the legal system

• Constitutional

provisions

guaranteeing

freedom of

conduct of life

• Freedom of

conduct of life

• Effective

property rights

• Constitutional

provisions

guaranteeing

physical

integrity

• No

transgressions

by the state

• Mutual

acceptance of

right to physical

integrity by

citizens

CONTROL

Governmental Capability

Mutual Constraints

Competition

Conditions for

efficient

implementation

Government

resources

Vertical checks for

power

Checks between

three powers

Openness of

elections

Competitiveness of

elections

• No anti-

government

action

• No

interference

• Administrative

assertiveness

• Independence

of the Central

Bank

• Time horizon

for action

• Public support

• Governmental

stability

• Degree of

Federalism

• Subnational

fiscal autonomy

• Balance of

checks

between

executive and

legislative

powers

• Balance

between

executive and

legislative

powers

• Judicial review

• Low legal

hurdle for

entry

• Effective

Contestation

• Effective access

to resources

• Formal rules

for

competitivene

ss

• Closeness for

electoral

outcomes

• Low

concentration

of seats

EQUALITY

Representation Participation Transparency

Descriptive

Representation

Substantive

Representation

Effective

participation

Equality of

participation

Provisions for

transparent political

process

No Secrecy

• No legal

constraints for

inclusion of

minorities

• Adequate

representation

of women

• Effective access

to power for

minorities

• Structural

possibilities for

inclusion of

preferences

• Constitutional

provisions for

direct

democracy

• No distortion

• Rules facilitating

participation

• Effective

institutionalized

participation

• Effective non-

institutionalized

participation

• Suffrage

• Non-selectivity

of electoral

participation

• Non-selectivity

of alternative

participation

• Freedom of

information

• Informational

openness

• Willingness for

transparent

communication

• Disclosure of

party financing

• Absence of

corruption

Components of the Governmental /Political Index:

Herzliya Indices Team Prof. Rafi Melnick (Equal Weights)

1. Individual Liberties

2. Rule of Law

3. Public Sphere

4. Competition

5. Mutual Constraints

6. Governmental Capability

7. Transparency

8. Participation

9. Representation

10. Regulatory Quality

11. Alliances

12. Membership in International Organizations

13. Hosted Embassies

GOVERNMENTAL / POLITICAL BASE | 1990

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

Tu

rke

y

Isra

el

Ko

rea

, R

ep

Po

lan

d

lre

lan

d

Gre

ec

e

Ja

pan

Ne

w Z

ea

lan

d

Cze

ch

Re

p

Hu

ng

ary

Au

str

ali

a

Po

rtu

ga

l

Fra

nce

UK

Sp

ain

US

A

Au

str

ia

Ca

na

da

Fin

lan

d

lta

ly

Ge

rma

ny

Sw

itze

rla

nd

Ne

the

rla

nd

s

No

rwa

y

Sw

ed

en

Be

lgiu

m

De

nm

ark

Prof. Rafi Melnick - IDC Herzliya

Governmental / Political Base | 2014

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

Tu

rke

y

Gre

ec

e

Isra

el

Ko

rea

, R

ep

lre

lan

d

Ja

pan

Hu

ng

ary

Fra

nce

Cze

ch

Re

p

Po

lan

d

Ne

w Z

ea

lan

d

Au

str

ali

a

Sp

ain

US

A

Po

rtu

ga

l

UK

Au

str

ia

lta

ly

Ca

na

da

Fin

lan

d

Ge

rma

ny

Ne

the

rla

nd

s

No

rwa

y

Sw

itze

rla

nd

Sw

ed

en

Be

lgiu

m

De

nm

ark

Prof. Rafi Melnick - IDC Herzliya

80.0

85.0

90.0

95.0

100.0

105.0

110.0

19

90

19

91

19

92

19

93

19

94

19

95

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

20

12

20

13

20

14

Israel G7 Euroland OECD

Development of the Governmental/ Political

Dimension Israel and the Developed Countries

Prof. Rafi Melnick - IDC Herzliya

Governmental/ Political Index 2014

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

Denmark 120.4

Belgium 118.9

Sweden 116.7

Switzerland 116.5

Norway 114.8

Netherlands 114.3

Germany 113.0

Finland 108.4

Canada 108.1

ltaly 103.7

Austria 103.4

UK 101.3

Portugal 98.8

USA 98.2

Spain 97.6

Australia 96.3

New Zealand 95.9

Poland 95.1

Czech Rep 94.6

France 94.2

Hungary 93.8

Japan 93.4

lreland 91.2

Korea, Rep 88.7

Israel 88.4

Greece 87.4

Turkey 68.3

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

Back to the Barometer:

Individual Liberties (Freedom) 1990-2014

Denmark Israel** Turkey Germany

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

Rule of Law (Freedom) 1990-2014

Denmark Germany Israel** Turkey

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

Representation (Equality) 1990-2014

Denmark Israel** Turkey Germany

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

Political Participation (Equality) 1990-2014

Denmark Israel** Turkey Germany

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

Political Competition (Control) 1990-2014

Denmark Israel** Turkey Germany

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

Mutual Constraints (Control) 1990-2014

Israel Denmark Germany Turkey

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00

Government Capability (Control)1990-2014

Israel Germany Denmark Turkey

ASSESSING ISRAEL’S DEMOCRATIC GOVERNABILITY

• Low level of Individual Liberties yet adherence to the rule of law

• Low level of representation (mostly Israel’s Arabs’ substantive

representation as an issue)

• High political participation and competition

• Low-medium levels of mutual constraints

• Varying (usually low) government capability

• Hence: a competitive yet defective democracy with lacking and

inconsistent governability

Potential Points for Improvement Israeli Case

• Substantive Representation for all citizens

• Less involvement of religion in state affairs

• Less political competition

• A stricter separation of powers with an emphasis on

the judiciary’s independence.

• (much much) Better government capacity:

• Better civil service

• Better policy implementation

BIBLIOGRAPHY

• Merkel, Wolfgang and Bochsler, Daniel (project leaders); Bousbah, Karima; Buhlmann,

Marc; Giebler, Heiko; Hanni, Miriam; Heyne, Lea; Mu ller, Lisa; Ruth, Saskia; Wessels,

Bernhard (2016). Democracy Barometer. Methodology. Version 5. Aarau: Zentrum fur

Demokratie. http://www.democracybarometer.org

• Bühlmann, M., Merkel, W., Müller, L., & Weßels, B. (2012). The democracy barometer: A

new instrument to measure the quality of democracy and its potential for comparative

research. European Political Science: EPS, 11(4), 519-536.

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/eps.2011.46

• Merkel, Wofgang (2012). „Embedded and Defective Democracies: Where Does Israel

Stand?“. In: Tamar Herman (ed.) „By the People, For the People, Without the People?“.

Jerualem: Israel Democracy Institute.