Edited Draft - Miguel Reyes - The (Korean) Asian Democracy Index in the Philippines - An Insider's Perspective

8/9/2019 Edited Draft - Miguel Reyes - The (Korean) Asian Democracy Index in the Philippines - An Insider's Perspective

1/23

The (Korean) Asian Democracy Index in the Philippines: An Insider’s

Perspective1

Miguel Paolo P. Reyes

University Research Associate Third World Studies Center

College of Social Sciences and Philosophy

University of the Philippines-Dilian

A!stract"

The Asian Deocracy #nde$ %AD#&' the (agship pro)ect of a ultinational consortiu called

the Consortiu for the Asian Deocracy #nde$ %CAD#&' *rst developed !y the Deocracy

and Social Moveents #nstitute %DaSM#& of Sung+onghoe University' South ,orea' has !een

used to assess deocratiation in several Asian countries' including the Philippines' since

/00. 1et even today' several years after the pro)ect2s !eginnings' any in the *eld of deocracy studies still %indirectly& as+" 34o5 can a ,orean-forulated tool to easure

deocratiation !e used as a universal evaluator of deocracy in the diverse countries of

Asia67 As researcher-in-charge of the pro)ect in the Philippines since /00' overseeing the

conduct of the local AD# pilot test until the ost recent' ongoing AD# survey cycle in /08' #

share through this paper the various articulations of the aforeentioned concern fro

aong CAD# e!ers and our respondents and critics9various local specialists on

Philippine politics' econoics' and civil society9and our responses to such concerns'

including the perissi!le ethodological innovations that the Philippine tea ade.

Thereafter' # discuss ho5 5ell the survey has !een a!le to descri!e deocracy in the

Philippines !y coparing the results of the last t5o copleted survey cycles 5ith those of

other ongoing deocratiation indices. :astly' # 5ill descri!e possi!le directions for crafting apu!lic opinion survey !ased on the AD#2s theoretical frae5or+9deocratiation as a

process of ulti-sectoral de-onopoliation9that ay !e applica!le to the Philippine setting

and the rest of Asia.

Introduction

This paper is partly te$tualied self-re(ection on y role as researcher-in-charge of

the Asian Deocracy #nde$ %AD#& pro)ect in the Philippines. The pro)ect is South

,orean in origin' and is currently underta+en !y e!ers of the ultinational

0 This paper 5as presented at the nd Philippine ,orean Studies Syposiu held at the University ofthe Philippines-Dilian on Dece!er 08-0;' /08. # a grateful for coents on the paper fro

uiran' research assistant of the UP Third World Studies Center' and


2/23

Consortiu for the Asian Deocracy #nde$ %CAD#&. 4ere' # construe yself !oth as

an individual researcher and as a e!er or etony of several collectives

descri!ed herein. # try to go !eyond possi!ly self-indulgent re(e$ivity !y additionally

fraing this paper as an autocritical piece in y capacity as a CAD# e!er. #

realie that y position vis-E-vis y su!)ect a+es y a!ility to o!)ectively analye

y su!)ect >uestiona!le. ?evertheless' # thin+ a paper such as this can at the veryleast invite further critical in>uiry into one of the ne5est sustained deocracy

assessent eForts' given the dearth of pu!lished aterial d5elling on or even

siply entioning CAD#2s activities that 5ere not pu!lished !y the Consortiu.8

# a pushing for greater scrutiny of CAD#2s AD# pro)ect not erely to satiate a self-

serving desire for our 5or+ to have increased sociopolitical relevance or resonance.

Through this eager eFort' # also ai to a+e a contri!ution to the literature on

deocratiation easureent !y ans5ering this hardly novel' !ut little-e$plored

>uery" ho5 5ell can a deocracyGdeocratiation etric developed priarily in one

country9e.g.' South ,orea9easure deocracyGdeocratiation in another

country6

Studies such as those entioned in


3/23

3chosen as a Nfocus institute2 !y ,orea Research @oundation %,R@&7 %DaSM#&. @ro

Dece!er 0BBB to ?ove!er //O' #C#S 5as 3upgraded7 to Center for Culture and

#nforation Studies in April //8 and' after it 5as esta!lished' DaSM# conducted a

nu!er of ,R@-funded pro)ects on deocracy in South ,orea %DaSM#&. Then' fro

Dece!er //8 to Dece!er //' DaSM# conducted studies on deocracy in Asia

that 5ould ultiately lead to the developent of the Asian Deocracy #nde$.;

What is the Asian Deocracy #nde$6 Although they have ore than an acrony in

coon' it is unrelated to the 3one-oF7 //O Asia Deocracy #nde$ of the ulti-

country Alliance for Refor and Deocracy in Asia %ARDA&. #t is not connected 5ith

the Tai5an-!ased Asian =aroeter %also +no5n as ast Asia =aroeter&' 5hich is

also chie(y concerned 5ith deocracy in Asia. #t is unaliated 5ith the United-

,ingdo !ased conoist #ntelligence Unit %#U&' 5hich has !een copiling their

Deocracy #nde$ since //Q. #t has nothing to do 5ith the Iienna-!ased Deocracy

Ran+ing Association %DRA& and their lo!al Deocracy Ran+ing pro)ect %//B-

present&.

