Political and Civil Freedoms Across the World

With the January news cycle being relatively slow, it is time for the talking heads and thinking bodies to create some buzz.

Perhaps one of the more interesting and relevant reports to come out this week has been the 2007 update of "Freedom in the World", released annually by the think-tank Freedomhouse. They have been gathering information on political and civil freedoms across the world since 1972. The following is a self-made map cataloguing the status of freedom this year (Green covers the "Free" states, Yellow "Partly Free" and Red "Not Free").

A major theme this year is how the number of countries in each status has remained approximately the same in the past 15 years or so (although the number of free countries is much higher than, say, in 1981, largely owing to political developments in Eastern Europe, Latin America, Southern Africa and East Asia).

You can check out the report for an explanation of their methodology and scores. Their compiled comparative data can be seen here. I confess that playing with this information was a passtime of mine in whiling away the long hours in Peace Corps.

It is interesting to compare the scores with the Economist Intelligence Unit's new Democracy Index Survey. Their ratings of countries is a bit more graded, and as a result a great deal fewer countries get to stand next to Sweden and FInland near the top. Here is a self-made map of their results (Dark green for Full Democracy, Light Green for Flawed Democracy, Yellow for Hybrid Regime and Red for Authoritarian Regime).


Some similarities, some differences. Nevertheless, one can see that, as mentioned above, Latin America, Eastern Europe, Southern (and parts of Western) Africa, and parts of East Asia are seeing some political gains. Much of the rest of the world is not, or is in some sort of quasi-authoritarian limbo (but much less of it ruled by military regimes or one party states than before 1991). And, despite all the best efforts of its populace and leaders to the contrary, North America, Western Europe, Japan and Australasia still rank at the top of the list. As they say, democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. Maybe that is the scariest lesson!

Rule of Law in Iraq

I was hoping to avoid comment on the issue of Saddam's execution, as it occured over the holidays when I was absent from this blog, but the bizarre executions of Barzan Ibrahim and Awad Hamed al-Bandar, two of Saddam's aides and relatives, brings me to comment.

The Iraqi government apparently released footage today showing the execution by hanging, resulting in the decapitation of Barzan. I cannot say I am an expert on human anatomy, nor on execution, but I find this a rather unusual and ghastly event.

It is, in a larger sense, a sort of microcosm surrounding the whole trial and execution of Saddam and the top leaders in his regime. Granted, they were bloodthirsty and brutal rulers whose rise to power resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands and the torture or rape of a goodly number more. But both Saddam and his aides were tried and executed for the killing of some 148 Shias
in 1982. The Iraqi courts have even gone to far as to drop all charges against Saddam posthumously for his role in the 1988 Anfal campaign against the Kurds, which resulted in ethnic cleansing, gassing of civilian populations and arguable genocide. Furthermore, the details of Saddam's execution (that the Iraqi government sought to suppress) show that it resembled something more of a lynching, with Saddam being the one showing fortitude while he is taunted and the names of Shia firebrand Moqtada al-Sadr and his father are chanted by the entirely Shia audience. These latest executions seem to also have at best a tinge of incompetence, at worst a feeling of Shia revenge in a style of Mesopotamian justice that seems little far removed from Hammurabi and the Assyrian Empire.

Saddam and his top circle are clearly guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity. It must also be said that at the very least some semblance of an impartial court was attempted in their trial. However, quite frankly at the end of the day these figures have not been held accountable for their most heinous misdeeds, and their killings promise something more of martyrdom and sectarian violence. One wonders if a greater punishment would have been to leave Saddam, abandoned by his wife and with his sons dead, sitting in a cell, far from the centres of power and the palaces he once enjoyed. The trial and execution also seem like a duck of responsibility on the part of the Americans, who (regardless of political affiliation) say that this justice "is the business of the Iraqis", and yet also say in almost the same breath that the Iraqis are doing a good job of murdering each other in civil war.

All in all, these executions show to me that perhaps Saddam was not so unusual after all. It seems to be Mesopotamian tradition to dispatch of one's enemies in as gruesome a method as possible. So much for the hope of a new dawn in Iraqi political tradition.

France a la Anglais? Non!

I found this article on the BBC amusing. Apparently historical documents have come to light showing that in 1956 then-French Prime Minister Guy Mollet proposed to his British counterparts some form of "union" with Great Britain. His second proposal was that if a union was unacceptable, then France would join the British Commonwealth (which meant accepting Queen Elizabeth II as the titular head of that body).

The idea apparently went nowhere, but French pundits and historians are apparently tripping over themselves to denounce Mollet and state that were he alive today and he proposed such a plan, he would be tried for treason. It is too bad that the French political elite have such a hatred towards Great Britain and any thought of unity with them - they seem to have accepted Mollet's third-best plan of a European community centred on partnership with Germany rather well. This is despite the shared history and - yes - culture and language between France and Britain. I suppose the Hundred Years War still leaves a bad taste in the collective mouth of the French establishment.

In my opinion a French - British union would be in many ways a natural and strong partnership...but there would be huge political obstacles to overcome. The French approach to the state has gone in a much different direction from the English since, well, since the Hundred Years War.