Level of Democracy in Finland: Two Measures of Democracy in Competition

Addressing a country that was located for approximately half of the examined time on the edge of two ideologies, of two different concepts of Weltanschauung, it is likely to give rise to interesting outcomes. Hence, Finland which for a long timeframe after the Second World War was indeed cornered between the "free" West and the communist Soviet bloc was chosen deliberately by the author. In this essay, he seeks to explore and to analyze in brief the development of the level of democracy of this particular nation covering the period between 1974 and 2006. Hereby, two different types of measurement are applied and, subsequently, their results are compared. Concretely, the data coming from Freedom House, respectively from Inglehart & Welzel's measure of "effective democracy", are the main actors both exerting for preferably appropriate findings. Freedom House measures the degree of democracy of a state by assessing a two-part set of categories, namely political rights and civil liberties following the definition of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As a result, countries are ranked on a scale from 1 (highest amount) to 7 (least amount) which implies their level of democracy (Freedom House 2005). On the other hand, the concept of "effective democracy" argues that a democratic system of government is mainly inspired by the idea to empower people. Inglehart and Welzel also evaluate prevailing political and liberal rights. However, one has to familiarize oneself with their thesis that rule of law is an additional crucial factor of a state determining whether it is effective or not. By combining rule of law and democratic rights an index is compiled on a 0- 100 scale classifying the countries as non-democracies, ineffective democracies, and effective democracies (Welzel 2007a). Ultimately, it is to mention that a comparison between the two types of measures is only possible from 1996 to 2006 due to limited data concerning the "effective democracy".

Zusammenfassung
Seminar paper from the year 2007 in the subject Politics - Political Systems - General and Comparisons, grade: 2,0, Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH, language: English, abstract: Addressing a country that was located for approximately half of the examined time on theedge of two ideologies, of two different concepts of Weltanschauung, it is likely to give riseto interesting outcomes. Hence, Finland which for a long timeframe after the Second WorldWar was indeed cornered between the free West and the communist Soviet bloc waschosen deliberately by the author. In this essay, he seeks to explore and to analyze in briefthe development of the level of democracy of this particular nation covering the periodbetween 1974 and 2006.Hereby, two different types of measurement are applied and, subsequently, their results arecompared. Concretely, the data coming from Freedom House, respectively from Inglehart &Welzel's measure of effective democracy, are the main actors both exerting for preferablyappropriate findings. Freedom House measures the degree of democracy of a state byassessing a two-part set of categories, namely political rights and civil liberties following thedefinition of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. As a result, countries are ranked ona scale from 1 (highest amount) to 7 (least amount) which implies their level of democracy(Freedom House 2005).On the other hand, the concept of effective democracy argues that a democratic system ofgovernment is mainly inspired by the idea to empower people. Inglehart and Welzel alsoevaluate prevailing political and liberal rights. However, one has to familiarize oneself withtheir thesis that rule of law is an additional crucial factor of a state determining whether it iseffective or not. By combining rule of law and democratic rights an index is compiled on a 0-100 scale classifying the countries as non-democracies, ineffective democracies, andeffective democracies (Welzel 2007a).Ultimately, it is to mention that a comparison between the two types of measures is onlypossible from 1996 to 2006 due to limited data concerning the effective democracy.