#n the recently pu!lished guide!oo+ of the pro)ect' CAD# states that

The AD# 5as not designed to !e used for esta!lishing a solely Asian odel of deocracy. The inde$ is a frae5or+ to copare and discover deocraticcharacteristics of Asian countries. #t is designed to understand the >uality of Asiandeocracy today. The AD# is useful in presenting the current status of deocratiation in Asian countriesK it is not a tool for proposing an e$eplarydeocratic odel or to ran+ the diFerent deocratic characteristics of the countriesstudied. %CAD#' /0' 8Q&.

Thus' it is unli+e ARDA2s AD#' #U2s Deocracy #nde$' and DRA2s lo!alDeocracy Ran+ing9as 5ell as siilar deocracyGdeocratiation assessenttools such as the Deocracy =aroeter95hich ran+ AsianG5orld5ide deocracies'iplicitly identifying certain countries as %closely appro$iating& a particular idealof the deocratic polity. #t is also distinguisha!le fro all of the a!ove !ecause of its theoretical foundations. AD# is grounded in 4eeyeon Cho2s 3post-onopolydeocratic theory7 %CAD#' /0' 8H&. Cho and the rest of CAD# de*ne deocracy as3a process of Lpolitical' econoic' and social de-onopoliation that Lis aied atachieving a condition 5herein all po5er and resources in a particular state are !eingfairly distri!uted7 %CAD#' /0' 8B&. CAD# also perceives deocracy to !e a3relational foration'7 that is' an %ideal& state of relations aong the 3various forcesin the ulti-layered *elds of politics' econoy' and civil society7 %CAD#' /0' 8B&.

:astly' CAD# !elieves that deocracy is a 3historical foration'7 or the result of aparticular continuing process of ulti-sector de-onopoliation %CAD#' /0' 8B&.

Ta+ing oF fro the aforedescri!ed characteristics of deocracy' CAD# de*nesdeocratiation as 3the disintegration of La onopoly-cople$'7 i.e.' thedisantleent of a dictatorship that onopolied control of the forces in the

; There are a nu!er of errors in the tieline after the last // landar+' 5hich can !e corrected !yreading the proceeding sections of this paper. # trust that the inforation # did cite fro the tieline is

accurate.

8


4/23

political' econoic' and civil society *elds %CAD#' /0' 8B&. The process of deocratiation does not necessarily !ring a!out su!stantive deocracy asdescri!ed a!ove. Deocratiation involves the disantleent of a dictatorship2sonopoly-cople$' !ut it also causes a change in the po5er relations 5ithin thepolitical' econoic' and civil society *elds %CAD#' /0' 8B-;/&' 5hich in Asia' asCho and the other guide!oo+ authors found' results in the foration of either a

3neo-oligarchy7 %onopolists in the forer dictatorship reain in po5er& or a 3post-oligarchy7 %onopoliation gives 5ay to 3pluralistic copetition7& %CAD#' /0' ;0-;8&.

:et e a+e a fe5 preliinary coents on CAD#2s eployent of the ter3civil society7 !efore # proceed any further. # 5as *rst ade a5are of the lac+ of aprecise de*nition of 3civil society7 !y =ono)it 4ussain of the #ndian AD# tea. Duringthe Second Asian Deocracy #nde$ Conference held in Manila in August /0'4ussain 5ondered 5hether or not CAD# is using the ter the 5ay Antonio rascidid %/0' /O&. rasci conceived civil society 3as an integral part of thestate793far fro !eing iniical to the state' it is in fact its ost resilientconstitutive eleent7 %=uttigieg' 0BBO' ;& 3on 5hich opposition parties and

oveents organie' 5in allies and !uild their social po5er7 %@orgacs' ///' ;&.@or rasci' the state-civil society division is false and erely 3ethodological7%rasci' in @orgacs' ///' 0/&' as he !elieves that 3state7 3should !e understoodnot only as apparatus of governent' !ut also the Nprivate2 apparatus of Nhegeony2 Lthe doinant class 5ithin civil society or civil society7 %rasci' in@orgacs' ///' 8;&. A ore coon eployent of the ter can !e found in the5or+ of ,arina Constantino-David" 3All the organiations that intersect 5ith thedoain of the state !ut are not part of the state apparatus are civil society entities7%0BBH' &.O Cho refers to 3the asses7 as 3an organiing actor in the socialoveent or civil society in a broad sense7 %/0' B' ephasis ine&' !ut alsospea+s of 3civil society and the people7 %/0' 0& and 3state and civil society7 as aseeingly *$ed !inary %/0' 0QK 0&. The very division of society into political'econoic' and civil society *elds sees to iply that CAD# su!scri!es to the oreconventional conceptualiation of civil society. 1et' as # 5ill sho5 later in ydiscussion of the AD#2s 3,orean-ness'7 that ay not !e e$actly the case.

