Human Rights

CATEGORY: Participation and Human Rights
Sub-Category: Rights
Indicator name: Human Rights
Data provider: The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU)
Data source: Commissioned Data
Publication years used in the Ibrahim Index of African Governance (IIAG): 2006 - 2008
Website: www.eiu.com

Definition of the Indicator:

An expert assessment of the likelihood of a country being accused of serious human rights violations.

Technical notes:

• This indicator’s raw data range from 0 to 100, with a low score being best and a high score being worst. To produce the IIAG score the raw data were normalised using the Min-Max method to transform them to a scale of 0 to 100, where 100 is always the best score possible.

• The year stated in the EIU-commissioned data reflects performance in that same year. The latest available data are for 2008, which correspond to 2007/08 in the IIAG.

• Data are not available for 2001-2005. They have been estimated using mean substitution and/or extrapolation.

Political Rights

CATEGORY: Participation and Human Rights
Sub-category: Rights
Indicator name: Political Rights
Data provider: Freedom House (FH)
Data source: Freedom in the World Survey
Publication years used in the Ibrahim Index of African Governance (IIAG): 2003 -2009
Website: http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=15

Definition of the indicator:

An expert assessment of the electoral process including electoral laws; political pluralism and participation; and the functioning of government (the extent to which elected representatives determine policies, the openness, transparency and freedom from corruption of the government, and accountability to the electorate between elections).

For details of the methodology, please see:

http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=351&ana_page=354&year=2009

Technical notes:

• The Political Rights (FH) raw data range from 0 to 40, with a low score being worst and a high score being best. To produce the IIAG score the raw data were normalised using the Min-Max method to transform the data to a scale of 0 to 100, where 100 is always the best score possible.

• The publication year of the ‘Freedom in the World Survey’ reflects performance in the previous year. The latest available data are for 2008, which correspond to 2007/08 in the IIAG.

• Raw data used in the political rights indicator were the total of the sub-aggregate scores, and not the overall political rights rating.

• The scoring methodology was changed for the 2003 Freedom in the World Survey onwards. This meant sub-aggregate scores changed from 38 to 40. In light of this, the 2002 Freedom in the World Survey is not comparable and has not been used. Data have therefore been estimated using mean substitution and /or extrapolation for the IIAG years 2000/01–2001/02

Collective Rights

CATEGORY: Participation and Rights
Sub-category: Rights
Indicator name: Collective Rights
Indicator name at source (if different): Workers’ Rights; Freedom of Assembly and Association
Data provider: The Cingranelli-Richards (CIRI) Human Rights Data Project
Data source: The Cingranelli-Richards (CIRI) Human Rights Dataset
Publication years used in the Ibrahim Index of African Governance (IIAG): 2000 -2007
Website: http://ciri.binghamton.edu/index.asp

Definition of the indicator:

An expert assessment of workers’ rights, including the right to bargain collectively and the entitlement to minimum working conditions; and freedom of assembly and association, including the rights of citizens to assemble freely and to associate with other persons in political parties, trade unions, cultural organisations, or other groups.

For details of the methodology, please see:

http://ciri.binghamton.edu/documentation/ciri_variables_short_descriptions.pdf
and
http://ciri.binghamton.edu/documentation/ciri_coding_guide.pdf

Technical notes:

• The raw data are the combined total of CIRI’s ‘Workers Rights’ and ‘Freedom of Assembly and Association’ coded scores.

• The raw data range from 0 to 4, with a low score being worst, and a high score being best. To produce the IIAG score the raw data were normalised using the Min-Max method to transform them to a scale of 0 to 100, where 100 is always the best score possible.

• The years stated in ‘The Cingranelli-Richards (CIRI) Human Rights Dataset’ reflect performance in that same year. The latest available data are for 2007, which correspond to 2007/08 in the IIAG.

• No data are available for Somalia.

Freedom of Expression

CATEGORY: Participation and Rights
Sub-category: Rights
Indicator name: Freedom of Expression
Data provider: Bertelsmann Foundation
Data source: Bertelsmann Transformation Index (BTI)
Publication years used in the Ibrahim Index of African Governance (IIAG): 2006 and 2008
Website: http://www.bertelsmann-transformation-index.de/16.0.html?&L=1

Definition of the indicator:

An expert assessment of the extent to which citizens, organisations and the mass media can express opinions freely.

