Most Updated UCS

[wormyguy]

Since it seems I have provoked controversy, allow me to explain my methodology.

I concur that the key is heavily stilted towards "futuristic" forms of government, and offers extremely limited choice for displaying modern forms of government in a reasonably accurate manner. Hence the reason why Brazil, Mexico, and Russia are in the same category.

True Democracies:

Multi-Party Democracy: Free and fair elections are held in this country, in which any citizen can vote, and the results are accurately counted. The government and military are limited in their actions and respect the rule of law. The above can be taken for granted by a citizen of this country. (The US does have many different parties, they just rarely are elected to government, or register as independents if they are. It might help to visualize the Republicans and Democrats as "coalitions" with Congressional caucuses as the "parties:" e.g. the Blue Dog Coalition, the Republican Liberty Caucus).

Conservative Democracy: A reasonably democratic state, but one in which democracy is either young, fragile, corrupt, historically dominated by a single party, or some combination of the above.

Social Democracy: Same as "multi-party democracy," but one in which the "social market system" is seen as ideal by all major parties. Possibly written in constitution, as well.

Dominant Party: Reasonably democratic, but one political party always wins. If this map were of a few years ago, many more countries would be this color.

Semi-Democratic:

Limited Democracy: This was essentially a catch-all I used for countries that didn't fit into one of the other categories. If one of the following was true, it either claims or attempts to be democratic, and it didn't fit better into another category, this was what I put it in.

1. If I were a citizen of this country, and I were to vote, my vote would have a less than 75% chance of being accurately counted.
2. If I were a citizen of this country, I would likely not be able to vote in an election, even if I wanted to.
3. If I were to vote, or vote in a certain way, I would have to fear for my well-being or life.
4. Exercising my rights to free speech or a free press would cause me to fear for my well-being or life.
5. There is no right to a secret ballot.
6. The (democratic) central government does not effectively control the majority of the country.
7. The regime is corrupt and/or dictatorial, and does not respect human rights, the rule of law, and/or election results.
8. The military has undue influence on civil affairs. There are frequent military coups, there are frequent threats of military coups, or civilian leaders must always comply with the military's demands to prevent a military coup.
9. Members of certain ethnic or religious groups are disenfranchised or do not enjoy full human rights.
10. The state is both officially and in practice theocratic or ethnocentric.
11. The state frequently censors media, or directly controls most of the media.
12. People can be arrested without charge, or for a "crime" that would not be on the books in any of the countries I marked as true democracies.

It should be noted that "limited democracy" does not mean that the regime is anti-democratic, or even that it isn't democratic. It simply means that the conditions for a successful and free democracy do not exist.

Apartheid State [should be renamed "ethnic particularist state"]: A state wherein the primary governing ideology is the suppression of an indigenous minority (indigenous being defined as forming the majority of the population for the majority of the last 200 years), or their replacement by settler populations. If growth among the population of a certain ethnic group can be perceived by most as an existential threat to the existence of the state, it is most likely an ethic particularist state.

Constitutional Monarchy: A monarch retains substantial political power, but is at least partially limited by other factors in government.

Non-Democratic:

Traditional Monarchy: The country is an absolute monarchy.

Communist State: The country's official governing ideology is Communism. (I'm vacillating over whether to extend the definition to "a non-democracy ruled by a Communist or Marxist party," thus including several African states, and possibly Venezuela).

One-Party State: Only one (non-Communist) political party is legally allowed to govern the country, but no one individual has most of the political power in the country.

Autocracy: One individual has most of the country's political power.

Junta: The country is ruled by the military, or by a government installed by the military.

Islamist State: Islamic religion is the official governing ideology of the state.

Other:

Transnational State: The state is several independent entities that share a common foreign policy.

Lawless anarchy: The central government does not maintain effective control beyond (or even within) the capitol.


Goofs I made: Corsica isn't colored, the West Bank should be colored as a one-party state, the Czech Republic should be a multi-party democracy.



If you think that the conditions I outlined above don't make sense, state your criticism, or, given the conditions, you think that the map is incorrectly colored, then post your own map.

[Ofaloaf]

Originally Posted by wormyguy

(At extreme risk of provoking controversy) I tried out the government shading on a current world map.

What's the difference between the "Theocracy" and "Islamist State" categories? If an "Islamist State" is not an operating theocracy, why not simply mark it down as a democracy, autocratic state, one-party state, or whatever else seems to fit the bill?

Originally Posted by wormyguy

Non-Democratic:

[...]

Communist State: The country's official governing ideology is Communism. (I'm vacillating over whether to extend the definition to "a non-democracy ruled by a Communist or Marxist party," thus including several African states, and possibly Venezuela).

This, I disagree with. Simply having Communists in power doesn't make one a non-democratic Communist State. Communists were legitimately elected in Moldova and held power from 2001 to 2009, at which point European Integrationists created a majority coalition in Parliament. Would you mark Moldova as a Non-Democratic state for a map circa 2008? I wouldn't.