As # have sho5n else5here' CAD# and DRA are +indred spirits' as they 5ere !othheavily in(uenced !y the 5or+ of political scientist uillero J2Donnell' 5hichephasies su!stantive deocracy over procedural or political deocracy %Reyes'/0' 0H&. CAD# and Asian =aroeter also have soething in coon' sharing ahigh valuation of the deocracy-dictatorship dichotoy %al!eit 5ith diFerentde*nitions for each ter& %Reyes' /0' 0B-0B/&. 4o5ever' in ters of ethodology' CAD#2s AD# is ore siilar to ARDA2s AD# and #U2s Deocracy #nde$.While Asian =aroeter uses pu!lic opinion surveys %Reyes' /0' 0-0B/& andDRA2s lo!al Deocracy Ran+ing relies on pre-e$isting inforation on a country2spolitico-socioeconoic status %Reyes /0' 0H-0&' the ARDA AD# and the #UDeocracy inde$ 5asGis copiled %priarily& using data fro e$pertGelite surveys%Reyes' /0' 0QK 0B0&. =ased on their specialiations' CAD# AD# as+s ideologically

O This also sees to !e in line 5ith the conceptualiation of civil society as 3a doain parallel to !utseparate fro the state9a real 5here citiens associate according to their o5n interests and 5ishes7

!y Western thin+ers during the nlightenent %Carothers' 0BBB-///' 0&.

;


5/23


6/23

Source" CAD#' /0' ;Q

# pray that # have ade>uately given an overvie5 of 5hat the CAD# AD# is inters of its purpose' theoretical frae5or+' and ethodology.H #n any case' # 5ill !egiving additional inforation a!out these aspects of the AD# in the ne$t section of

this paper' 5here # 5ill deal 5ith y e$perience as researcher-in-charge of theipleentation of the AD# pro)ect in the Philippines.

The ADI’s !Korean"ness#: Theoretical $oncerns and %ethodolo&ical

Interventions

After a nu!er of online e$changes' in August /0/' the acadeic staF of

the University of the Philippines %UP& Third World Studies Center %TWSC& sat do5n

5ith research professors fro DaSM# to discuss the AD# pro)ect. At the tie' ost of

the TWSC researchers9yself included95ere uncertain of 5hat our 5ould-!e

,orean colla!orators 5anted to do !esides developing and ipleenting a 3hoe-gro5n7 deocracy inde$ in the Philippines and #ndonesia' the *rst t5o countries to

have representation in CAD# apart fro South ,orea. At the tie' all that 5e 5ere

sho5n 5as a docuent descri!ing the pro)ect2s 3deocratiation as de-

onopoliation7 frae5or+' a !rief description of the inde$-in-developent' and a

ta!le sho5ing all of the AD# indicators' attri!utes' principles' and su!principles

forulated !y DaSM#. We agreed in principle to !ecoe their Philippine

colla!orators' though 5e still had a nu!er of concerns a!out the pro)ect' 5hich

can !e suaried as follo5s"

What e$actly 5as 3Asian7 deocracy6 With the pro)ect2s >uantitative->ualitativeapproach to easuring Asian deocracy' ho5 5ould consolidationGaggregation

issues cropping up fro the diversity of data !e addressed6 4o5 5as this AD#

diFerent fro siilarly naed deocracy indices6 %Reyes' =er)a' and Socrates' /0'

08;&

#f eory serves e right' 5e also noted in passing ho5 distinctly South ,orean the

pro)ect seeed. The description of deocracy as de-onopoliation' or as a post-

dictatorship process' sees to !est apply to South ,orea and siilar countries that

under5ent a 3developental dictatorship7 phase prior to %re&deocratiation. #n

retrospect' 5e should have also highlighted 5hat the current #ndian AD# tea

adaantly asserts9the AD# sees to !e designed ore for culturally andGorethnically 3hoogeneous7 countries li+e South ,orea than 3ultinational7 countries

li+e #ndia %4ussain' /0K Chander' /08' 08&. #ndeed' the survey ites see to

presue that a deocratic society2s priary category for stratifying society is

H These are far ore e$tensively discussed in CAD#' /0.

As stated in the endnote follo5ing this series of >ueries' 3Most of these >uestions eerged frodiscussions aong the follo5ing current and forer e!ers of the TWSC research staF"


7/23

socioeconoic class' do5nplaying divisions caused !y' say' regionalis andGor

ethnolinguistic diFerences. As # recall' !oth 5e and our visitors fro DaSM# +ne5 at

the tie that a lot of 5or+ needed to !e done to a+e the AD# applica!le to a 5ider

variety of deocratic countries.

#n Jcto!er /0/' a t5o-day foru-5or+shop entitled 3Telling Deocracy Through and =eyond the #nde$" @ro Measuring to Tas+7 5as held in Seoul'

speci*cally in Paichai University and Sung+onghoe University. #n attendance 5as a

forer colleague of ine' Ro5ell Casaclang' 5hose ain contri!ution to the

discussions 5ere a description of TWSC2s sole inde$ing pro)ect at the tie' a 3hoe-

gro5n7 4uan Security #nde$ %4S#& for the Philippines pro)ect headed !y our then

director' Maria la Atiena' that 5as undergoing pilot testing in several Philippine

provinces' and reiterating TWSC2s concerns a!out the AD# pro)ect.