For details of the methodology, please see:

http://www.bertelsmann-transformation-index.de/fileadmin/pdf/Anlagen_BTI_2008/4_Criteria_and_Methodology.pdf

Technical notes:

• This indicator’s raw data range from 1 to 10, with a low score being worst and a high score being best. To produce the IIAG score the raw data were normalised using the Min-Max method to transform them to a scale of 0 to 100, where 100 is always the best score possible.

• The publication year of the ‘Bertelsmann Transformation Index (BTI)’ reflects performance in the previous year. The latest available data are for 2007, which correspond to 2007/08 in the IIAG.

• Data for 2000/01–2004/05 and 2006/07 have been estimated using mean substitution and/or extrapolation. Data for the Republic of Congo and Mauritania in 2005/06 have also been estimated using mean substitution and/or extrapolation, as they were not assessed in the 2006 BTI.

• There are no data available for Cape Verde, Comoros, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Lesotho, São Tomé and Príncipe, the Seychelles and Swaziland.

• Data from the 2003 BTI have not been included in the IIAG. Through correspondence with the Bertelsmann Foundation we were informed that the 2003 BTI was a prototype, and that changes were made in the 2006 and 2008 versions. Comparison between the 2003 BTI and subsequent years is therefore not instructive.

Freedom of Association

CATEGORY: Participation and Rights
Sub-category: Rights
Clustered indicator name: Freedom of Association
Variable names: Freedom of Association (BTI); Freedom of Association (EIU)
Variable names at source (if different):Assembly/Association Rights (BTI); Freedom of Association (EIU)
Data provider: Bertelsmann Foundation; The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU)Data source:  Bertelsmann Transformation Index (BTI), Commissioned Data (EIU)
Publication years used in the Ibrahim Index of African Governance (IIAG): BTI: 2006 and 2008; EIU: 2006-08
Websites: http://www.bertelsmann-transformation-index.de/11.0.html?&L=1
and
www.www.eiu.com

Definition of the indicator:

Freedom of Association-a clustered indicator that consists of an average of the following variables:

• Freedom of Association (BTI): An expert analysis of the extent to which independent political and/or civic groups can associate and assemble freely.

• Freedom of Association (EIU): This variable assesses the risk that freedom of association and right to collective bargaining will not be respected.

For details of the methodology, please see:

http://www.bertelsmann-transformation-index.de/fileadmin/pdf/Anlagen_BTI_2008/4_Criteria_and_Methodology.pdf

Technical notes:

• The Freedom of Association (BTI) raw data ranges from 1 to 10, with a low score being worst and a high score being best. To produce the IIAG score the raw data were normalised using the Min-Max method to transform them to a scale of 0 to 100, where 100 is always the best score possible.

• The Freedom of Association (EIU) raw data range from 0 to 100, with a low score being best and a high score being worst. To produce the IIAG score the raw data were normalised using the Min-Max method to transform them to a scale of 0 to 100, where 100 is always the best score possible.

• Calculated IIAG scores for Freedom of Association (BTI) and Freedom of Association (EIU) were then averaged to determine the overall indicator score.

Freedom of Association (BTI) specific:

• The publication year of the ‘Bertelsmann Transformation Index (BTI)’ reflects performance in the previous year. The latest available data are for 2007, which correspond to 2007/08 in the IIAG.

• Data for 2000/01–2004/05 and 2006/07 have been estimated using mean substitution and/or extrapolation. Data for the Republic of Congo and Mauritania in 2005/06 have also been estimated using mean substitution and/or extrapolation, as they were not assessed in the 2006 BTI.

• There are no data for Cape Verde, Comoros, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Lesotho, São Tomé and Príncipe, the Seychelles and Swaziland.  

• Data from the 2003 BTI have not been included in the IIAG. Through correspondence with the Bertelsmann Foundation we were informed that the 2003 BTI was a prototype, and that changes were made in the 2006 and 2008 versions. Comparison between the 2003 BTI and subsequent years is therefore not instructive.

Freedom of Association (EIU) specific:

• The publication year reflects performance in that same year. The latest available data are for 2008, which correspond to 2007/08 in the IIAG.

