Iom’s Democracy Index Rating

[VinnieK]

I. 8.3

II. 7.5

III. 6.6

IV. 10

V. 8.2

 

The average was 8.12, placing us just below Greece and above the UK. I think that's fairly reasonable.

[pontiuspilot]

freedom to flourish is a marketing gimic sold to the gullible fools in the wedding cake by the guy who also makes the money from the implementation of it.

he invented it so that he could get rich. in reality it is meaningless twaddle.

can anyone say that there lives are that much better thanks to freedom to flourish.

yet tax payers money is being wasted on something that we have already.

[Lonan3]

Protocol 3 impacts more than EU membership does for Sweden because it creates two types of 'British Citizen' - those who are entitled to full benefits of 'British Citizenship' and those who are not. By full benefits of 'British Citizenship' I mean the benefits of EU membership. Thus one type of 'British Citizen' has the entitlement to establish a business or work in Dublin, Paris, Berlin or wherever, but the other type of 'British Citizen' (Manx) does not.

One has to balance this, however, with the undoubted benefits of being able to deny being 'British' with all the negative things that it implies.

[Skeddan]

Declan –

 

On the figures you've given, your final score should be 8.13, not 8.02 – same as VinnieK. This puts IoM ahead of the UK. Somehow I don't think that can be right given the items and some of characteristics of UK vs. IoM. However given some of the constitutional reforms and goings on in the UK, that could be the case.

 

Also you haven't taken into account the adjustment deduction of 1 point from the functioning of government score on account of 'influence of foreign government' (i.e. UK). See the 'Methodology' section, p.8.

 

With this adjustment, by your scoring, IoM then has a final score of 7.93 and sits on the borderline between full democracies and flawed democracies – just less than Uruguay and just higher than South Africa. (with this adjustment, VinnieK's score comes out the same as well).

 

It could be better but we have the rule of law, no one can deny we have Universal Suffrage, and high levels of personal freedom, and no one can claim that our elections are rigged.

Fine, a country might have all this, but if (for an extreme example) elected representatives can only rubber-stamp legislation framed by unelected policy-makers, then all this still doesn’t add up to democracy. Same is true if only a proportion of legislature are democratically elected (as in Tonga). A measure of this is the score on the ‘Functioning of Government’ scale, which as EIU says is a minimum requirement for democracy and “without it, democracy is a hollow shell”. Also important is control of media as this has influence over political attitudes and can sway elections. These are things measured in the EIU index - which highlights that there is more required for a full healthy democracy than just the features you give here.

 

I think that people are marking harshly based on their disenchantment with the current government and the need to chance current processes like the way mlcs are voted in.

One of the values of the exercise is highlighting where it "could be better" and areas that need to be addressed to make democracy more robust – i.e. “the need to change current processes, like maybe the way MLCs are voted in”, and this can and should lead to lower marks. This should not be ‘marking harshly', but honestly. As pointed out by localyokel, on some items you are overly generous and give a higher score than warranted (e.g. in you giving top marks to Q1 and Q.2 – on how Keys and CM are elected, which is something you yourself have criticised and proposed reforming).

 

There are certainly some items where it is debatable as to how IoM should score. I'd suggest using a high-low system; this will then capture items which might be areas of concern and overcome subjectivity in harsh or lenient scoring. This might show there is broader agreement on high-lows (and the items which are scored this way) than the current discrepancies there seem to be in the scoring.

 

It would be good to see the scores of others, but so far it seems that there are only a few items of disagreement – mainly in the ‘Functioning of Government’ category, and quite a few areas where there seem to be general agreement that there might be room for improvement.

 

I’ll try and sift these out, and put them in a later post.

[triskelion]

Questions like: "10. Do opposition parties have a realistic prospect of achieving government?" aren't really relevant to the Island, which makes answering them difficult.

 

Actually on the other hand, you could phrase it as 'Does someone other than Tony Brown have a chance of becoming Chief Minister?' then the answer is of course yes.

[localyokel]

Just querying this, but my feeling is that in questions like electing the head of government it doesn't insist on universal sufferage. It is frustrating they don't give the raw data, but I think people are being over strict in saying the IOM must be low on the scale if the CM or MLC's are elected by Tynwald.

