Political Participation

CATEGORY: Participation and Rights
Sub-category: Participation
Indicator name: Political Participation
Data provider: The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU)
Data source: Democracy Index
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 extent to which citizens have the information and freedom to participate in the political process. The assessment takes into consideration the following: voter participation and turn out for national elections; the degree to which ethnic, religious and other minorities have autonomy and a voice in the political process; the proportion of women in parliament; the extent to which citizens are members of political parties and political organisations; citizen engagement with, and interest in, politics and news; the population’s readiness to participate in lawful demonstrations; adult literacy; and the level to which authorities makes efforts to promote political participation.

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

1. Voter Turnout: Voter participation/turn-out for national elections.
2. Minorities: Do ethnic, religious and other minorities have a reasonable degree of autonomy and voice in the political process?
3. Women: What proportion of all members of parliament are women?
4. Membership: Extent of political participation. Membership of political parties and political non-governmental organisations
5. Engagement: Citizens engagement with politics
6. Demonstrations: The preparedness of population to take part in lawful demonstrations
7. Literacy: Adult Literacy
8. Follow Politics: Extent to which adult population shows an interest in and follows politics in the news.
9. Promotion: The authorities make a serious effort to promote political participation.

Technical notes:

• This indicator’s raw data range from 0 to 100 with a low score being worst, and a high score being best. To produce the Ibrahim Index of African Governance (IIAG) the raw data were normalized using the Min-Max method, transforming the data to a scale of 0 to 100, where 100 is always the best score possible.
• The years 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 the years 2001-2005. They were therefore estimated using mean substitution and/or extrapolation.

Strength of Democracy

CATEGORY: Participation and Human Rights
Sub-Category: Participation
Indicator name: Strength of Democracy
Indicator name at source (if different):Democrats Rule
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 democratically elected leaders have the effective power to govern, or the extent to which there are veto powers and political enclaves.

For details of 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 Ibrahim Index of African Governance (IIAG) score the raw data was normalized 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 ‘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 the years 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. 

Free and Fair Elections

CATEGORY: Participation and Rights
Sub-category: Participation
Indicator name: Free and Fair Elections
Indicator name at source (if different): Free Elections
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 rulers are determined by general, free and fair elections.

For details of 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 Ibrahim Index of African Governance (IIAG) score the raw data was normalized 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 ‘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 the years 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.

Electoral Self-Determination

CATEGORY: Participation and Rights
Sub-category: Participation
Indicator name: Electoral Self-Determination
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 the right of citizens to freely determine their own political system and leadership. Electoral self-determination requires that citizens have both the legal right and the ability in practice to change the laws and officials that govern them through periodic, free, and fair elections held on the basis of universal adult suffrage.

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:

• This indicator’s raw data range from 0 to 2, with a low score being worst, and a high score being best.  To produce the Ibrahim Index of African Governance (IIAG) score the raw data were normalized 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 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.

• There are no data for Somalia.

• Where data are unavailable mean substitution and/or extrapolation has been used to estimate values.

Free and Fair Executive Elections

Indicator name: Free and Fair Executive Elections
Data provider:  Institut de Recherche Empirique en Economie Politique (IREEP)
Data source: This dataset has been commissioned by The Mo Ibrahim Foundation from IREEP, a Benin-based not-for-profit educational institution devoted to empirical research, providing policy recommendations and training the next generation of professors and scholars committed to sustainable development in Africa.
Publication years used in the Ibrahim Index of African Governance (IIAG): 2000-2008
Website: http://www.ireep.org/i/en/index.html

Definition of the indicator:

An expert assessment of the freedom and fairness of executive elections in a given year. This includes the extent to which the opposition were able to participate in the election. The pre-election campaign, the voting day, and the monitoring and counting of results were all evaluated. Demonstrations, opposition participation or boycotts, adherence to electoral procedures, freedom of access to information, levels of violence and intimidation, the losing party’s acceptance of results and whether there was a transfer of power  were also taken into consideration.

Methodology:

Elections are scored by IREEP using expert opinion from a variety of sources which are listed under ‘Main sources consulted’ below. Scoring is based on a scale of 0 to 22, with the overall score reflecting three distinct phases of the election:

i)                    the pre-election campaign;

ii)                   the day(s) of voting;

iii)                 the counting and monitoring of results

The scores for each calendar year (January to December) 2000 - 2008 reflect the assessment of the elections that took place at any time in that year. If no election took place in a particular year (as is often the case given that elections usually take place on a 4-7 year cycle), the scores for the year in which no election took place will reflect the assessment of the last election that took place.

Where the usual election cycle has been disrupted, for instance, owing to civil war, coup, or cross-border conflict, a score of zero is given. For example, in the case of Angola, the election cycle was disrupted because of civil war, with the last election before 2008 being held in 1992. Thus, a score of zero is given to all years 2000-2007.

For each election that is scored, the following criteria are taken into consideration:

Each dimension/question below has been scored on a scale of 0 to 2. In addition, to capture the importance of the nature of a political regime of a country and its impact on elections, a double-weighting has been accorded to ‘Turnover of Power’.  That is to say, while an autocracy can hold elections which would score well in many of the criteria below, this would largely be a façade. Therefore, if a country scores 1 for ‘Turnover of Power’ (implying a change of party OR a change of leader), this is transformed into a score of 2 to account for the double-weighting. If a country scores 2 (implying a change of leader AND a change of party) the country will receive a score of 4 under the double-weighting scheme. Therefore, while the maximum possible score for each of the nine components listed below is 2, for this component, the maximum possible score is 4. Hence, overall, the maximum possible score that could be achieved is 22.

• Were demonstrations allowed? Could candidates make speeches and hold public meetings?
• Did the opposition participate in the election?
• Were there parties boycotting the election?
• Did campaign or election-day violence occur?
• Were electoral procedures followed pre-election?
• Were electoral procedures followed on election-day and post election?
• Was information freely available during the election year?
• Were voters able to vote for the candidate or party of their choice without undue pressure or intimidation?
• Did the losers accept the result?
• Did the elections result in a turnover of power?

Technical notes:

This indicator’s raw data range from 0 to 22, with a low score being worst, and a high score being best.  A score of 22 implies that the election has been fully free and fair, was violence-free and that the opposition were able to and did participate in the election. A score of zero implies that the election was in no way free and fair, was potentially marred in violence, and the opposition was prevented from participating, or that there is no democratic system of electing the Executive in that country (e.g. it is a monarchy). To produce the Ibrahim Index of African Government (IIAG) score the raw data were normalized using the Min-Max method, transforming the data to a scale of 0 to 100, where 100 is always the best score possible. 

The latest available data are for 2008, which correspond to 2007/08 in the IIAG.

Main sources consulted:

The following main sources were used as inputs into scoring:

African Elections Database, IFES Election Guide and Statistics, Adam Carr’s Election Archive, Agora Election Data, IPU Chronicle of Parliamentary Election, IPU Parline, The Economist Intelligence Unit, European Regional Surveys of the World: Africa South of the Sahara 2008, EU Observer Missions, Commonwealth Observer Group, Carter Center Observer Reports, NDI Elections Observation Reports, SADC, African Union, Polity IV, EISA, Freedom House, Human Rights Reports (U.S. Department of State), Bertelsmann Transformation Index, Inter-Parliamentary Union, Afrobarometer (Nigeria), Keesing’s World News Archive, Keesing’s Record of World Events,  AllAfrica.com, Africa Confidential, BBC News Online, BBC World News, CNN Election Watch, Independent Election Commission, International IDEA, News and Voter turnout Project, UN IRIN News Reports.