SOCIAL, POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS
OF COUNTRY CATEGORIZATION AND THE LOOPHOLES OF
DEFINING DEMOCRACY:
Freedom House
Brienne Thomson
SIS 644: Communication, Economic and Social Development
November 2012
Thomson |2
Table of Contents
Executive Summary___________________________________________________ 3
1
I n t r o d u c t i o n : Assessing Freedom______________________________ 4
1.1
Background: Disclosed and Democratic_________________________ 5
1.2
Significant Implications: Statistical Structure and Undocumented Impacts __ 6
2
Language of the Literature
2.1
Loopholes in Defining Democracy: A multifaceted meaning________ 8
2.15 Score Subsidies: Who’s funding Freedom? _________________ 10
2.2
Report Repercussions: How are FH stats used by governments,
organizations and private-sector players to make decisions? ________ 13
2.25
2.3
The “MCA Effect” ___________________________________ 17
Inside Impacts: What, if any, changes are a direct effect of FH scores?
The Gap between the ratings and results. _______________________18
3
C o n n e c t i n g t h e C o n s e q u e n c e s : Comparing Literature, Bridging
the Gaps and Recommending Resolutions ___________________________ 20
Notes______________________________________________________________ 23
Bibliography________________________________________________________ 26
Thomson |3
Executive Summary
With almost four-decades of stamping countries with a measure of freedom,
Freedom House has undergone much analysis about its methodology and political
viewpoints that sway its qualitative system of determining a country’s score. What has
not been investigated are the repercussions and impacts a country faces as a result of
their score. The aim of this study is three-fold: First, it aims to evaluate how Freedom
House defines democracy and whether the critics make valid points regarding potential
score implications on ‘different’ democratic structures. Second, the study will review the
instrumental players who use the scores, and repercussions regarding aid, policy, trade,
or investment for the country. And thirdly, the study will look into the impact of Freedom
House scores; the actions a country takes as a result and whether there are positive
measureable impacts that can substantiate the consequences of the scores.
My findings show that multiple styles and strengths of democratic governments
make it hard to define the concept, and as a result, hard to judge different structures
based on one definition. This gray area in language has opened the door to much
criticism. Although, with transparent survey question methodology, the only ambiguity in
Freedom House’s report results, is potential personal bias in the analysis of the survey
answers and the resulting score on the part of the surveyor. However, the fact that
qualitative data on human behavior is inferential and can thus not be delineated in black
and white, makes for relatively groundless criticism; aside from the checks-andbalances scrutiny provides. With international use of the scores in both state and nonstate actors, they do indeed play a decisive role in foreign aid, policy, trade, and
investment for countries. But, something overlooked are the ideological implications
negative scores can have on a country’s people, regarding marred sentiments and
perceptions about the state of their government and instability, which can in turn affect
the state of the economy. And while the dialogue related to low or downgraded scores is
publicized, the impact of the scores, as to measureable results regarding the instigation
of reforms or repealing regulations that inhibit freedom, are not followed up on; unless,
the country is a recipient of Millennium Challenge Corporation foreign aid. In this unique
case, where Freedom House scores are a direct determination of which countries will
receive foreign aid and assistance, quantitative results based on the scores are
publicized.
Thomson |4
Introduction: Assessing Freedom
Qualifying a country on such poignant and broad factors such as political rights,
civil liberties and the status of their legal, political and economic environment is
undeniably subjective. “An instrument used to measure everything, in the end, is not
able to discriminate against anything,” noted Political Science Professor, Diego
Giannone in the journal Democratization.1 And this, however, is exactly what Freedom
House (FH), a U.S. based “independent watchdog organization” with non-profit status,*
has been doing for 39 years. And what’s more, is that their findings are blindly used by
governments, organizations, academics, and the news media throughout the world.
While this indiscriminate usage is not a revelation, it has caused Freedom House to
undergo scathing criticism for their methods of categorization because of the ideological
implications of their reports. Nevertheless, since there is no way to rationally deem a
universal ‘value’ on a level of freedom, Freedom House’s annual reports on Freedom in
the World, Freedom of the Press, and their new Freedom on the Net report, will remain
in the midst of the quantitative/qualitative battles that wage on between the hard and
social sciences. With such vast use and weight given to the FH statistics come social,
political and economic repercussions that result from a country’s score. And because of
this, the critical battle can only help to keep such impactful classifications under scrutiny
as to their accuracy and the reasoning behind them. But before discussing the major
contentious points behind Freedom House’s methodology and why they are so
imperative to a country’s well-being, the objectives behind why Freedom House does
what it does must be addressed.
*Nowhere on their website does FH attribute themselves to having NGO status, however they are listed
as having consultative NGO status since 1995 by the United Nations. They do, however, acknowledge
themselves as a nonpartisan 501(c)(3) organization.