 

I'd argue that they are referring to universal sufferage, I can't think of any other democracy where they don't directly vote for their President or Leader in public elections. In the UK you know your voting for the leader of the winning party to be PM, in the USA and most other republics your voting for a President elect.

 

Here you vote for a person - if elected that person might end up a backbencher, a minister or a chief minister - nobody has a bloody clue. Therefore "Are elections for the national legislature and head of government free?" - answer "no" because nobody at the grass roots level knows who will end up head of government at all.

 

Also has Triskelion says - "Do opposition parties have a realistic prospect of achieving government?" again the answer is "no" - no bloody chance at all.

[Declan]

Questions like: "10. Do opposition parties have a realistic prospect of achieving government?" aren't really relevant to the Island, which makes answering them difficult.

 

I'm sorry but I disagree. This goes to the very heart of the problem with the Island's political system. However, I had voted in the last election, even if everyone in my constituency had voted with me, Tony Brown would have got in and he would be just as bad as he is now and he would still be treating the Island with contempt.

 

Skedden - I did make an error in my initial post I reduced one score, I amended the grand total but not the total for the subcategory. So the main total is correct. However, I did forget to deduct 1 point (although, I think this is putting undue weight on the issue in the Manx context, since the UK's relationship to the Island is with our consent and would walk away if we asked them to) so my final total is 7.82.

 

One of the values of the exercise is highlighting where it "could be better" and areas that need to be addressed to make democracy more robust – i.e. “the need to change current processes, like maybe the way MLCs are voted in”, and this can and should lead to lower marks. This should not be ‘marking harshly', but honestly. As pointed out by localyokel, on some items you are overly generous and give a higher score than warranted (e.g. in you giving top marks to Q1 and Q.2 – on how Keys and CM are elected, which is something you yourself have criticised and proposed reforming).

 

I detest the way they are elected. And this was reflected in my scores.

 

However, I can't reasonably claim that we have restrictions on the presentation of candidates or that any partys are banned or that significant (or any) irregularities occur - there is no fraud, or intimidation.

[Freggyragh]

Protocol 3 impacts more than EU membership does for Sweden because it creates two types of 'British Citizen' - those who are entitled to full benefits of 'British Citizenship' and those who are not. By full benefits of 'British Citizenship' I mean the benefits of EU membership. Thus one type of 'British Citizen' has the entitlement to establish a business or work in Dublin, Paris, Berlin or wherever, but the other type of 'British Citizen' (Manx) does not.

One has to balance this, however, with the undoubted benefits of being able to deny being 'British' with all the negative things that it implies.

 

Disagree for two reasons:

A) It still says 'British Citizen' in the passport.

B) It is a 2nd class of 'British' - but has no reciprocal advantage because of A.

[Declan]

How is Protocol 3 relevant? The survey is about Democracy and Freedom in various countries. Protocol 3 certainly restricts your freedom in Dublin and Paris, but it doesn't restrict your freedom in Douglas. You were scoring the Isle of Man not Ireland or France. Australia is no less free because its nationals need a work permit to live here. Its the same thing.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I am a little puzzled at how low Switzerland scored. As far as I know it holds a large number of referenda where the people actually have some meaningful input into the decionmaking in government, unlike in the many countries above it in the list. Although I think a simple rule of the majority can be dangerous, in terms of democracy I would have thought that the importance of referenda in Switzerland government would have put it on the top few countries because it is democratic.

[manxblue]

I have tried (honestly !) to read and understand all of the previous posts on this topic, but to be honest, I am a bit piss*d and just can't be bothered reading them again.

 

What I want to know is, why the regulations about vehicle registration plates are so shi*e, whats wrong with black and white, or silver and black or even gold and black plates (remember them !). And as for this "regulatory hyphen between letters and numbers" !, shove it !.

 

Police Constables wearing white shirts. What was wrong with the blue ones they used to wear.

 

Police Officers walking about Douglas at night lit up like fucki*g beacons in their flourescent jackets just to give the arsehol*s a chance of seeing them before they are caught.