Aong the other presenters of that foru-5or+shop 5ere 4ansin University2s

Sangcheol 1oon and 1onsei University2s Seunghoon :ee. =oth 5ere part of the

research tea of the ,orea Deocracy @oundation %,D@& that had !een releasing

the ,orean Deocracy Developent #nde$ %,DD#& since //;. ,D@2s ,DD# is 3a

>uantitative easure of evaluating the deocratiation in every sector of ,oreas

society7 %Su-chan //Q&. The data analysed for copiling the ,DD# cae fro 3Lan

evaluation of aterials' Lan evaluation !y e$perts and La survey of layen7 %Su-

chan' //Q&. As # understand it' ,DD#2s analysis involves classifying data under t5o

divisions9#nstitutionGPerforance7 and 3AttitudeGConsciousness7 %:ee' /0/' O-H&

95hich are each su!divided into *ve categories" 3Lstate' politics' civil sector' and

the relationship !et5een state-politics and politics-civil sector7 %:ee' /0/' Q&. A

country score out of 0///' 5herein B// points and a!ove is ideal %Su-chan' //Q&' is

deterined. enerally' 5hat the inde$ sho5s is the level of the deocratiation of particular political and social institutions %Su-chan' //Q& !ased on hundreds of

indicators %Su-chan' //QK :ee' /0/' &.

:i+e TWSC2s 4S# pro)ect' the ,DD# is designed speci*cally for South ,orea'

although the researchers !ehind the ,DD# also thought that it ay !e used to

assess deocracy in other countries %Su-chan //Q&. :i+e the AD#' the ,DD#

proceeds fro a su!stantive conceptualiation of deocracy %1oon' /0/&.B

4o5ever' !ased on the type of institutions that :ee entions in his overvie5 of the

/0/ ,DD# survey %e.g.' the ,orean Prie Minister2s Jce and the ?ational 4uan

Rights Coission %/0/' 80&&' the ,DD# sees applica!le only to a country 5ithSouth ,orea2s political and social institutions. # can iagine that the discussion of

the ,DD# only increased the enthusias of those in attendance to develop a

su!stantive deocracy inde$ applica!le at least 5ithin Asia. Certainly' the foru-

5or+shop ended 5ith the !irth of CAD#.

B # cannot >uote 1oon directly !ecause of a note in the version of the paper included in the foru-5or+shop proceedings that states 3Lplease do not >uote 5ithout the author2s perission until

pu!lished.7

H


8/23

The discussions during the foru-5or+shop !ore fruit in April /00 5hen

TWSC received the AD# survey fors9one for each *eld' to !e ans5ered !y

utually e$clusive sets of *eld-particular respondents9translated fro ,orean to

nglish. Coents a!out these instruents cae fro e!ers of the TWSC

research staF' Atiena' and Clarinda :usterio =er)a' Atiena2s colla!orator in the 4S#pro)ect. Most of our coents focused on de*ning the points in the interval scale to

!e used for scoring !y the respondents' altering certain ters to prevent conceptual

confusion' reoving South ,orea-speci*c e$aples in the ite descriptions to

reove any suggestion that South ,orea is %closest to& the ideal deocracy in Asia'

and a+ing other changes to a+e the >uestionnaire ore 3user-friendly.7

4aving entioned the pro)ect2s ain data collection instruents' # resue

y discussion of CAD#2s conceptualiation of civil society here. All of the

>uestionnaires contain ites dealing 5ith civil society in the conventional sense'

especially for the ites corresponding to attri!utes under the solidarity

su!principle' 5hich ephasies the interconnectedness of CAD#2s *elds of society.

Moreover' there is an ite that suggests that CAD# does not envision civil society as

copletely independent fro the state' or' to recall rasci' as anything ore than

a ethodological category 5hen discussed in relation to the po5ers-that-!eK the

second ite of the civil society >uestionnaire deals 5ith the in(uence of

3governent-supported nongovernent organiations7 on society. :astly' the very

notion of a politico-socioeconoic 3onopoly-cople$7 that deocratiation see+s

to disantle hints at the !elief of AD#2s fraers that there is an intricate and

ine$trica!le lin+ of state and civil society. Argua!ly' South ,orea 5as an ideal place

for such a rascian-li+e conceptualiation of civil society to for and thrive' as

soe consider South ,orean civil society to !e a 3fourth ar7 of governent %,i'//B' H&. Whether or not this seeingly speci*cally ,orean forulation of state-

civil society relations is applica!le in countries such as the Philippines 5ill !e dealt

5ith 5hen # discuss e$plicit and iplicit coents on the AD# pro)ect later.

@urther changes to the >uestionnaire 5ere ade 5hen the pro)ect 5as *nally

ipleented in South ,orea' #ndonesia' and the Philippines in May /00. =y this

tie' due to certain fortuitous circustances' # !ecae the researcher-in-charge of

the Philippine survey tea. =er)a' 5ho teaches >uantitative ethods in the social

sciences' 5as !rought in to serve as our pro)ect consultant !ecause # had no foral

training in >uantitative analysis for the social sciences. @or every survey round' 5ehired one research assistant to help us identify and contact survey respondents to

coplete our three-person teas.0/

0/ We can only asse!le three-person teas !ecause of !udgetary restrictions. Jur past assistants5ere Ma. Celine Anastasia Socrates %currently a teaching associate at the UP Dilian Departent of

Political Science& and ri+a Rey-Saturay %currently a Master of Arts %MA& candidate at the UP Dilian

Departent of Anthropology&. Jur current assistant =a>uiran is an MA 4istory student in UP Dilian.