Thomson |5
Background: Disclosed and Democratic
Freedom House was created by an epistemic community of prominent
journalists, business leaders, and ex-government officials during the 1940s. The
formation of the organization was promoted by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, with his
wife and famed progressive feminist, Eleanor, serving as the organization’s first
honorary co-chair. The foundation of Freedom House was based on maintaining an
international humanitarian connection at a time when Americans were trying to close-off
from totalitarian philosophies abroad during World War II. Freedom House opposed
authoritarianism, communism, military-dictatorships, and McCarthyism in the 50s. To
combat these sentiments, the mission of the organization was to extend and endorse
the message of democracy and help structure those governments trying to transition
into a democratic way of life. Freedom House was pro-Marshall Plan and NATO to help
reconstruct a post-war Europe. They also upheld social freedoms, such as racial
equality. These ideals of the organization were publicized and upheld as their founding
principles.
And even though Freedom House gets its fair share of criticism based on political
bias, the documentation about the foundation of the organization and the explanation of
their reporting methodologies blatantly state that, “The survey operates from the
assumption that freedom for all people is best achieved in liberal democratic societies.”2
With that said, democracy is both a form of government and the founding principle of
the organization, so the fact that there is political bias in the FH reports has never been
an undisclosed issue. In spite of this, as it is with a lot of qualitative statistics, the
persistent criticism boils down to the gray areas of language as it is used to define the
values of democracy.
Thomson |6
Significant Implications
Democracy, which is broadly defined as ‘having a free and equal say in a multiparty governmental system,’ is a convoluted concept. Like a vine that has been
spreading, blossoming, dying and regrowing, democracy has countless offshoots and
countless ideologies; neoliberalism, democratic-socialism, conservatism, and the list
goes on. That being said, justifying a ‘lower than expected’ FH score to a self-purported
democratic country requires substantiating evidence and the ability to define the
structure of the survey questions. Freedom House claims that their methodological
questions were formed under the auspice of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
a document drafted by the United Nations after the Second World War that proclaims
fundamental human rights to be universally protected. But despite FH’s purported
methodologically scrupulous question formation, survey techniques, interviews, fact
checking, analysis and detailed reports, when all is tallied and done, 195 countries and
14 territories, depending on which report, will get a “Free,” “Partly Free,” or “Not Free”
stamp based on Freedom House’s definition of ‘democracy’. On a Russia Today (RT
News) interview, David Swanson, the author of War is a Lie, noted that the FH account
is very simplistic and that only a minority of countries receive the title of “Free.”
It seems intended to set up divisions that there are free countries going up
against non-free countries in a competition to covert each other, and that doesn’t
seem to correspond with the foreign policy of some of the free countries, which
seem to engage in support for dictators and military coups abroad.3
By being dealt this scarlet letter, which sails through media outlets, into academic
papers and onto government desks, what are the implications? With all of the Freedom
House criticism, which I have only just tipped the iceberg on, the component that has
been minimally mentioned in journals and articles are the repercussions countries
Thomson |7
endure as a result of their score. If a country were to get downgraded from “Free” to
“Partly Free” for example, would a company think twice about an investment? Would a
government think twice about policy or trade?
In the essay, Evaluating the Evaluators, John Burgess, a veteran of The
Washington Post, detailed that the FH ‘stamp’ ramifications could be huge.
World Bank researchers use the numbers when drafting papers that help
determine how much aid a country will get. Political scientists type the studies’
findings into spreadsheets in efforts to identify new correlations and relationships
between media freedom and other factors of countries’ political systems. UN and
national and private aid organizations use the surveys in programming hundreds
of millions of dollars of media development funding. Reporters and columnists
employ them in discoursing on media freedom, diplomats in bringing pressure on
governments that rank low.4
That being said, this study aims to evaluate the criticisms that purport Freedom
House’s surveys are politically skewed in relation to how FH defines democracy, and
whether the critics make valid points regarding potential score implications on ‘different’
democratic structures. In the second segment, the study will review different
governments, organizations and private-sector players that use the scores, and how the
scores can affect relationships and decisions; whether they are regarding aid, policy,
trade, or investment for the country. The third section of the study will review how
governments respond and react to their country’s Freedom House score, the actions a
country takes as a result and whether there are measureable impacts that can
substantiate the purpose of the scores. And finally, the literature and linking pins that
connect the Freedom House scores to their observational, financial, relational, and
legal, implications will be commented on.
Thomson |8
Loopholes in Defining Democracy
The definition of democracy has varied over time as economies globalize and
developed countries promote the democratic structure through political action and aid
dollars. Some base it on multi-party electoral systems, political autonomy, social
liberties, equality or economic freedom. And the established categories, from minimalist
polyarchy democracies to direct, electoral, representative and liberal democracies, blur
together as they move from informal to formal. With all of these
FREEDOM HOUSE DEFINES
variations, there has been a lot of criticism on the way
Freedom House defines democracy, how that definition shapes
Political Rights

Free participation in political
process
And the right to:




vote freely for alternatives in
legitimate elections
compete for public office
join political parties and
organizations
elect representatives who
impact public policy and are
accountable to electorate
Civil Liberties
Allow for the freedoms of:




expression and belief
association and
organization
rule of law to protect rights
personal autonomy without
interference from the state
their methodology questions and thus, how the scores of
countries with different democratic systems are affected.
