Which country in the world currently has the best functioning liberal democracy?

[Dr Strangelove]

In my opinion most of Europe is a mess, Russia and the US aren't any better. Japan? Australia? Don't really know...


Which country do you think comes closest to a working liberal democracy?

Hasn't Japan's governmment been dominated by one single party up to the last election?

[Kitschum]

Thorr what? Gnomes?

Thor bless you. Yes, gnomes in the ground.

[Heraclitus]

Tha's because the traditional view is that women need to stay home and have babies so there could be more soldiers to fight wars.

Most women of my generation and even those older don't have babies in their early twenties or late teens. So these customs are just a relic of different times? If so I'm suprised they've lasted...

[Heraclitus]

Hasn't Japan's governmment been dominated by one single party up to the last election?

Yeah, but just because a single party keeps getting elected dosen't mean the system isn't a good liberal democracy, especially considering the cultural backround. If I remember right several Nordic countries had decades of Social Democrat rule.

[Heraclitus]

Yes - and in United States, enslaved blacks were not really all that interested in freedom.

The Union forced emancipation on those happy darkies.

Don't forget that the US is also partly responsible for the nasty sanctions that forced an end to apartheid in South Africa.

[Kitschum]

Yeah, but just because a single party keeps getting elected dosen't mean the system isn't a good liberal democracy, especially considering the cultural backround. If I remember right several Nordic countries had decades of Social Democrat rule.

Yes, I don't think it's all that unusual. To the extent that "liberal democratic" values reflect good government they should go hand in hand with political stability, which is easier to accomplish if one party predominates.

Sweden, which is the apparent number one on the lists that were posted, had the Social Democrats in government continuously from 1932-1976 (except for one summer, but that was for tactical reasons just before an election). And after that, 1982-1991 and 1994-2006, so it's fair to say that Sweden has been thoroughly social-democratized. They weren't always alone in government and they mostly did not get a majority of votes, but still.

[Straybow]

They're all tiny countries. It's always easier to work with small systems or groups.

1. Sweden 9.88 . . . . . (9.3M)
2. Norway 9.68 . . . . . (4.8M)
3. Iceland 9.65 . . .. . . (0.3M)
3. Netherlands 9.53 . . (16.6M)
5. Denmark 9.52 . . . . (5.5M)
6. Finland 9.25 . . . . . (5.4M)
7. New Zealand 9.19 . (4.3M)
8. Switzerland 9.15 . . (7.8M)
9. Luxembourg 9.10 . (0.5M)
10. Australia 9.09 . . . (22.1M)

There's no easy way to list it, but apart from Australia and Switzerland these countries would probably also rank in the top ten least diverse populations. Only three of these countries are bigger than the largest city in the US, while Luxembourg and Iceland wouldn't even be in the top 30 US cities.

[Kitschum]

Australia isn't diverse. They have lots of immigrants, but most were British empire subjects and the rest Italians.

E: Also it's not fair to compare these countries' populations to the US, the fourth largest country in the world.

[notyoueither]

Seems like a reasonable list. I do wonder though what civil liberties were included in the list. I have issues with US civil liberties, but I still believed we compared quite favorably to Europe in many categories. I suppose it just depends on what categories they included. For example, I imagine gun ownership was not considered a civil liberty by the poll makers.

The other stuff about our elections seem appropriate places for us to lose points.

Also, your list is outdated. Here is the top 10 from 2008:

1. Sweden 9.88
2. Norway 9.68
3. Iceland 9.65
3. Netherlands 9.53
5. Denmark 9.52
6. Finland 9.25
7. New Zealand 9.19
8. Switzerland 9.15
9. Luxembourg 9.10
10. Australia 9.09

Germany is 13, Japan is 17, US is 18, UK is 21, and France is 24. Russia is 107, right below Burundi and above Pakistan...

http://graphics.eiu.com/PDF/Democracy%20Index%202008.pdf

Edit: After reading through the actual survey, I think the civil liberties portion is balanced. Doesn't have guns, but I can see how it wouldn't fit in with the rest of the questions. It is mostly about free speech & barriers to political participation. Other categories of civil liberties aren't included. Which I assumed, but I suppose I'm ok with it now.

Cool study regardless.

Cool, but I'm not too sure about their methodology. It strikes me that there are some arbitrary, or not easily reproduced results.

These are the questions and scoring for the Electoral process and pluralism section. I'd be interested in how people who are very familiar with Canada's political system would score the Great White North (assuming they take the scoring seriously). The Economist scored it 9.17, and I am trying to figure out how that would come about.

1. Are elections for the national legislature and head of government free?
Consider whether elections are competitive in that electors are free to vote and are offered a range of choices.
1: Essentially unrestricted conditions for the presentation of candidates (for example, no bans on major parties)
0.5: There are some restrictions on the electoral process
0: A single-party system or major impediments exist (for example, bans on a major party or candidate)

2. Are elections for the national legislature and head of government fair?
1: No major irregularities in the voting process
0.5: Significant irregularities occur (intimidation, fraud), but do not affect significantly the overall outcome
0: Major irregularities occur and affect the outcome
Score 0 if score for question 1 is 0.

3. Are municipal elections both free and fair?
1: Are free and fair
0.5: Are free but not fair
0: Are neither free nor fair

4. Is there universal suffrage for all adults?
Bar generally accepted exclusions (for example, non-nationals; criminals; members of armed forces in some countries)
1: Yes
0: No

5. Can citizens cast their vote free of significant threats to their security from state or non-state bodies?
1: Yes
0: No

6. Do laws provide for broadly equal campaigning opportunities?
1: Yes
0.5: Yes formally, but in practice opportunities are limited for some candidates
0: No

7. Is the process of financing political parties transparent and generally accepted?
1: Yes
0.5: Not fully transparent
0: No

8. Following elections, are the constitutional mechanisms for the orderly transfer of power from one government to another clear, established and accepted?
1: All three criteria are fulfilled
0.5: Two of the three criteria are fulfilled
0: Only one or none of the criteria is satisfied

9. Are citizens free to form political parties that are independent of the government?
1. Yes
0.5: There are some restrictions
0: No

10. Do opposition parties have a realistic prospect of achieving government?
1: Yes
0.5: There is a dominant two-party system in which other political forces never have any effective chance of taking part in national government
0: No

11. Is potential access to public office open to all citizens?
1: Yes
0.5: Formally unrestricted, but in practice restricted for some groups, or for citizens from some parts of the country
0: No

12. Are citizens free to form political and civic organisations, free of state interference and surveillance?
1: Yes
0.5: Officially free, but subject to some restrictions or interference
0: No

[Jon Miller]

What's the difference between Norway and Sweden

JM
(currently living in Sweden)

[KrazyHorse]

The Economist scored it 9.17, and I am trying to figure out how that would come about.

11/12 = 9.17/10

[KrazyHorse]

I could see docking half a point for campaign finance and half a point for transition of power...

[notyoueither]

The Economist scored it 9.17, and I am trying to figure out how that would come about.

11/12 = 9.17/10

I'm thinking where they docked points.

They nicked Britain for 0.5, Canada for 1.0, and the US for 1.5

Australia was perfect.

[Kitschum]

What's the difference between Norway and Sweden

Norway is about 15 years behind us socially and culturally. They are richer than the gnomes of Zurich because of the oil, but Oslo still looks run down and trashy. The nature is stunning though. Apart from soccer all the other sports they do you need skis for. They talk funny.

Oh you meant with the list criteria? I don't know.

(currently living in Sweden)

How are you getting on in the darkness?

[bc1871]

The United States by far!