[LordInsane]

Originally Posted by wormyguy

Social Democracy: Same as "multi-party democracy," but one in which the "social market system" is seen as ideal by all major parties. Possibly written in constitution, as well.

Dominant Party: Reasonably democratic, but one political party always wins. If this map were of a few years ago, many more countries would be this color.

Of course, for several decades, both of those applied to Sweden...

[wormyguy]

Originally Posted by Ofaloaf

What's the difference between the "Theocracy" and "Islamist State" categories? If an "Islamist State" is not an operating theocracy, why not simply mark it down as a democracy, autocratic state, one-party state, or whatever else seems to fit the bill?

I also think that having the "Islamist State" and "Theocracy" categories is redundant, but I didn't come up with the categories. The difference between a state being theocratic and being a theocracy is the difference between simply having extremely strict religious laws (as in Malaysia), and defining the state in terms of religion (as in Iran).

Originally Posted by Ofaloaf

This, I disagree with. Simply having Communists in power doesn't make one a non-democratic Communist State. Communists were legitimately elected in Moldova and held power from 2001 to 2009, at which point European Integrationists created a majority coalition in Parliament. Would you mark Moldova as a Non-Democratic state for a map circa 2008? I wouldn't.

I thought the Moldovan Communists were still in power. Weren't they just reelected (in a very irregular election)? Anyways, I thought I made it clear that a Communist state would be one that defines itself as being Communist, whereas a democracy (or limited democracy) that happens to elect Communists remains a democracy or limited democracy.

Originally Posted by LordInsane

Of course, for several decades, both of those applied to Sweden...

During that period, it would be marked as "dominant party."

Dominant Party > Social Democracy > Multi-Party State in terms of how I would show them on the map.

[ZachScape]

Originally Posted by wormyguy

I also think that having the "Islamist State" and "Theocracy" categories is redundant, but I didn't come up with the categories. The difference between a state being theocratic and being a theocracy is the difference between simply having extremely strict religious laws (as in Malaysia), and defining the state in terms of religion (as in Iran).

There could be a Christian theocracy, right?

[Trovador]

Originally Posted by wormyguy

Since it seems I have provoked controversy, allow me to explain my methodology.

I concur that the key is heavily stilted towards "futuristic" forms of government, and offers extremely limited choice for displaying modern forms of government in a reasonably accurate manner. Hence the reason why Brazil, Mexico, and Russia are in the same category.

True Democracies:

Multi-Party Democracy: Free and fair elections are held in this country, in which any citizen can vote, and the results are accurately counted. The government and military are limited in their actions and respect the rule of law. The above can be taken for granted by a citizen of this country. (The US does have many different parties, they just rarely are elected to government, or register as independents if they are. It might help to visualize the Republicans and Democrats as "coalitions" with Congressional caucuses as the "parties:" e.g. the Blue Dog Coalition, the Republican Liberty Caucus).

Conservative Democracy: A reasonably democratic state, but one in which democracy is either young, fragile, corrupt, historically dominated by a single party, or some combination of the above.

Social Democracy: Same as "multi-party democracy," but one in which the "social market system" is seen as ideal by all major parties. Possibly written in constitution, as well.

Dominant Party: Reasonably democratic, but one political party always wins. If this map were of a few years ago, many more countries would be this color.

Semi-Democratic:

Limited Democracy: This was essentially a catch-all I used for countries that didn't fit into one of the other categories. If one of the following was true, it either claims or attempts to be democratic, and it didn't fit better into another category, this was what I put it in.

1. If I were a citizen of this country, and I were to vote, my vote would have a less than 75% chance of being accurately counted.
2. If I were a citizen of this country, I would likely not be able to vote in an election, even if I wanted to.
3. If I were to vote, or vote in a certain way, I would have to fear for my well-being or life.
4. Exercising my rights to free speech or a free press would cause me to fear for my well-being or life.
5. There is no right to a secret ballot.
6. The (democratic) central government does not effectively control the majority of the country.
7. The regime is corrupt and/or dictatorial, and does not respect human rights, the rule of law, and/or election results.
8. The military has undue influence on civil affairs. There are frequent military coups, there are frequent threats of military coups, or civilian leaders must always comply with the military's demands to prevent a military coup.
9. Members of certain ethnic or religious groups are disenfranchised or do not enjoy full human rights.
10. The state is both officially and in practice theocratic or ethnocentric.
11. The state frequently censors media, or directly controls most of the media.
12. People can be arrested without charge, or for a "crime" that would not be on the books in any of the countries I marked as true democracies.

It should be noted that "limited democracy" does not mean that the regime is anti-democratic, or even that it isn't democratic. It simply means that the conditions for a successful and free democracy do not exist.