From the pages of their 2012 Methodology disclosure,
FH offers some brief insight into their categorizations of
democracies:
Freedom House’s term ‘electoral democracy’ differs from
‘liberal democracy’ in that the latter also implies the presence
of a substantial array of civil liberties. In the survey, all Free
countries qualify as both electoral and liberal democracies. By
contrast, some Partly Free countries qualify as electoral, but
not liberal, democracies.2
While there are fine and subjective lines that separate
the factors that go into making judgments about a county’s
democratic structure, the FH questions are accompanied by a general rubric and handselected international relations experts. And, although this certainly does not eliminate
bias or gray areas, it is qualitative research; there are no black and white numerical
Thomson |9
stats that can lend to the understanding of human behavior. However, as critics have
noted, there are approaches that can attenuate potential partiality.
First, evaluating the basic structure and elements of the FH reports will give
insight into making comparisons among different ‘levels’ of democracy and whether the
verdicts are fair. Freedom House’s main Freedom in the World report contains two
categories, Political Rights and Civil Liberties, with 10 and 15 methodological questions
respectively. However, as noted, the surveyors assign the scores. And as many critics
have sharply pointed out, the scores are based on the political viewpoints and the way
the surveyor defines and analyses the answer. In the Journal of Peace Research,
Political Science Professor, David Armstrong commented on the fact that the person
who deciphers numerical ratings for each country is the same person who writes the
country report.
“However, the numerical ratings are debated by a number of individuals and the
final numbers provided for each country are, from what I can gather, a result of
considerable debate and compromise,” wrote Armstrong. “The fact that there is likely
variation in opinion does not get considered.” 5
A variation in opinion certainly means a variation in reporting numbers, but there
will always be a difference in opinion among individuals. The more controversial FH
criticism accuses the organization of having a political slant that biases the Freedom in
the World/Press/Net scores. David Swanson, American activist and director of
Democrats.com, further commented on this FH ‘angle’ in his interview with RT news, by
exemplifying the conditions of how FH defines freedom.
It’s looking at civil liberties and political rights in a certain context. So if you have
open bribery that’s a problem, if you’ve legalized bribery in your election system,
T h o m s o n | 10
that’s not a problem. If you have a military leader that’s a problem, if you have a
president that can rewrite laws that are passes by congress that’s not a problem.
If you’re stealing paper ballots that’s a problem, if you have an electronic voting
system where you can’t tell who got what votes to save your life, no problem at
all. If you have state run media, doesn’t matter how good a job it does, that’s a
problem. If you have corporate media, it can be completely corrupted, but that
gets you a perfect score. So there’s a certain angle that these reports are taking
that can miss a certain level of lack of freedom in countries like mine. 3
And while Freedom House President David Kramer insists that the FH reports
uphold “rigorous methodology” for evaluating countries, “That's not to say that we are
perfect,” he continued in an interview with The Ukrainian Week magazine. “We struggle
every year to make the analysis and ranking better than the year before. But I think that
it is about as good as it could be.” 6
Score Subsidies
And while the concept of democracy is broad, the ‘angle’ from which the
questions were formed, the preconceptions of the reporting analysis team, and the
political influence of the major funders of the Freedom House have been accused of
playing a significant role in calculating a country’s ‘stamp’. As published on the FH
website, the primary funding for Freedom House is from U.S. governmental agencies. In
its 2010 report, Freedom House noted that it received its biggest donations, of over
$250,000, from the U.S. Agency for International Development, the U.S. Department of
State and The United Nations Democracy Fund. The remainder of the funding came
from private companies and institutions, like Google and the Open Society Institute,
foreign governments, including the United Kingdom and Canada, and from individuals.7
T h o m s o n | 11
FREEDOM HOUSE DONORS
The sponsorship of pro-democracy advocate
Over $250,000
U.S. Agency for International Development
U.S. Department of State
The United Nations Democracy Fund
$100,000-$249,999
Google, Inc.
International League for Human Rights
Leon Levy Foundation
Lilly Enowment Inc.
The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur
Foundation
The Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Open Society Institute
Smith Richardson Foundation
Walter J. Schloss
$50,000-$99,999
The George W. Bush Institute
National Endowment for Democracy
$25,000-$49,999
21st Century ILGWU Heritage Fund
American Federation of Teachers
Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and
International Trade
Daniel Rose
F.M. Kirby Foundation
The Iraq Foundation
The John Hurford Foundation
Open World Leadership Center
Ottaway Foundation
The Albert Shanker Institute
Visa, Inc.