9/23

Jur *rst tea2s initial tas+ 5as to 3localie7 the >uestionnaires for use in the

Philippines' 5hich 5as encouraged !y our DaSM# colla!orators. We !egan !y

reoving ore e$aples in the ite descriptions that 5ere not applica!le to the

Philippines %e.g.' the 5ord 3parliaent7 5as replaced 5ith 3congress7 and 3draft

dodgers7 5as reoved fro the description of a >uestion a!out arative action

progras' given that there is no andatory ilitary service for Philippine citiens&.We also ensured that spelling' synta$' and 5ord usage in the >uestionnaires are

that 5hich are preferred in the Philippines. =er)a further enhanced the

>uestionnaires !y re5ording iprecise dou!le !arrelled >uestions 5ithout altering

their su!stance as speci*ed in the ite descriptions. A snapshot of one of the

localied ites in the politics >uestionnaire is included as an appendi$ in this paper.

CAD# allo5s country teas conducting AD# surveys to categorie their local e$perts

according to ideological categories that are peculiar to their country %CAD# /0'

O&. The e$aples given in the AD# guide!oo+ divided e$perts into three groups"

3conservative' central' and progressive7 or 3pro-governent' neutral' and anti-

governent7 %CAD# /0' O&. The forer sees ore applica!le to states that

have a ulti-party presidential syste of governent95ith ideologically diverse

parties9such as South ,orea %indeed' these are the categories used !y the South

,orean tea&' 5hile the latter sees unrealistic' given ho5 dicult it is to *nd

e$perts in politics' econoics' and civil society 5ho clai political neutrality. We

chose to divide our e$perts into t5o ideological groups" %e$tree& left-left leaning

%:-::& and %e$tree& right-right leaning %R-R:&' categories 5hich 5e de*ne in this

anner"

0& those 5ho are +no5n %!y their reputations' pu!lications' etc.& to e$hi!it critical or

dissenting opinions against the Philippine governent and its policies' and are at thesae tie avo5edly supportive of 3socialist7 socioeconoic policies are left-leftleaningK & those 5ho have 5or+ed for the Philippine governent' either in the!ureaucracy or as consultants' andGor su!scri!e to the governent2s 3neoli!eral7socioeconoic policies are right-right leaning. %Reyes' =er)a' and Socrates' /0'08&

We have !een trying to locate a 3centrist7 tendency in the Philippines' !utthe 3center7 in the country usually refers to the governent' 00 5hich 5e e$cluded

00 @or e$aple' any of the 3rightist7 coup plotters fro the ilitary during the post-dictatorshipCoraon A>uino adinistration !elieved in President @erdinand Marcos2s 3@ilipino #deology'7 5hich

advocated 3revolution fro the center'7 i.e.' politico-socioeconoic upheaval led !y the governent%1a!es' 0BB0' 80&. Moreover' since the ?JGCSJ-friendly Coraon A>uino adinistration and the

rati*cation of the post-dictatorship 0BH Constitution95hich' along 5ith su!se>uent legislation'

3created a legal and policy environent that 5as favoura!le to CSJs7 %:i' /00' BH&9the Philippine

governent has al5ays had e!ers fro the 3left7 %represented' for e$aple' !y e!ers of

groups advocating higher state su!sidies for social services& and the 3right7 %represented' for e$aple'

!y retired e!ers of the ared forces&' in +eeping 5ith the principle enshrined in Article ##' Section #

of the 0BH Constitution' 5hich states that the Philippines is a 3deocratic and repu!lican7 state. Then

there are parties that refer to theselves as centrist' !ut locate theselves in the iddle of a

constructed religious !inary.

B


10/23

fro our survey !ecause of o!)ectivity concerns' as any of the ites are a!outgovernent eciencyGecacy. We did not tell our potential respondents ho5 5ecategoried the ideologically !ecause 5e did not 5ant their responses to !ecolored !y ho5 5e perceive their ideological leanings. Within each ideologicalcategory' 5e further classi*ed our potential respondents according to theirprofession %acadee' nongovernental organiationGcivil society organiation

%?JGCSJ&' and private sector&. We also tried to a+e sure that our respondentpro*le 5ould not !e 3Manila-centric'7 thus 5e as+ed e$perts !ased in the provincesfar fro the capital to participate in our survey.

Due to !udgetary constraints and an oral agreeent 5ith our fello5 AD# teas' for

our /00 pilot test' 5e 5ere liited to *lling up a >uota of t5enty-seven

respondents9nine per *eld9deterined' as one can glean fro the a!ove' through

ultistage strati*ed sapling. %Reyes' =er)a' and Socrates' /0' 08&.0 As 5e

divided our respondents into t5o ideological !locs instead of three' it 5as not

possi!le to get an e>ual nu!er of respondents per leaning. @or our pilot test' the

total nu!er of :-:: e$perts only outnu!ered the total nu!er of R-R: e$perts !y

one' !ut in ost of the professional su!categories per *eld' only one ideologicalleaning had representation. As having an e>ual nu!er of respondents per

ideological leaning even up to the professional su!category level 5ould greatly

siplify the coparison of responses across all of our diversi*ers' 5e decided to

increase the nu!er of respondents to *fty-four fro /0 on5ard. Although 5e

5ere una!le to gather *fty-four responses during the /0 survey9our total

nu!er of respondents for /0 5as forty-si$95e 5ere at least a!le to ensure that

neither ideological !loc doinated ost of the professional su!categories per *eld.