 

Countless Police "Departments" dealing with everything between Serious Crime and Neighbourhood Inniatives !. Fu*k off, surely doing the job properly without the bolloc*s that goes with it nowadays is the only way to regain what we had here in the past.

 

In my opinion, which you are all welcome to comment on, The Isle Of Man must draw a line in the sand (I'm sure that's the phrase ?), and reject outside interference from England, Brussels or wherever these "law-makers" and Civil Servants hail from.

 

Come on Isle of Man, lets stop all this interference before it's too late and our wonderful home is thrown into the muddy grey health and safety, sh*t hole that is, from what I can see, fast approaching from the East !!.

 

Thank you and goodnight. (P.S. This message in no way endorses the thoughts of any rational person !).

[Skeddan]

Disagree for two reasons:

A) It still says 'British Citizen' in the passport.

B) It is a 2nd class of 'British' - but has no reciprocal advantage because of A.

Freggyragh - I think Declan is probably right about this. New Zealanders (and I think Aussies) who have a British grandparent have 'patriality' and can get work permits in the UK that others don't. This isn't second class NZ citizenship, but rather a right conferred by another country. 'Manxmen' (as defined) are probably in a similar situation - with EU Member States giving similar patriality rights.

 

However, I do think there is an issue with this. Perhaps there should have been (and might still be) some negotiation with EU whereby all Manks have right of establishment - perhaps in some reciprocal arrangement. It does seem rough that EU nationals can live and work in IoM under current arrangements yet Mankspersons are excluded from the benefit this reciprocal arrangement gives to others. I see your point that Germans, Dutch, Poles etc. can come and live and work in your country, perhaps pushing up house prices and reducing work opportunities, yet you do not enjoy any benefit of reciprocal rights.

 

Can you explain ways that this disadvantages you within IoM? (other than lack of reciprocal advantage) e.g. does it reduce your bargaining power over wages by limiting opportunities to obtain work in EU Member States?

 

Would you know how many people are affected by this - i.e. how many Manxmen as defined for Protocol 3? Also do you have any info on the background to this arrangement - i.e. why the UK negotiated this in this way, what consultation there was with IoM over this, and the rationale for the exclusion by this definition? (And why the 5 year rule). It's obviously a concern for you - do you know if it is also an important concern for others affected by this provision? How much support do you think there would be for a campaign to have IOMG negotiate equal EU establishment rights for all?

[localyokel]

How is Protocol 3 relevant? The survey is about Democracy and Freedom in various countries. Protocol 3 certainly restricts your freedom in Dublin and Paris, but it doesn't restrict your freedom in Douglas. You were scoring the Isle of Man not Ireland or France. Australia is no less free because its nationals need a work permit to live here. Its the same thing.

 

I see where Freggyragh is going. One of the basic EU human rights is freedom of employment, and he's right he can't go to Dublin and work like every other British citizen can so Protocol 3 is relevant. I'm not quite sure how this translates to democracy though.

[Declan]

I accept that it curtails his freedom. But it doesn't curtail his freedom within the Isle of Man, which is what this test is measuring.

[Skeddan]

I accept that it curtails his freedom. But it doesn't curtail his freedom within the Isle of Man, which is what this test is measuring.

Declan - I agree with you - provided it doesn't prejudice him within IoM. However it maybe could do, and I wouldn't be so quick to assume it doesn't. Maybe there are better local employment opportunities with multinationals if you have a right of establishment in EU, so if they relocated you they wouldn't have to get visas and go through all that. Some companies might like you to have 6mths in head office in Dublin or Paris or wherever. Maybe that's not an issue - but I wouldn't jump to conclusions.

 

Freggyragh might be a teacher - of French or Spanish - living over there for a time might be helpful - but he can't, so his local employment opportunities and career progression is limited and prejudiced compared to an equal with a '1st class' Brit passport. Perhaps Freggyragh may have wanted to be a French teacher - but knew because he was a Manxie it would not be a career he would have a chance in (and with his life's ambition shattered, and bitter and envious of less able classmates who went on to do this, he then took to the bottle - but eventually recovered by learning and teaching Manks Gaelic instead ) For example. Apart from the pitch for a C4 TV movie, the point is need to hear the stories of what this actually means for people in this situation.