William H. Taft IV
organizations, like Freedom House, is nothing new for the
U.S. government. In fact, both the International Republican
Institute and National Democratic Institute are financed by
Congress and its $100 million annual budget for the
National Endowment.9 However, a lot of the criticism FH
gets as being politically sided in its judgments is based on
the active role it plays in instigating its mission; the spread
“freedom [that] is possible only in democratic political
environments.” 10
“Freedom House distinguishes itself from other
human rights organizations by doing more than simply
monitoring and reporting abuses,” the organization wrote in
their 2010 report. “Freedom House acts as a catalyst for
$10,000-$24,999
Amgen Corporation
British Embassy Astana
Carleton S. Fiorina
David Nastro
Embassy of Canada to the United States
Embassy of the United Kingdom to the
United States
Free Voice
Goli Ameri
Irish Aid
MacLeod Family Trust
Philip D. Harvey
Taiwan Foundation for Democracy
United Nations Development Fund for
Women
William S. Edgerly
Yen Chuang Foundation
freedom by providing civic activists, youth groups, think
tanks, journalists and human rights defenders with the
resources they need to peacefully advance freedom in their
countries.” 7
Playing an active role in political upheaval will
continue to be contentious since there are always two
sides to every battle. However, it is the side chosen and
$5,000-9,999
Carter Center
D. Jeffrey Hirschberg
The Harman Family Foundation
The Irfan Kathwari Foundation, Inc
Jennifer Windsor
John C. Whitehead
Kenneth Juster
Theodore N. Mirvis
the assumed role Freedom House has played in conflict
situations that have garnered international attention. In
T h o m s o n | 12
2012, U.S./Egyptian relations were strained when FH employee activists were charged
with receiving money to fund democratic activities in Egypt without a license. They also
took and active role in Egypt’s “Arab Spring” by posting anti-Mubarak sentiments to
social media outlets and training protesters.
“We learned how to organize and build coalitions,” said Bashem Fathy, a founder
of the youth movement that ultimately drove the Egyptian uprisings. Fathy, who
attended training with Freedom House, said, “This certainly helped during the
revolution.” 9
Although, aside from supporting activists involved in the movement, Freedom
House and other advocacy groups maintain they did not initiate or fund the protests.
In regards to Freedom House’s ‘funder-influence’ criticism, a DC-based thinktank called the Institute for Policy Studies claimed that the Freedom House “Leadership
remains heavily represented by individuals affiliated with neoconservatism and it has
continued to support projects aimed at bolstering aggressive U.S. foreign policies.” 8
The tag of “neoconservatism” is also supported by Giannone’s Freedom House
study that claims this political ideology of supporting military intervention and big
government is the backbone of FH and the cause for its bias. Giannone also alleged
that modifications to the FH questions were “ideologically driven” and “linked to the
neoliberal paradigm.”
The majority of these allegations claim that the reason for FH’s statistical bias is
a result of FH modifying their questions to satisfy U.S. foreign policy ideologies, and that
this shift in U.S. foreign policy ideals was from the “liberal democratic” ethics, as were
T h o m s o n | 13
instituted by the Roosevelt administration, to “neoliberal” and “neoconservative”
dynamisms as were born of the Regan administration.
However, according to Noam Chomsky in a 2009 interview for the documentary
Encirclement, neoliberalism is nothing new. He stated that the economic powers of the
U.S. and Western Europe were fortified “by radically violating what are now called
neoliberal principles; strong states, direct intervention in the economy and so on. India
and China were devastated and the same is true for what we now call the 'Third World.'
How? Forced imposition of market principles. …Forced liberalization pretty much
created the Third World.” 11
Thus, putting these contentious points together; that Freedom House has
developed a neoconservative and neoliberal focus and Chomsky’s assertion that, other
than the title, the concept of neoliberalism is not new, we are left with an organization,
Freedom House, that was founded on the same principles it now champions.
Report Repercussions
Freedom House report statistics are publicized and utilized in multiple different
avenues of media; mainstream national and international broadcasts and publications,
including social media, blogs and other online journals. They’re used in academic
journals as substantiating or comparative data in studies ranging from health to
economics to journalism. Other human rights groups, think-tanks, international
development organizations, NGOs and private businesses use the statistics and
descriptive reports to guide projects proposals and investments. And most
instrumentally, they are used by governments to help formulate policy. Through this
multiplicity of networks and the status of those who have come to trust and support
T h o m s o n | 14
Freedom House over the past 71-years, they have garnered a reputation. As a result,
their judgments and reports are often times accepted and used by the aforementioned
sources at face value despite other related indicators:




International Research & Exchanges Board’s Media Sustainability Index
Reporters Without Borders’ Worldwide Press Freedom Index
Fraser Institute Economic Freedom of the World
Economist Intelligence Unit's Democracy Index
“Some of these indicators may not measure the same precise phenomena as
Freedom House, or cover the same broad range of countries or extend as far back in
history, or possess Freedom House’s high profile,” wrote Nikhil Dutta in his
Accountability in the Generation of Governance Indicators report. “Thus, some users
may default to use of Freedom House’s ratings even in the absence of transparency or
reason-giving that helps persuade them that the ratings are reliable, basing their choice
not on probable accuracy but on reputation or the need for extensive data."
12
And with such a vast array of users and usages of Freedom House’s verdicts,
come a vast array of aftereffects. For example, Freedom House’s “Free,” Partly Free”
and “Not Free” stamps can lead to public demands for reform, protests, changes in
domestic regulation, international policy and even in national and international
ideologies.