Since /00' 5e usually sent our respondents our invitations and

>uestionnaires via e-ail or fa$. This 5as due to *nancial considerations and' tiedto the forer' our desire to include respondents fro provinces far fro the capital.

We also preferred such technology-ediated eans of counication !ecause 5e

e$pected a odicu of copetency in inforation and counications technology

%#CT& fro our respondents' given ho5 a nu!er of the ites in the >uestionnaire

5ere #CT-related. ?evertheless' soe respondents fro 5ithin Manila preferred

face-to-face intervie5sK 5e readily o!liged 5hen they as+ed to !e intervie5ed.

The survey for 5as designed to !e self-adinistered' as each ite has

descriptions that suggest 5hat the respondents should consider 5hen giving their

responses' 5hich ta+e the for of a andatory nuerical rating on an eleven-point

interval scale and an optional e$planatory coent. The descriptions 5ere read to

the respondents 5ho 5ere intervie5ed. The e$tree of one scale can either !e a

score for an undesira!le condition or for a desira!le condition' !ut for aggregation

purposes' scores in ites 5herein the lo5er e$tree is for a desira!le condition and

the upper e$tree is for an undesira!le condition9the inority of ites9are

recoded !y reversing the 5ith their counterpart scores across the idpoint.

0 This 5as erroneously referred to as strati*ed ultistage purposive sapling in the source cited.

0/


11/23

The Philippine Team’s 'indin&s Thus 'ar

0& 5hile easures9legal or other5ise9to assure the continuation of deocratiation

in the political' econoic' and civil society *elds e$ist' the ipleentation of these

easures is poor or negligi!leK & governent corruption and other a!uses of po5erare chec+ed in principle !oth !y governental and nongovernental !odies' !ut

such a!uses persist !ecause these onitoring echaniss are poorly ipleented'

especially at the local governent levelK8& there is also a dearth of legislation and

other eans to ensure transparency and accounta!ility aong nongovernental

po5er holdersK ;&coordination aong the eans and agents to address ine>uality in

po5er and resource distri!ution in all the aforeentioned areas of society is lac+ing.

LJne can validly conclude that there is a lac+ of signi*cant united opposition to

ulti-*eld onopoliation in the country' even if onopolies are anathea according

to the la5 and popular !elief. The doors to successful sustaina!le de-onopoliation

are open!ut the fe5 5ho struggle to +eep the open are !arely a!le' if at all' to

co!at those 5ho 5ould rather +eep the status >uo. %Reyes' =er)a' and Socrates'/0' 0Q8-0Q;&

This suary of *ndings has !een applica!le to the copleted *ndings of

our /00 and /0 surveys and the preliinary *ndings of our /08 survey. Al5ays'

the country score is !et5een ; and Q. Al5ays' in the level of *eld principles' the

lo5est li!eraliation and e>ualiation scores are in the econoic *eld. Al5ays' in

their e$planatory coents %if any&' ost of the respondents agree 5ith 5hat is

stated in the *rst paragraph in the e$cerpt a!ove. More detailed descriptions of our

surveys can !e found in our pu!lished pilot test results %Reyes' =er)a' and Socrates'

/0& and our /0 survey report' 5hich is scheduled for pu!lication in Dece!er/08.

=ecause of the diFerences in the nu!er of respondents' coparing the

scores fro /00-/0 is dicult' at least for soeone not particularly adept in

>uantitative analysis such as yself. Coparing only the scores of those 5ho

participated in !oth the /00-/0 survey rounds9our /00-/0 3panel79as can

!e seen in the ta!les and 8' Philippine deocracy appears to !e progressing

soe5hat.08

Ta!le " AD# Scores of Panel Respondents' /00

@#:DS

08 An updated and ore detailed version of the analysis that follo5s until this paper2s ne$t section5ill appear in the /0 Philippine AD# country paper authored !y e' =er)a' and Rey-Saturay that 5ill

!e pu!lished in Asian Democracy Review. # perfored the tests herein 5ith the help of online

statistical processing soft5are.

00


12/23

CJRPR#?C#P:S

SU=PR#?C#P:S PJ:#T#CS CJ?JM1

C#I#:SJC#T

1

SU=PR#?-C#P:

#?D#CS

CJRPR#?C#P:

#?D#CS

PIIPPI*+ ADI

:#=RA:#A- T#J?

AUTJ?JM1 H.0B O./O ;.OO ,-./

,-0

,-1/

CJMPT#T#J? ;.88 ;.8/ Q. ,-12

UA:#A- T#J?