• Data are not available for 2000-05 and have been estimated using substitution and/or extrapolation.

Press Freedom

CATEGORY: Participation and Rights
Sub-category: Rights
Clustered indicator name: Press Freedom
Variable names: Free Press (FH); Press Freedom Index (PFI); Freedom of Speech and Press (CIRI)
Variable name at source (if different):Freedom of the Press Index (FH); Press Freedom Index (PFI); Freedom of Speech (CIRI)
Data providers: Freedom House (FH); Reporters Without Borders; The Cingranelli-Richards (CIRI) Human Rights Data Project
Data sources: Freedom of the Press Index (FH); Press Freedom Index (Reports without Borders); The Cingranelli-Richards Human Rights Dataset (CIRI)
Publication years used in the Ibrahim Index of African Governance (IIAG): 2000-07 (CIRI); 2002-08 (PFI); 2002-09 (FH)
Websites:
http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=16
and
http://www.rsf.org/index.php?page=rubrique&id_rubrique=2
and
http://ciri.binghamton.edu/index.asp 

Definition of the indicator:

Press Freedom – a clustered indicator that consists of an average of the following variables:      

• Free Press (FH): an expert assessment of the degree of print, broadcast, and internet freedom in a country, as well as of events impacting the media environment in a given year. This indicator considers the political, legal, and economic environment in which the media operates.

• Press Freedom Index (PFI): an assessment, based on questionnaires to local correspondents, of the degree of freedom that journalists and news organisations enjoy, and the efforts made by the authorities to respect and ensure respect for this freedom. The questionnaire assesses: physical attacks, imprisonment and direct threats; indirect threats, pressures and access to information; censorship and self-censorship; public media; economic, legal and administrative pressure; and the internet and new media

• Freedom of Speech and Press (CIRI): an expert assessment of the extent to which freedoms of speech and press are affected by government censorship, including ownership of media outlets. Censorship is any form of restriction that is placed on freedom of the press, speech or expression (including art and music).

For details of the methodologies, please see:

http://freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=350&ana_page=348&year=2008
and
http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=29013
and
http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=29011
and
http://ciri.binghamton.edu/documentation/ciri_coding_guide.pdf
and
http://ciri.binghamton.edu/documentation/ciri_variables_short_descriptions.pdf

Technical notes:

• The Free Press (FH) raw data range from 0 to 100, with a low score being best, and a high score being worst. To produce the IIAG score the raw data were normalised using the Min-Max method to transform them to a scale of 0 to 100, where 100 is always the best score possible.

• The Press Freedom Index (PFI) raw data range from 3.33 to 114.75, with a low score being best and a high score being worst. To produce the IIAG score the raw data were normalised using the Min-Max method to transform them to a scale of 0 to 100, where 100 is always the best score possible.

• The Freedom of Speech and Press (CIRI) raw data range from 0 to 2, with a low score being worst, and a high score being best.  To produce the IIAG score the raw data were normalised using the Min-Max method to transform them to a scale of 0 to 100, where 100 is always the best score possible.

• Calculated IIAG scores for Free Press (FH), Press Freedom Index (PFI), and Freedom of Speech and Press (CIRI) were then averaged to determine the overall indicator score.

Free Press (FH) specific:

• The publication year of the ‘Freedom of the Press Index’ reflects performance in the previous year. The latest available data are for 2008, which correspond to 2007/08 in the IIAG.

Press Freedom Index (PFI) specific:

• The publication year of the ‘Press Freedom Index’ reflects performance from September in the previous year to September of the publication year. As the majority of the assessment takes place over the publication year, the raw data have been calculated as in the publication year in this index. The latest available data are for 2008 (2008 Press Freedom Index), which correspond to 2007/08 in the IIAG.

• Data are unavailable for the 2000/01 IIAG year, so values have been estimated using mean substitution and/or extrapolation. Data are also unavailable for Somalia, Lesotho and Botswana in the 2001/02 IIAG year, so these values have been estimated using mean substitution and/or extrapolation.

• No data are available for São Tomé and Príncipe.