“The effect seems to be, very simplistically, to divide the world into opposing
camps … and when you have reports putting North Korea in the list of ‘the worst
countries,’ in the minds of many Americans that becomes and argument for war;
sensibly or legally or not. So there’s a potential for serious damage from these kinds of
reports,” said Swanson, in an RT News interview.3
T h o m s o n | 15
This potential degradation in national and international sentiments about a
downgraded country is a powerful force. A people’s perception of their government and
its stability has drastic effects on the economy. Thus, due to the power that the
Freedom House reports have and their strong connections to the ‘American
Superpower’, many critics liken Freedom House to a ghostwriter for the U.S.
government.
“Freedom House today positions itself as a nuanced, liberal, or even left-ofcenter organization, obscuring its real agenda: to destabilize foreign governments
whose policies challenge U.S. global hegemony,” wrote Jeremy Bigwood in an essay
published by the North American Congress on Latin America.” 13
One example of a conceivably damaging Freedom House report repercussion
comes from Hungary, which was downgraded from “Free” to “Partly Free” in its 2012
Freedom of the Press report. In an article detailing the rationale behind the downgrade,
Freedom House’s VP for Strategy and Analysis, Christopher Walker, wrote:
The related establishment of a National Data Protection Agency and a powerful
media and communications regulator, whose tentacles can reach far into
Hungary’s information landscape, offers the political leadership an institutional
mechanism for media control … Hungary’s fall from Free to Partly Free has
exposed the relative fragility of its young democracy … illiberal politics and a grim
economic environment are conspiring to shrink the space for independent media
in new democracies in Central Europe. 14
Hungarian government officials took serious offense to the allegations, with the
State Secretary for Government Communication, Zoltán Kovács, countering that, “The
US-bent organization has once again failed to produce a report clear of political
T h o m s o n | 16
motivation and assessment. In light of last year’s report, this is nothing but a selffulfilling, hypocritical prophesy.” 15
On the other hand, critical Freedom House reports have also activated positive
outcomes. In 2010, Cambodia remained in a “Not Free” status on the Freedom of the
Press index as the 128th least free country of 178 included in the report. About the
Cambodian media, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO) referenced the FH study and noted that, “According to Freedom House,
journalists critical of the state remain vulnerable to threats or intimidation, and
professional training opportunities are scarce.”
This exposure of a country in need of professional development instigated a
$17,600 USD investment by the UNESCO to train citizen journalists in community
informatics, like the production of radio broadcasts. The project goal was to, “Build the
capacity of communities to advocate for their rights in general (not only the right to
freedom of expression), strengthen independent media networks and bolster media
diversity in Cambodia.” 16
Along the lines of report repercussions, the Freedom House indexes can also
affect whether or not investment, trade agreements or aid will be granted. When
Freedom House President David Kramer was asked whether or not a country’s ranking
affects potential investors by The Ukranian Week news magazine, he responded,
“When a country is moving in the wrong direction on freedom scores, it generally still
does have sufficient rule of law to attract the proper or adequate foreign investment. But
I do know that US government agencies attach significance to the scores and rankings
we report.” 6
T h o m s o n | 17
This “significance” is exemplified in foreign aid allocation from the United States’
Millennium Challenge Account, in what’s been dubbed, The “MCA Effect”.
The MCA Effect
Established by the U.S. Congress in 2004, the Millennium Challenge Corporation
(MCC) has a goal of giving assistance and aid to developing countries through a
sustainable methodology; the recipient must identify priorities and proposals for
economic enhancement and uplifting those from the echelon of poverty, and play an
active role in attaining it. But in order to garner the supported and guided involvement of
the MCC, a country must first achieve eligibility status on a number of platforms,
including demonstrating economic freedom and steps toward democratic governance
reform.
“Eligibility is based on indicators compiled by bodies ranging from the World
Health Organization to the democracy watchdog Freedom House and the conservative
Heritage Foundation,” reported CNSnews.17
Freedom House‘s Executive Director, Jennifer Windsor, attributes an increase in
attention to the Freedom in the World ratings based on their use by the MCC, which
demonstrates the pivotal impact of the FH scores.
“What some perceive as a rather blunt instrument, the MCC’s use of an indicator
for eligibility decision-making appears to be creating an incentive not only for countries
to adopt targeted reforms, but also for source agencies to improve,” stated the nonprofit think-tank, Center for Global Development, about the use of FH scores. “This is an
important contribution by the MCC to measuring development impact well beyond its
own programs.” 18
T h o m s o n | 18
Despite measurable successes the Millennium Challenge Corporation has
published through its impact evaluations on projects ranging from efforts to decrease air
pollution in Mongolia, reconstruct irrigation systems in Moldova and extend electricity to
deprived communities in Tanzania, there is still criticism. And just like Freedom House
with a stated goal of disseminating democracy and economic freedom, although to a
lesser extent, the MCC does get disparaging comments about aid distribution being
influenced by political factors despite their publish criteria.
Inside Impacts
Responses to Freedom House reports, mainly downgrades, are big. Countries go
on the defensive and dialogue with the U.S. government is immediately prompted. In
the aforementioned case of Hungary’s demotion to a “Partly Free” stamp, due to the
imposition of new regulations that seemingly reversed the post-communistic country’s
democratic progression, the State Communication Secretary, Kovacs, posed his
defense through the media and even flew to DC to justify the new laws.
