Iom’s Democracy Index Rating

[Freggyragh]

Skeddan wrote: "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." This is my point exactly. The right is conferred by another country.

 

In the case of a Manx Person as defined by protocol 3 one of the key rights of a British Citizen (the only citizenship a Protocol 3 Manx Person is entitled to) - the right to enjoy the freedoms of EU provisions relating to labour, housing, and 'establishment' - is denied.

 

There is no reciprocol benefit.

 

The only remedy for this would be to go and live in the UK for five continuous years. I tried to get full British Citizen rights once, on the basis that I spent five years at university in the UK - I was refused because I couldn't provide proof that I hadn't returned during holidays.

 

Of course, you may think this system will effect fewer and fewer Manx people, as more and more of the traditional population have a parent or grandparent born or naturalized as Brtish Citizens. Don't forget the large number of our immigrant population whose parents are not from the UK though.

[Skeddan]

In the case of a Manx Person as defined by protocol 3 one of the key rights of a British Citizen (the only citizenship a Protocol 3 Manx Person is entitled to) - the right to enjoy the freedoms of EU provisions relating to labour, housing, and 'establishment' - is denied.

This makes it clearer. EU Member states do not extend right to you to live and work there (except the UK) - hence maybe a bit like UK extending right to Kiwis - but in this case it is France, Ireland extending rights to citizens of another country who meet certain stipulations. On the other hand there is a big difference - the UK negotiated and agreed this as a reciprocal arrangement - it wasn't unilateral.

 

Now it would be clear if it was say Yorkshiremen defined this way who were excluded. But IoM is not part of the UK. Fact is you are a bit like a stateless person - neither Manks nor British (but given some of the benefits of being British). Yes you are 2nd class Brit and not allowed to be a 1st class Manks. That's down to the constitutional relationship with the UK. Its like Tahitians are 'French' and France goes so far as to claim this is French domestic territory, only they are 2nd class French and excluded also. I suspect that's also down to the constitutional relationship. You are a native of somewhere under subjugation. Because of that the rights you have are different from those you would have if you were from the UK itself - or became a naturalised British citizen.

[Skeddan]

I've had another go at scoring IoM's democracy index. The scores I get to are:

 

Electoral Process and Pluralism 7.5

Functioning of Government 4.28 (- 1 = 3.28)

Political Participation 4.44

Democratic Political Culture 8.75

Civil Liberties 8.88

 

This gives an overall democracy index of 6.56, putting IoM squarely in the flawed democracies category.

 

Aside from the specifics of scoring, the exercise highlights some specific areas where improvements are needed to strengthen democracy in IoM. These will probably be less contentious than IoM's rating or the scoring specifics which identifies these areas. These areas are:

• Elections of CM, MLC, Bishop in Keys
  
• Checks and balances, legislature control over executive
  
• Media control and coverage
  
• Election campaign and party financing
  
• Relationship with UK
  
• Government accountability to electorate
  
• Transparency of government (e.g. FOI)
  
• Anti-corruption measures
  
• Political participation initiatives.
  

It would be interesting to see if there might be a broad consensus on a need for improvement in these areas (maybe give or take some items).

 

IMO if some common ground can be established despite the diversity of viewpoints found in MF, then there might be some prospect of achieving some worthwhile outcomes on these issues, while agreeing to dispute and disagree on other matters.

 

I don't think it would be impossible to arrive at some consensus and cohesion on substantive issues which would gain broad-based support across a wide political spectrum. If 'politically engaged' MF members can constructively work towards agreeing what needs changing, there is every likelihood of broad-based support for such change, and actually achieving something – regardless of differences of opinion over the specific initiatives or how this should be achieved.

 

Looking back at other threads (e.g. Sooo, where do we go from here?, it seems disagreements on how to achieve outcomes quickly leads to a breakdown in actually getting anywhere – even to first base. Rather than biting off more than can chew, I'd suggest a much more modest approach, and only look to establish foundations on which other intiatives might build, and other discussions might spin off from.

 

To kick this off, my suggestion is a 'special interest group' for discussion of what might be a 'Democracy Watch' project, and this should be a kind of open-source approach – i.e. driven by members rather than managed in a top-down fashion. I'd suggest the deliverable should be a discussion document on the state of democracy in IoM which distills the contributions made by members. A kind of grassroots public consultation document if you like. If people want to take it further than that or go in different directions, they can, but at least this gets to a starting point.

 

Anyone interested, and if so, where do we go from here?

[triskelion]

Common ground on MF? There are some aspects on which we could perhaps agree on in principle, such as 'The LegCo should be entirely elected,' but this is somewhat insufficient. There is much less concensus on when they would be elected, what would their constituencies be, what their responsibilities would be etc. Often opinons on such options are all reasonable, which makes moving forward with such things difficult.