Apartheid State [should be renamed "ethnic particularist state"]: A state wherein the primary governing ideology is the suppression of an indigenous minority (indigenous being defined as forming the majority of the population for the majority of the last 200 years), or their replacement by settler populations. If growth among the population of a certain ethnic group can be perceived by most as an existential threat to the existence of the state, it is most likely an ethic particularist state.

Constitutional Monarchy: A monarch retains substantial political power, but is at least partially limited by other factors in government.

Non-Democratic:

Traditional Monarchy: The country is an absolute monarchy.

Communist State: The country's official governing ideology is Communism. (I'm vacillating over whether to extend the definition to "a non-democracy ruled by a Communist or Marxist party," thus including several African states, and possibly Venezuela).

One-Party State: Only one (non-Communist) political party is legally allowed to govern the country, but no one individual has most of the political power in the country.

Autocracy: One individual has most of the country's political power.

Junta: The country is ruled by the military, or by a government installed by the military.

Islamist State: Islamic religion is the official governing ideology of the state.

Other:

Transnational State: The state is several independent entities that share a common foreign policy.

Lawless anarchy: The central government does not maintain effective control beyond (or even within) the capitol.


Goofs I made: Corsica isn't colored, the West Bank should be colored as a one-party state, the Czech Republic should be a multi-party democracy.



If you think that the conditions I outlined above don't make sense, state your criticism, or, given the conditions, you think that the map is incorrectly colored, then post your own map.

1) Why did you put, specifically, Brazil as Limited Democracy, or considered Argentina more "democratic" than Brazil? None of the Limited Democracy characteristcs can be aplied to Brazil, and Argentina is quite less stable in political terms.
I can't see also why most of the russian 'stans are less free/more problematic than Mongolia, but I don't have many informations about it.

2) With your particular interpretation of Multi-Party and Conservative democracy, some things are partially understandable, but to classify some country in a less democratic form just because its democracy is "new" seems quite inacurate for me. And the USA are de facto a two party system, because the other parties have minor to no relevance in the final political scheme - compare to France, Germany or Brazil, where, even with 3-6 major parties, the minor ones are also important to create coalitions and do have representation in every political level.

3)Belarus should obviously be "without self rule",

I'll map something soon.

[Zajir]

Islamist state I think represents the Iranian "guardianship of jurists" model where power is split between clerical authorities and elected ones.

[Trovador]

My proposal of colour scheme:

Notes:

-"Conservative Democracy" means anything between "Dominant Party" and "Liberal Democracy", such as countries without much democratic tradition and/or somewhat corrupt governments, but which are still fully democratic (Italy, Brazil, Taiwan).

-"Limited Democracy" is for countries were the Democracy cannot be fully exercised. It can be so due to alarming corruption, lack of central control etc - the country would be a Conservative Democracy if it had more control.

-"Communist State" should be used, as de facto colour, just to Soviet-like countries. China could be de jure Communist, but de facto "Single Party"

-"De jure"(border colour) and "De facto"(main colour) may and should be used to show what the government claims to be, but only for cases where it helps to understand the map - there's no need to put "Liberal/Social Democracy" as "de jure" colour for the not so advanced democracies, but a de jure Communist State with de facto Autocracy for Venezuela could be used (controversial, ok).

[Trovador]

Using the scheme I suggested, here's a (work in progress) map. Please, correct me on the areas that I'm wrong and help me to complete the white areas.

And I know it's a little extreme to call Russia an Autocracy, but if it isn't right now, it will be in the next five years due to Putin, IMHO.

[Iori]

Why's the UAE have the color for Transnational?
It may be more loose a federation then say Germany, but it's still a single nation.

[Lokit]

French Guiana should really have the same colour as mainland France, what with it being an integral part of France on the same level as, say, Corsica. As far as I am aware atleast.

It's probably correct to use no self-rule for Greenland though.

[Gandavien]

Originally Posted by Lokit

It's probably correct to use no self-rule for Greenland though.

But Greenland has a high degree of self-rule.

[Lokit]

Originally Posted by Gandavien

But Greenland has a high degree of self-rule.

Well, my point was more that it has such a high degree of self-rule that it's really not appropriate to colour it with the danish colour. And since it isn't an independent nation "no self-rule" feels like it's the only one that really fits. But I guess that's an argument for my "Greenland is independent enough to not have a solid danish colour on maps goddamnit"-position .

[wormyguy]

Originally Posted by Trovador

1) Why did you put, specifically, Brazil as Limited Democracy, or considered Argentina more "democratic" than Brazil? None of the Limited Democracy characteristcs can be aplied to Brazil, and Argentina is quite less stable in political terms.

The da Silva regime in Brazil looks like it possibly might move in an anti-democratic direction, similar to Venezuela or Bolivia, so, while I would normally also color it as a Conservative Democracy, I'm being less charitable until he peacefully relinquishes power.