In a Response to the Freedom House Report posted on the Hungarian
Government’s website, officials condemn the FH organization for not showing, “The
slightest sign of empathy or understanding towards the region, and specifically Hungary,
that left communism behind twenty years ago but is still in need of a number of changes
and reforms on account of the deficiencies of the inherited constitutional system.” 19
And while they naturally defended aggression toward their country, they also
admitted the need for “changes and reforms.” But have they been made? What is the
next step? While the Freedom House report has succeeded in bringing attention to
something they view as anti-democratic to the world’s stage and promoting discussion,
T h o m s o n | 19
other than a wounded reputation and a people who might have a greater mistrust of
their government, what are the results of the report? Was it worth the potential harm it
has done to the pride and nationalism of the Hungarian people? These are the types of
questions left unanswered.
“It doesn’t matter how much Mr. Kovács and Mr. Szapáry [the Hungarian
Ambassador to the U.S.] complain: the report of Freedom House is devastating.” 20
Alternatively, the Millennium Challenge Corporation has acted as a liking pin
between the Freedom House reports and quantifiable results. Efforts at making their
actions transparent, and specifically the positive impacts on developing countries that
have been confirmed, have substantiated a positive purpose for the FH reports.
With the drive to achieve a Millennium Challenge Account, “Developing countries
are changing domestic laws and policies specifically in order to qualify for MCA
funding,” reported Rebecca Stubbs in the Vanderbilt Journal of Transitional Law. “MCA
funding disbursements, or ‘Compacts,’ are also directly influencing governance and the
rule of law through various programming mandates.21
As an example, prospective MCA aid recipient, Nicaragua, had to pass
legislation for the Road Maintenance Fund in order to secure funding. In respond to the
requirement, a Nicaraguan government official stated that, “The passage of the law was
‘unthinkable’ before the arrival of the MCC.”
The $175 million of MCC funds, however, was enough incentive for the National
Assembly to pass the bill.22
T h o m s o n | 20
Connecting the Consequences
As exemplified, the reaction to Freedom House scores can either instigate
change for the better or cause strife and a diminished national pride. On one hand, a
gap exists between the dialogue that results from allocating a score and to what extent,
if at all, there was a resulting measureable impact. The multiplexity of the network that
revolves around Freedom House and the political barriers to transparency that exist in
weak-democratic governments or those with a more totalitarian structure, make
monitoring any potential outcomes of the scores difficult. Also, while governments of this
nature can both learn from and compare the FH analysis with other legislative
structures, they can also block the transfer of knowledge through Information and
Communications Technology (ICT) diffusion from their citizens to prevent social reaction
or coercive isomorphism from within. This is a perfect example of the pre-and-post Arab
Spring, ongoing and spreading since 2010, that resulted from the dissemination of ICTs.
The uprisings were mainly attributed to the spread of, previously blocked, news,
information and revolutionary ideas that had been making their way through ‘infoisolated’ populations by means of social media networks and mobile devices. In this
globally connected digital world, the path of information is now detectable.
This is a component of monitoring the effect of news and knowledge is what
needs to be picked up by media, international development organizations and mostly,
Freedom House itself, to substantiate the repercussions of its reports. Freedom House
has methods and metrics to compile and formulate a country’s status and
democratically progressive recommendations, but why not for the results? Is criticism
constructive without a response? And is the role of embedding potentially negative
ideals both in the population of a country and its network of economic players effective?
T h o m s o n | 21
For a select group of countries that qualify for MCC foreign aid assistance,
however, the void has been filled. The Millennium Challenge Corporation has become a
link between one’s Freedom in the World stamp and actual report results. However, the
MCC’s linking-pin role is only applicable for a select few who qualify for funding.
With 71-years in the business of promoting democratic values and individual
freedoms, Freedom House has indeed been given a fair amount of both support and
criticism from a multitude of sources, disciplines and countries. And with having a
foundation and methodology based on democratic principles, it is no surprise that
governments who are either not democratic and/or have weaker structures of
democracy are both going to get lower scores and be more critical of Freedom House’s
approach.
“Arab countries generally do poorly in media freedom rankings, as do China,
Russia, and many countries of sub-Saharan Africa,” noted Burgess’ Evaluating the
Evaluators piece. “The very bottom ranks consistently include North Korea,
Turkmenistan, Cuba, and Eritrea.”
But when ranking countries in order of democratic freedoms, it is no surprise that
the communist, socialist, presidential-republic and monarchical governments just might
not meet the denotation of “Free.” So while criticism provokes checks-and-balances, a
spade is a spade. Freedom House was, in part, created by the government, it upholds
and promotes democratic ideals, it receives funding from the government and it works in
conjunction with the government on certain mutual endeavors. So, while FH may design
and implement its own reporting research and methodology, an apple doesn’t fall far
T h o m s o n | 22
from the tree. Even in lieu of Freedom House’s ‘White House’ foundation, when two
entities share mutual priorities and principles, that in itself, is a connection.