Freedom of Speech and Press (CIRI) specific:

• The years stated in ‘The Cingranelli-Richards (CIRI) Human Rights Dataset’ reflects performance in that same year. The latest available data are for 2007, which correspond to 2007/08 in the IIAG.

• No data are available for Somalia.

• Where data are unavailable they have been estimated using mean substitution and/or extrapolation.

Civil Liberties

CATEGORY: Participation and Rights
Sub-category: Rights
Clustered indicator name: Civil Liberties
Variable names: Civil Liberties (EIU); Protection of Civil Liberties (BTI); Civil Liberties Score (FH)
Variable names at source (if different): Civil Liberties (EIU); Civil Rights Ensured; Civil Liberties Score (FH)
Data providers: The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU); Bertelsmann Foundation (BTI); Freedom House (FH)
Data sources: Commissioned Data (EIU); Bertelsmann Transformation Index (BTI); Freedom in the World Survey (FH)
Publication years used in the Ibrahim Index of African Governance (IIAG): EIU: 2006 - 2008; BTI: 2006 and 2008; FH: 2003 - 2009

Websites:
www.eiu.com;
and
http://www.bertelsmann-transformation-index.de/11.0.html?&L=1;
and
http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=15

Definition of the indicator:

Civil Liberties – a clustered indicator that consists of an average of the following variables:

• Civil Liberties (EIU):

An expert analysis of citizens’ freedoms including media freedom (print and electronic), freedom of expression, internet restrictions, freedom to unionise and form other professional organisations,  opportunities to successfully petition the government, state use of torture, independence of the judiciary, religious freedom, equality of treatment for all citizens under law, basic security, private property rights, personal freedom, popular perceptions of respect for human rights, absence of discrimination, and the extent to which government invokes threats to curb civil liberties.

This indicator is based on the scores of 17 sub-components:

1. Electronic Media: Is there a free electronic media?
2. Print Media: Is there a free print media?
3. Free Expression: Is there freedom of expression and protest (bar only generally accepted restrictions such as banning advocacy of violence)?
4. Diversity: Is media coverage robust? Is there open and free discussion of public issues, with a reasonable diversity of opinions?
5. Internet: Are there political restrictions on access to the Internet?
6. Trade Unions: Are citizens free to form professional organisations and trade unions?
7. Petititions: Do institutions provide citizens with the opportunity to successfully petition government to redress grievances?
8. Torture: The use of torture by the state
9. Judiciary: The degree to which the judiciary is independent of government influence.
10. Religion: The degree of religious tolerance and freedom of religious expression.
11. Equality Law: The degree to which citizens are treated equally under the law.
12. Basic Security: Do citizens enjoy basic security?
13. Private Property: Extent to which private property rights protected and private business is free from undue government influence
14. Personal Freedom: Extent to which citizens enjoy personal freedoms
15. Respect for Human Rights: Popular perceptions on human rights protection; proportion of the population that think that basic human rights are well-protected.
16. Discrimination: There is no significant discrimination on the basis of people's race, colour or creed.
17. New Threats: Extent to which the government invokes new risks and threats as an excuse for curbing civil liberties

• Protection of Civil Liberties (BTI):  An assessment of the extent to which civil liberties are guaranteed and protected, and the extent to which citizens can seek redress for violations of these liberties.

• Civil Liberties Score (FH):  An expert assessment of freedom of expression and belief (freedom of the media and the academic and educational systems, freedom to practice faith, and freedom and openness of private discussion), associational and organisational rights (freedom of assembly, demonstration, and open public discussion, and freedom for trade unions, civil society, and professional organisations), the rule of law (independence of the judiciary, equality of law, adherence to the rule of law, and freedom from political terror and war), and personal autonomy and individual rights (personal social freedoms, freedom from economic exploitation, individual rights of movement, work and learning, and private property rights and freedom for private businesses).

For details of methodologies, please see:

http://www.bertelsmann-transformation-index.de/fileadmin/pdf/Anlagen_BTI_2008/4_Criteria_and_Methodology.pdf
and
http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=351&ana_page=354&year=2009

Technical notes:

• • Civil Liberties (EIU) raw data are scaled from 0 to 100, with a low score being worst, and a high score being best. To produce the IIAG score the raw data were normalised using the Min-Max method to transform them to a scale of 0 to 100, where 100 is always the best score possible.
• Protection of Civil Liberties (BTI) raw data range from 1 to 10, with a low score being worst and a high score being best.  To produce the IIAG score the raw data were then normalized using the Min-Max method to transform them to a scale of 0 to 100, where 100 is always the best score possible.