I can't see also why most of the russian 'stans are less free/more problematic than Mongolia, but I don't have many informations about it.

Neither can I, but in rankings of worldwide democracy, Mongolia seems to always place high, despite a whole host of problems and the old Communists always being the leading party in government. Perhaps I should have colored it "dominant party."

2) With your particular interpretation of Multi-Party and Conservative democracy, some things are partially understandable, but to classify some country in a less democratic form just because its democracy is "new" seems quite inacurate for me.

Well, historically speaking, new democracies are more likely to be replaced with anti-democratic regimes. Perhaps I'm just being paranoid or biased, but there has to be evidence that the democratic regime is stable in the long term before one can group a country with older western democracies.

3)Belarus should obviously be "without self rule",

Huh? Belarus isn't a colony.

Originally Posted by Lokit

Well, my point was more that it has such a high degree of self-rule that it's really not appropriate to colour it with the danish colour. And since it isn't an independent nation "no self-rule" feels like it's the only one that really fits. But I guess that's an argument for my "Greenland is independent enough to not have a solid danish colour on maps goddamnit"-position .

There should probably be colors for "self-ruled colony (democratic)" and "self-ruled colony (autocratic)." The first could represent a situation like Greenland, the second, a situation like French Morocco.

Originally Posted by Trovador

And I know it's a little extreme to call Russia an Autocracy, but if it isn't right now, it will be in the next five years due to Putin, IMHO.

Russia is actually significantly less autocratic under Putin that it was several years ago. In fact, it seems that Russia is moving more in the direction of "guided democracy" than an actual autocracy.

[Thande]

Well that's weird. I was just going to post a thread the other day saying we need a political systems colour scheme.

Here's one thing that did occur to me: can we distinguish between federal and unitary states? For example, Germany and the USA are federal republics, France is a unitary republic; Jamaica is a unitary monarchy, Canada is a federal monarchy, and so forth. The trouble is the problem with halfway stages, like the UK.

[Communist Wizard]

Besides the thing that hypothesised events in the future shouldn't be shown on the map, Russia is in no way moving towards autocracy. At least, if you actually follow events there.

[wormyguy]

I'll also point out that it's utterly laughable to characterize Egypt as being somehow more democratic than Russia. One is a country with only one legal political party, where elections have only one candidate who gets 99.9% of the vote (those who cast "invalid ballots" are arrested and tortured), where people cannot say anything to criticize the government without being subjected to all sorts of unpleasantness by the secret police. The other is a country with extensive freedom of speech, with free and fair elections, and with an outspoken opposition that frequently and loudly protests the regime.

[Trovador]

@ Brazil: Lula is definetly not moving towards Chavez or Morales: even with a huge popular support, he even denied the government proposals to engage in anti-democratic measures, such as indefinite re-election or weakening of the midia and the oposition. Maybe against the odds, Lula is actually following many of the liberal policies of his antecessors, moving each time farther from the populist authoriatian regimes. I'm no political scientist, but as a brazilian I can sure you that, even with our idiotic foreign affairs minister and the "conservative democracy" characteristics, nor Brazil nor Lula are moving to the Autocracies.

@ Mongolia and Stans: uhn, I didn't know that. But I would guess that most of them are "dominant party" states

@Conservative Democracies: uhn, yes, it can be true, but many "older" republics are still very, er, "conservative".

@ Belarus: was a joke about it being a Sovie... I mean, Russian puppet .p

@ Russia: as I said, I could be wrong - the impression that Putin passes is of an Autocracy, but, as you're saying, I'm probably wrong and he is keeping that "guided democracy" - Dominant Party, then?

@ Guyana and Greenland: just a suggestion, but I agree that FrenchGuyana is already quite integrated - I used it just to not look like there was an independent modern democracy there.

@ UAE: I would use Corporate State, but I've cut it off, so...

And feel free to update my map!

[Ofaloaf]

Originally Posted by Trovador

My proposal of colour scheme:

Why limit it to just "Islamic" theocracies? What with us meddling with history and all, why isn't there a color for the Christian theocracies, like the Papal State or the various Archbishoprics of Europe?

[wormyguy]

Originally Posted by Trovador

@ Brazil: Lula is definetly not moving towards Chavez or Morales: even with a huge popular support, he even denied the government proposals to engage in anti-democratic measures, such as indefinite re-election or weakening of the midia and the oposition. Maybe against the odds, Lula is actually following many of the liberal policies of his antecessors, moving each time farther from the populist authoriatian regimes. I'm no political scientist, but as a brazilian I can sure you that, even with our idiotic foreign affairs minister and the "conservative democracy" characteristics, nor Brazil nor Lula are moving to the Autocracies.

Okay, you've converted me. After doing significantly more research than on my last map, here's my new world map using your color scheme.