With this in mind, as any reporter is responsible for the validity of the facts they
publish, the accountability falls on the shoulders of those who substantiate claims or
share opinions based on Freedom House statistics to disclose any subjectivity or
criticism. The fact that data based on human behavior are qualitative and inferential,
and that the foundation and principles of Freedom House are not going to change, the
reports simply need to be used in an ethical manner with the potential repercussions in
mind.
T h o m s o n | 23
Notes
1. Diego Giannone, “Political and Ideological Aspects in the Measurement of
Democracy: the Freedom House Case,” Democratization 17, no. 1 (January–February
2010): 68.
2. Freedom House, “Methodology: Freedom in the World 2012,”
Freedomhouse.org, (2012) http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world2012/methodology> (accessed 3 November 2012).
3. Kristine Frazao, “Jury's Out on Whether U.S. Fit to Judge Freedom of
Countries Abroad,” RT News (January 13, 2011),
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4oq_pTSF1A> (accessed 4 November 2012).
4. John Burgess, Evaluating the Evaluators: Media Freedom Indexes and What
They Measure, (Washington DC: National Endowment for Democracy, 2010), 4-6.
5. David A. Armstrong II, “Stability and change in the Freedom House political
rights and civil liberties measures,” Journal of Peace Research (September 22, 2011):
10.
6. Zhanna Bezpiatchuk, “Freedom House: We Will Continue To Tell the Truth,”
The Ukranian Week, January 27, 2012
7. Freedom House, “2010 Report,” Freedomhouse.org, (2010)
<http://www.freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/inline_images/2010.pdf> (accessed 4
November 2012).
8. Institute for Policy Studies, “Freedom House,” Right Web (July 1, 2011),
<http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/freedom_house> (accessed 3 November
2012).
9. Ron Nixon, “Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings,” New York Times (April
14, 2011),
<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/world/15aid.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0>
(accessed 13 November 2012).
10. Freedom House, “About Us,” Freedomhouse.org,
<http://www.freedomhouse.org/about-us> (accessed 4 November 2012).
T h o m s o n | 24
11. Noam Chomsky, Encirclement: Neo-liberalism Ensnares Democracy,
Directed by Richard Brouillette, Québec, Canada, 2009.
12. Nikhil K. Dutta, “Accountability in the Generation of Governance Indicators:
Global Power through Classification and Rankings,” (New York: Institute for
International Law and Justice Emerging Scholars Papers, 2012), 47.
13. Jeremy Bigwood, “Freedom House: The Language of Hubris,” NACLA Report
on the Americas (September 2012): 63.
14. Christopher Walker, “Bad News for Fans of Free Speech,” Transitions Online,
(May 2012) <http://www.tol.org/client/article/23138-eastern-europe-press-freedom.html>
(accessed 16 November 2012).
15. All Hungary News, “Freedom House downgrades Hungary press to ‘partially
free’; gov’t brands report ‘biased’ and ‘politically motivated,’” Politics.hu ( May 1, 2012),
<http://www.politics.hu/20120501/freedom-house-downgrades-hungary-press-topartially-free-govt-brands-report-biased-politically-motivated/> (accessed 16 November
2012).
16. UNESCO International Programme for the Development of Communication
(IPDC), “Sustaining community and media participation in promoting freedom of
expression,” UNESCO.org (2012), http://www.unescoci.org/ipdcprojects/content/sustaining-community-and-media-participation-promotingfreedom-expression (accessed 15 November 2012).
17. Patrick Goodenough, “Watchdog Gives U.S. Agencies Poor Marks for
Transparency in Foreign Aid,” Cybercast News Service (October 4, 2012).
<http://cnsnews.com/news/article/watchdog-gives-us-agencies-poor-markstransparency-foreign-aid> (accessed 14 November 2012).
18. Center for Global Development, “Rethinking US Foreign Assistance Blog:
Freedom House Releases Improved Freedom in the World Indicators,” October 4, 2006,
<http://blogs.cgdev.org/mca-monitor/2006/10/freedom-house-releases-improve.php>
19. Ministry of Public Administration and Justice, “Response to the Freedom
House Report,” The Website of the Hungarian Government, (June 7, 2012),
<http://www.kormany.hu/en/ministry-of-public-administration-andjustice/news/response-to-the-freedom-house-report> (accessed 17 November 2012).
T h o m s o n | 25
20. “The Orbán government’s answer to Freedom House,” Hungarian Spectrum:
Reflections on Politics Economics, and Culture (blog), June 7, 2012
<http://hungarianspectrum.wordpress.com/2012/06/07/the-orban-governments-answerto-freedom-house/> (accessed 16 November 2012).
21. Rebecca Stubbs, “The Millennium Challenge Account: Influencing
Governance in Developing Countries Through Performance-Based Foreign Aid,”
Vanderbilt Journal of Transitional Law, (July 11, 2012)
<http://www.vanderbilt.edu/jotl/2012/07/the-millennium-challenge-account-influencinggovernance-in-developing-countries-through-performance-based-foreign-aid/>
(accessed 16 November 2012).
22. Center for Global Development, “The MCA Effect – Incentives for Policy
Reform,” Cgdev.org, “n.d.”