• Civil Liberties Score (FH) raw data range from 0 to 60, with a low score being worst, and a high score being best.  To produce the IIAG score the raw data were normalized using the Min-Max method to transform them to a scale of 0 to 100, where 100 is always the best score possible.

• Calculated IIAG scores for Civil Liberties (EIU), Protection of Civil Liberties (BTI) and Civil Liberties Score (FH) were then averaged to determine the overall indicator score.

Civil Liberties (EIU) specific:

• The publication year reflects performance in that same year. The latest available data therefore is 2008, and this corresponds to 2007/08 in the IIAG.
• Data are not available for 2000-2005, and so have been estimated using mean substitution and/or extrapolation.

Protection of Civil Liberties (BTI) specific: 

• The publication year of the ‘Bertelsmann Transformation Index (BTI)’ reflects performance in the previous year. The latest available data are therefore for 2007, which correspond to 2007/08 in the IIAG.

• Data for 2000/01–2004/05 and 2006/07 have been estimated using mean substitution and/or extrapolation. Data for the Republic of Congo and Mauritania in 2005/06 have also been estimated using mean substitution and/or extrapolation, as they were not assessed in the 2006 BTI.

• There are no data for Cape Verde, Comoros, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Lesotho, São Tomé and Príncipe, the Seychelles and Swaziland.  

• Data from the 2003 BTI have not been included in the IIAG. Through correspondence with the Bertelsmann Foundation we were informed that the 2003 BTI was a prototype, and changes were made in the 2006 and 2008 versions. Comparison between the 2003 BTI and subsequent years is therefore not instructive.

Civil Liberties Score (FH) specific:

• The publication year of the ‘Freedom in the World Survey’ reflects performance in the previous year. The latest available data therefore are for 2008, which correspond to 2007/08 in the IIAG.

• Raw data were the total of the sub-aggregate scores, and not the overall Civil Liberties rating. 

• Scoring methodology was changed for the 2003 Freedom in the World Survey onwards. This meant sub-aggregate scores changed from 56 to 60. In light of this, the 2002 Freedom in the World Survey is not comparable and has not been used. Data have therefore been estimated using mean substitution and/or extrapolation and for the IIAG year 2000/01. 

Ratification and Initial Reporting of Core International Human Rights Conventions

CATEGORY: Participation and Human Rights
Sub-category: Rights
Indicator: Ratification and Initial Reporting of Core International Human Rights Conventions
Data provider: Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)
Data source: Coded by The Mo Ibrahim Foundation using data from the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
Years covered by the Ibrahim Index of African Governance (IIAG): 2001-2008
Website: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/

For details of the methodology, please see technical notes.

Definition of the indicator:

Official data measuring how many of the nine core international human rights treaties a country has ratified and whether it has submitted the first of a number of regular reports to treaty bodies that monitor implementation of these commitments.

Technical notes:

This indicator’s raw data range from 0 to 18, with a low score being worst and a high score being best. To produce the IIAG score the data were normalised using the Min-Max method to transform them to a scale of 0 to 100, where 100 is always the best possible score.

The coded OHCHR data are reflective of performance in that same year. The latest available data are for 2008, which correspond to 2007/08 in the IIAG.

Coding of indicator

• Coding of ratification of the nine core international human rights treaties: Countries were coded with a score of ‘1’ when they officially ratified one of the nine core conventions. The scoring was cumulative, so when an additional core convention was ratified the score increased by one. The maximum possible score is 9.

• Coding of initial reporting of the nine core international human rights treaties: Countries were coded with a score of ‘1’ when they officially submitted their initial report for one of the nine core conventions. The scoring was cumulative, so when an additional initial report was submitted the score increased by one. The maximum possible score is 9.

• Both scores for initial reporting and ratification of core conventions were added together to obtain the final raw dataset, with a range of 0 to 18.

• Coding of scores was over a calendar year. If a country ratified or submitted an initial report between January and December in a given year, they received a point for that year.