P:URA:#AT#J

? ;.Q8 8.0 ;. 3-413-4SJ:#DAR#T1 Q./ ;./Q Q./Q ,-33

Ta!le 8" AD# Scores of Panel Respondents' /0

@#:DS

CJRPR#?C#P:S

SU=PR#?C#P:S PJ:#T#CS CJ?JM1

C#I#:SJC#T

1

SU=PR#?-C#P:

#?D#CS

CJRPR#?C#P:

#?D#CS

PIIPPI*+ ADI

:#=RA:#A-

T#J?

AUTJ?JM1 H.// ;.BO ;.HH ,-,2

,-./

,-01

CJMPT#T#J? O.0 ;.B/ Q.H ,-.0

UA:#A- T#J?

P:URA:#AT#J? O.;; 8./ ;.B 3-3

,-/1SJ:#DAR#T1 Q.;/ ;.Q/ O.Q0 ,-,3

4o5ever' as sho5n in ta!le ;95hich sho5s the result of a t-test of the t5o sets of

panelist scores grouped !y *eld su!principle9the diFerences in ean scores at the

*eld su!principle level are not statistically signi*cant at the conventional ./O level.

Thus' to the respondents 5ho are very failiar 5ith 5hat the AD# pro)ect see+s to

do' there is no apprecia!le change in Philippine deocratiation fro /00 to /0.

Ta!le ;" T-test Coparison of /00-/0 Philippine AD# Panelist Scores

Su!principle Politics conoy Civil society

Mean

DiFerenc

e

p-value Mean

DiFerenc

e

p-value Mean

DiFerenc

e

p-value

Autonoy -/.0B /.H -/.0/ /.B0H /.8 /.QB

Copetition /. /.0Q -/.O0 /.0/H -/.0/ /.;

Pluraliation /.0 /.8O -/./; /.BOO /./; /.BO0

Solidarity /./ /.HB0 /.O; /.O -/.;O /.QH

0


13/23

This trend sees to !e in +eeping 5ith the *ndings of a couple of the !etter-

+no5n deocracyGdeocratiation evaluations' as can !e seen in ta!le O. As ta!le

Q sho5s' the /00-/0 progression of scores fro our 3panel7 respondents is also

in line 5ith the steadily %though hardly& increasing 4uan Developent #nde$ score

of the Philippines %5hich nevertheless has reained in the ediu range for the

last *ve years& %U?DP /08&.

Ta!le O" Assessents of Philippine DeocracyGDeocratiation' /00-/08

#nde$ /00 rating /0 rating /08 rating@reedo 4ouse

@reedo in the

World

8./ V Partly @ree 8./ V Partly @ree 8./ V Partly @ree

conoist

#ntelligence Unit

Deocracy #nde$

Q.0 V @la5ed

Deocracy

Q.8 V @la5ed

Deocracy

Deocracy Ran+ing OO. %up fro

O8.B in //H-

//&Sources" #U %/00' O&' %/0' O&K @reedo 4ouse /00' /0' /08K DRA /0

Ta!le Q" Philippine 4uan Developent #nde$ Trend' //-/0

1ear 4D# Score

// .Q;//B .Q;8/0/ .Q;B/00 .QO0/0 .QO;

Source" U?DP

While it sees that the AD# only con*rs 5hat any other evaluations of Philippine

proceduralGsu!stantive deocratiation have sho5n or continue to sho5' as the AD#

ethodology perits only an ideologically diverse respondent pro*le95hich is not

a feature of all deocracyGdeocratiation indices9the pro)ect can sho5 5here+no5ledgea!le citiens agree regardless of their ideological persuasions' and 5here

they disagree precisely !ecause of their ideological diFerences. Such inforation

can help facilitate or accelerate de!ates on 5hat needs to !e done to help the

Philippines deocratie. @urtherore9particularly !ecause of the indicators under

the copetition and solidarity su!principles9the AD# sho5s 5here civil society has

to coe together to push for further ulti-*eld de-onopoliation' or the ideal

direction of the 3activation7 of civil society %Cho' /0' 0B-0&.

08


14/23

Assessin& the Assessors

Most of our respondents have not ade any coents a!out the AD# pro)ect'

giving only the optional e$planatory coents to their scores. 4o5ever' there 5asone /00 respondent 5ho' half-)o+ingly' rear+ed upon !eing handed a hard copy

of the survey instruent that TWSC ust !e conducting the AD# study erely

!ecause of a contractual o!ligation. There 5as also one /0 respondent' 5ho

preferred giving his ans5ers during a face-to-face intervie5 over ans5ering a

ailGe-ail survey' 5ho as+ed us 5hy TWSC 5as participating in a study that 5as

forulated else5here. According to hi' TWSC has historically only done studies

that it internally conceptualied. Moreover' he 5ondered out loud 5hether or not

the concept of deocracy that CAD# is utiliing is possi!ly inapplica!le to the

Philippines.

More su!tle criticis cae fro soe respondents in their responses %or lac+

thereof& to certain ites. Jne respondent gave t5o scores in response to a

particular ite' stating that there is a signi*cant diFerence in rural and ur!an

conditions conteplated !y one indicator' 5hich calls to ind the previously

entioned rear+s a!out the AD# !eing ore applica!le to societies 5hose

heterogeneity is not readily o!serva!le. A /00 respondent did not give an ans5er

to one ite !ecause she said that she cannot understand a reference therein to

3governent-supported Lor 3pro-governent7 nongovernent organiations'7

suggesting that that particular respondent is una!le to disengage herself fro a

strict state-civil society !inary. This ay !e !ecause according to Constantino-

David' 3governent runGinitiated ?J7 or 3R#?J7 is a pe)orative in thePhilippines' as they are 3essentially e$tensions of the state or personal interests

Lfounded !y politicians and governent functionaries Lto perfor self-serving

functions and corner governent contracts and por+ !arrel funds7 %0BBH' Q&.