 

I'd also like to pick up on the media coverage and control aspect. There is little prospect of someone starting up a rival print newspaper, if only due to the initial start-up costs. On the basis of the UK print media, yes they do initiate debate, but it usually through sensationalist methods, which does not necessarily create intelligent or productive debate, as the press's usual start point is "X is a shambles." Although there are three seperate radio stations, only MR really has the ability to provide public service broadcasting and the medium is predominantly used during trips to and from work, which is not the ideal slot for political debate. A ManxForums Podcast maybe?

 

Reading through that post-elections thread, the obvious problem is that MF has a lot of strong personalities, which is, in fairness, probably amplified by the internet's ability to convince people they are part of an enlightened elite. Whilst I do not think a party system is inherently a bad idea, constructing a unified party line is unlikely to the point of being unrealistic. Perhaps a kind of compromise along the lines of a set of 'core policies' is more viable? Ie, the candidates would largely stand on their own platforms, but agree to work together on an agreed set of policies such as elected LegCo, FoI, whatever.

[Skeddan]

I agree – a unified party line is unrealistic and a set of 'core policies' is what should be aimed at. i.e. the fundamentals that might be a kind of 'democracy charter' – FOI, Ombudsman, anti corruption, whatever. Something that – for example - might be a 'campaign pledge' by candidates standing for election or re-election – failing which their seats might be contested by candidates who do.

 

It is a matter of finding common ground in these core policies which might get broad-based grass roots support in electorate so as to make this a political force – not just a niche with appeal to specific segment, but cross-party as it were. It would be a mistake to narrow to political complexion and philosophy (right, centrist, left, nationalist, monarchist, republican, pro-EU, anti-EU, whatever). Instead should deal with the fundamentals of what is needed to strengthen democracy in IoM – get that right and the rest is IMO secondary and will take care of itself – or rather the electorate will take care of it.

 

Some things will be hard to agree on – e.g. LegCo etc. and may not have quick easy answers. It might be there are a a number of reasonable proposals – and if so, maybe this is no bad thing and these should be put to a referendum. However I'd think there are some things that could be pretty straightforward – e.g. FOI. Ombudsman, Judicial Complaints Commission, campaign funding, pre-election disclosures of interest by candidates, etc. - for example.

 

I think the points you make about Media shows very well that local context means that 'conventional' approaches won't necessarily work, and there is a need for innovate ways of answering the deficit in some areas. I also think one has to take a perspective not as an outsider, but what would have IOMG do (with the resources and clout it has) – i.e. as a result of implementation of the core policies by MHKs per campaign pledge. I think there is lots of scope for realistic, viable and effective ways for improvements in this area - it wouldn't take too much brainstorming.

 

Maybe there doesn't have to be final agreement on specific proposals – rather a raft of suggestions and a requirement for improvements in areas of concern. I'd think the aim should be to move IoM's democracy index score from 'failed democracy' to 'full democracy' – top 20 league ideally, and I think that is realistically achievable . There are a few quick wins that would be easy – FOI, campaign funding transparency, etc. If nothing else, identify the gaps and shortfalls, and get commitment from MHKs/ candidates to put democracy as a first order of priority so as to meet that top 20 target.

 

As noted before there is a sound business and economic case for moving IoM's democracy rating to being alongside Portugal and Belgium rather than Namibia and Papau New Guinea. Flourishing happens most in democracies, and less so in flawed democracies. To get change to happen and stick one has to not just get acceptance but real buy in to the value and benefit. There is a strong case to be made, and I think that needs to be – the rhetoric of 'democracy', 'freedom' 'good government' or whatever is in danger of being simply rhetoric – the hard nosed compelling value proposition for why this should be a priority also needs to be articulated.

[Night Shift]

All these words are just burning my brain man and where has the old way of saying things gone on the computer.

 

That jis took me ages to read and I still cant fathom it. Ill try tomorrow though when my mind has cooled off a touch but still good to see you though/

[Skeddan]

I’ve not run any stats on this, but this chart shows a correlation between scores on the EIU Democracy Index and CPI scores by Transparency International.

 

The CPI (Corruption Perception Index) score “relates to perceptions of the degree of corruption as seen by business people and country analysts, and ranges between 10 (highly clean) and 0 (highly corrupt).”

 

IoM is not included on the CPI survey, but with lack of FOI and other features, would probably get a CPI score which would fall in the typical range for a country with its Democracy Index score. (i.e. CPI of abt. 3-5). Note also how perception might also have been effected by events in Jersey.

 

The points marked in pink are democracy index scores for the various countries. The blue points directly above or below those points is the CPI score for that country. The black line is a polynomial trend line for the CPI scores.