Freedom Gone South

Why Mexico -- and the rest of the world -- is getting less democratic.

BY JOSHUA E. KEATING | JANUARY 13, 2011

View a slide show of the notable countries in this year's report

In a year that saw an overall rollback in democracy and human rights in the world, the most shocking decline may have taken place just south of the U.S. border, according to the most widely cited index of global freedom. Freedom House's annual Freedom in the World index, released on Thursday, shows overall global freedom declining for the fifth year in a row -- the longest period of continuous decline in the index's nearly 40-year history.

Freedom House scores 194 countries and territories around the world on their levels of political rights and cultural liberties, assigning each a designation of free, partly free, or not free. This year, Mexico and Ukraine dropped from free to partly free while Ethiopia and Djibouti fell to not free. In total, 25 countries showed significant declines in their scores this year while only 11 improved.

But the decline of Mexico, which 10 years ago emerged from decades of one-party rule following the election of Vicente Fox, may be the biggest surprise on the list. Mexico's fall is all the more unusual because it results not from repressive measures by the government, but from the state's failure to "protect ordinary citizens, journalists, and elected officials from organized crime," as the report puts it. Freedom House's director of research, Arch Puddington, described the decline in freedom due to Mexico's drug violence as nearly unprecedented.

"Our report measures conditions on the ground," he said. "If you've got an insurgency or out-of-control crime or acts of God, it can affect your score. My sense is that Mexico's response has been ineffective and not always prudent. We don't sit in judgment given the immense challenges they face, but they can't bring the violence under control and it affects the day-to-day freedom that the Mexican people experience."

Ukraine's fall into the "partly free" category means that outside the Baltic countries, there are now no free countries left in the former Soviet Union -- a grim milestone, 20 years after the fall of Soviet communism. Freedom House's decision was based not on the election of pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych, which Puddington described as a "good election," but on crackdowns on foreign-funded NGOs and media outlets that have taken place since he came to power. Ukraine was also the last of the "color revolution" countries -- which experienced democratic upheavals in the mid-2000s -- to fall from the free category. It should be noted that all three countries -- Ukraine, Georgia, and Kyrgyzstan -- are, despite their flaws, still classified as "partly free," while nearly all their neighbors are still very much "not free."

Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images

 SUBJECTS:
 

Joshua E. Keating is associate editor at Foreign Policy.

MALICEIT

2:19 AM ET

January 13, 2011

yet another...

..."support the US, or die"

 

ZORRO

9:12 AM ET

January 13, 2011

I was thinking...

... more like "everyone who don't lick our boots are bad", but yours is good too :)

 

XTIANGODLOKI

12:30 PM ET

January 13, 2011

Countries want freedom from external political influence

That and the results of nation building under the US ideology in Iraq and Afghanistan haven't gone all that well. If Democracy can bring success then why are Iraq and Afghanistan not doing well at all? Why are the citizens of these countries rejecting Americans rather than laying flower pedals down Americans' feet as predicted?

The world is slowly waking up to the fact that Democracy is not the perfect answer to every country. Hence they want the freedom to decide when and whether they will switch to democracy, rather than western nations forcing it down their throats.

 

TCH

7:21 AM ET

January 14, 2011

Are you serious?

You are missing the mark. What is taking place is a purely capitalistic entity (e.g. cartels) attempting to subvert and challenge government. How is totalitarianism or a strong man government any better?

 

XTIANGODLOKI

12:45 PM ET

January 14, 2011

The article wasn't aboout Mexico

"What is taking place is a purely capitalistic entity (e.g. cartels) attempting to subvert and challenge government. How is totalitarianism or a strong man government any better?"

Though from the title it looks like the article was dedicated to mexico, it's actually about multiple nations around the world. I wasn't talking about Mexico in particular, I was talking about nations in general. Most nations do not want other nations to stuff ideologies down their throats, especially when the said ideologies won't even work effectively.

 

SAM FROM CALIFORNIA

9:22 PM ET

January 13, 2011

Double Standards

Everyone is so focused on Hugo Chavez banning some private cable network, that they haven't noticed the degradation of freedom in supposedly "friendly" countries. Look at Israel shooting protesters, Mexican police and drug gangs imprisoning, torturing and killing innocent people, Honduran campesinos getting driven off at gunpoint, Colombia murdering 3,000 peasants in the jungle while counting them as "Leftist guerillas"...

"Democracy" in America means everyone getting free speech, a vote, and protection from state abuse. "Democracy" in the US-backed third world means the middle classes getting those things and everyone else getting ignored or worse.

 

ASCHOPS

11:54 PM ET

January 13, 2011

Two years into Barack Obama's

Two years into Barack Obama's administration, Freedom House's researchers think it's too early to judge whether his approach is having a positive or negative effect on global freedom, but the contours of that approach are starting to evolve and take shape.

Really? So Obama's decision to continue US presidents' tradition of fostering relations is Saudi Arabia gives no indication on how much the US really cares about promoting democracy abroad as opposed to using it as a rhetorical tool against geopolitical enemies that happen to be undemocratic?

 

JGALLARDO

1:52 AM ET

January 14, 2011

Questioning Media Coverage

Unfortunately, much has to do with faulty media coverage geared to produce catchy headlines with no in-depth intelligence. Somebody in the comments wrote about many things happening in many different countries, but obviously it was all headline news. He makes mention, for instance, of "campesinos driven off at gunpoint in Honduras" which is a politically motivated headline of a much more complex problem that even I, a native Honduran living in Honduras and seeing the problems in depth daily, can¡t fathom out yet. People are trying to relate it to a political crisis that happened a year and a half ago, when it is a long-standing problem with centuries old ethnic ancestral land rights in areas that have long been ethnically mixed, failed agrarian-reform social experiments with campesinos trying to take back lands they sold many years ago, a cowboy investor trying to install industrial plants in the wilderness, mixed with modern day drug trafficking cartels protecting their narco plane and narco speedboat landing areas and even some Che Guevara wannabes practicing with ak-47s. Oh, and don't forget the soccer madness. And along comes a happy-go-lucky foreign writer who hangs out for 2 weeks and expects to write a pulitzer winning article about a place and a people he knew nothing about until the last moment, whose languages (spanish with a mix of indian and afroamerican dialects) he can't understand. I don't knoww, but there's more to the stories than a headline and we can't judge cultures by just following headlines.

 

JGALLARDO

2:06 AM ET

January 14, 2011

Getting back to Democracy

Sorry, I may have thrown everyone off the path, there. What I'm trying to say is that the only thing you can do is try to make sure that ALL the voices are heard and even though there may be some confusion at first, the answers will come. Let's not promote violence as a means to solve problems, so let's not jump to conclusiones and expect governments to solve complex issues overnight.

I thought Mr. Keatings article was interesting because by using some sort of standard, they're trying to measure how much of ALL the different voices are being heard. Let's not forget that you can't always make everybody happy and there will always be disgruntled voices, but we can't judge cultures by headline news.

 

ALEX TROF

5:33 PM ET

January 14, 2011

Hmm...

The rankings are B.S.

While Pro-American president was in charge of Ukraine. The entire South and East of the country were aggressively pushed to use Ukrainian language in everything. There was a huge anti-Russian campaign with pro-Russian media banned in certain regions of the country. now that the current president is "cracking down" (questionable) on foreign funded media, the country magically becomes less free.

P.S. The elections in which pro-Western former president won was a farce. In some pro-Western regions of the country over 99% of people voted. Now, the election has been fair, yet there is less freedom.

The fact that Freedom House does not take any of that into account makes you wonder if any of the statistics shown have any legitimacy and whose interests is this organization representing.