<http://www.cgdev.org/section/initiatives/_active/assistance/mcamonitor/fieldreports/nic
araguafield/headlines/mcaeffect> (accessed 15 November 2012).
T h o m s o n | 26
Bibliography
All Hungary News. “Freedom House downgrades Hungary press to ‘partially free’; gov’t
brands report ‘biased’ and ‘politically motivated.’” Politics.hu ( May 1, 2012).
http://www.politics.hu/20120501/freedom-house-downgrades-hungary-press-topartially-free-govt-brands-report-biased-politically-motivated/ (accessed 16
November 2012).
Armstrong II, David A., “Stability and change in the Freedom House political rights and
civil liberties measures,” Journal of Peace Research (September 22, 2011): 10.
Bezpiatchuk, Zhanna. “Freedom House: We Will Continue To Tell the Truth.” The
Ukranian Week, January 27, 2012
Bigwood, Jeremy, “Freedom House: The Language of Hubris,” NACLA Report on the
Americas (September 2012): 63.
Burgess, John. Evaluating the Evaluators: Media Freedom Indexes and What They
Measure, Washington DC: National Endowment for Democracy, 2010).
Center for Global Development. “Rethinking US Foreign Assistance Blog: Freedom
House Releases Improved Freedom in the World Indicators.” October 4, 2006,
http://blogs.cgdev.org/mca-monitor/2006/10/freedom-house-releasesimprove.php (accessed 15 November 2012).
Center for Global Development. “The MCA Effect – Incentives for Policy Reform.”
Cgdev.org. “n.d.”
http://www.cgdev.org/section/initiatives/_active/assistance/mcamonitor/fieldreport
s/nicaraguafield/headlines/mcaeffect (accessed 15 November 2012).
Chomsky, Noam. Encirclement: Neo-liberalism Ensnares Democracy. Directed by
Richard Brouillette. Québec, Canada. 2009.
Dutta, Nikhil K., “Accountability in the Generation of Governance Indicators: Global
Power through Classification and Rankings,” (New York: Institute for International
Law and Justice Emerging Scholars Papers, 2012), 1-55.
Frazao, Kristine. “Jury's Out on Whether U.S. Fit to Judge Freedom of Countries
T h o m s o n | 27
Abroad.” RT News (January 13, 2011).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4oq_pTSF1A (accessed 4 November 2012).
Freedom House. “2010 Report.” Freedomhouse.org. (2010)
http://www.freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/inline_images/2010.pdf
(accessed 4 November 2012).
Freedom House, “About Us,” Freedomhouse.org, <http://www.freedomhouse.org/aboutus> (accessed 3 November 2012).
Freedom House. “Methodology: Freedom in the World 2012.” Freedomhouse.org.
(2012) http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world-2012/methodology
(accessed 3 November 2012).
Giannone, Diego. “Political and Ideological Aspects in the Measurement of Democracy:
the Freedom House Case,” Democratization 17, no. 1 (January–February 2010):
68–97.
Goodenough, Patrick. “Watchdog Gives U.S. Agencies Poor Marks for Transparency in
Foreign Aid.” Cybercast News Service (October 4, 2012).
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/watchdog-gives-us-agencies-poor-markstransparency-foreign-aid (accessed 14 November 2012).
Institute for Policy Studies. “Freedom House,” Right Web (July 1, 2011).
<http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/freedom_house> (accessed 3
November 2012).
Nixon, Ron. “Groups Helped Nurture Arab Uprisings.” New York Times (April 14, 2011).
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/15/world/15aid.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
(accessed 13 November 2012).
Ministry of Public Administration and Justice. “Response to the Freedom House
Report.” The Website of the Hungarian Government. (June 7, 2012),
http://www.kormany.hu/en/ministry-of-public-administration-andjustice/news/response-to-the-freedom-house-report (accessed 16 November
2012).
Stubbs, Rebecca. “The Millennium Challenge Account: Influencing Governance in
Developing Countries Through Performance-Based Foreign Aid.” Vanderbilt
Journal of Transitional Law. (July 11, 2012)
T h o m s o n | 28
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/jotl/2012/07/the-millennium-challenge-accountinfluencing-governance-in-developing-countries-through-performance-basedforeign-aid/ (accessed 16 November 2012).
“The Orbán Government’s Answer to Freedom House,” Hungarian Spectrum:
Reflections on Politics Economics, and Culture (blog), June 7, 2012
<http://hungarianspectrum.wordpress.com/2012/06/07/the-orban-governmentsanswer-to-freedom-house/> (accessed 16 November 2012).
Walker, Christopher. “Bad News for Fans of Free Speech.” Transitions Online. (May
2012) http://www.tol.org/client/article/23138-eastern-europe-press-freedom.html
(accessed 16 November 2012).
UNESCO International Programme for the Development of Communication (IPDC).
“Sustaining community and media participation in promoting freedom of
expression.” UNESCO.org (2012). http://www.unescoci.org/ipdcprojects/content/sustaining-community-and-media-participationpromoting-freedom-expression (accessed 15 November 2012).