The *rst of the four respondents entioned eventually gave us his *lled-out

>uestionnaire 5ithout issue. We 5ere a!le to e$plain to the second respondent ho5

5e participated in the forulation of the inde$' the (e$i!ility of the AD#

ethodology' and ho5 5e !elieved that CAD#2s de*nition of deocracy is

accepta!le in the Philippine conte$t' convincing hi to ta+e part in the survey. The

third respondent agreed to average the t5o scores she gave for the ite that' as5ith all the others' needed only one score. The last respondent 5as not convinced

to give a score to 5hat she thought 5as a confusing ite.

#t is possi!le that a perception that the AD# is a foreign or alien venture9

perhaps 5ith ais iniical to Philippine interests9is one of the reasons for the

0;


15/23

average annual potential respondent refusal rate of Q/.QH.0; 4o5ever' in our

invitations' 5e al5ays state that the AD# is 3an initiative of LDaSM#' developed and

ipleented in cooperation 5ith researchers fro Lthe countries 5ith CAD#

representation.7 We thus ephasie that the pro)ect 5e are ipleenting is the

result of a colla!orative venture. @oregrounding TWSC2s role in the pro)ect2s

developent ay in fact have helped to attract certain respondents to participate. TWSC has for any years had a reputation for !ringing together con(icting groups

for pu!lic forus.0O #t can co-sponsor pu!lic discussions 5ith !oth socialists and free

ar+et advocates 5ithout any reputation daage.0Q The fact that a relatively

3neutral7 acadeic center li+e ours is conducting the AD# pro)ect9regardless of 5ho

initiated it9ay have helped to assuage concerns that a respondent2s responses

5ill !e used for a particular advocacy that he or she ay not agree 5ith.

A co!ination of our localiation eForts' our Center2s reputation' and 5hat #

thin+ 5e can refer to as the overall theoretical and ethodological soundness of the

AD# pro)ect see to have helped the pro)ect run soothly in the Philippines so far.

We have al5ays +ept in ind' ho5ever' that the AD# is still in developent' and 5ill

inevita!ly !e su!)ect to criticis !y scholars of deocracy. CAD# has thus !een

endeavoring to solicit coents on our inde$ fro nota!le people in deocracy

studies as 5e continue conducting the pro)ect.

@or the Second Asian Deocracy #nde$ Conference' CAD# invited several

Philippine e$perts on deocracy to serve as reactors for our conference sessions'

5hich d5elled on the /00 pilot test and the preliinary *ndings of the /0

survey. @ro these e$perts' 5e9the Philippine tea in particular9received the

harshest yet ost constructive criticis a!out ho5 5e had !een going a!out 5ith

our research. Jn the theoretical front' @elipe Miranda of the UP Dilian Departent

0; The refusal rates per year are Q; for /00' ;; for /0' and H; thus far for the ongoing /08survey. During a discussion of her /08 paper during the conference entitled 3Realities and Prospects

of Deocracies in Asia" To5ards a Su!stantive Developent of Deocracy'7 =er)a noted that another

reason for the refusal rate' particularly for those 5ho have repeatedly participated in our surveys' ay

!e respondent fatigue. @or the acadeics 5ho teach' 5e usually encounter diculty in getting their

responses during the idter and *nal e$aination 5ee+s of their students. Soe e!ers of

?JsGCSJs said that they 5ere una!le to coit to participating in the survey !ecause of they 5ere

!usy 5ith their o5n pro)ects.

0O @or e$aple' it 5as a!le to !ring together +ey e!ers of the 5arring a)or leftist !locs' thenational deocratic 3rearist7 !loc associated 5ith the Counist Party of the Philippines and the

3socialist deocrat7 !loc also +no5n as the 3re)ectionists7 in a foru called 3Did the :eft et #t Right67

5hich dealt 5ith the participation of the t5o groups in the /0/ elections %for ore inforation' visit

http"GGupt5sc.!logspot.coG/0/G/QGdid-left-get-it-right-pu!lic-foru.htl&.

0Q #n March /0/' TWSC organied a lecture called 3Prospects for Socialis in the Philippines7 !yreno5ned socialist scholar %and TWSC founder& @rancisco ?eeno

%http"GGupt5sc.!logspot.coG/0/G/8Gprospects-for-socialis-in-philippines.htl&. #n


16/23

of Political of Science as+ed us to consider including 3La huan >uality of life'

participatory politics' and accounta!le governance7 as aong our inde$2s core

principles %/0' /0&. Teario Rivera' then of the #nternational Christian University

in To+yo' too+ on the presuption that the countries studied !y CAD# are

deocracies' stating that in a study he conducted in colla!oration 5ith other

Philippine political scientists'0H

the Philippine political syste still cannot !e referredto as a deocracy %/0' /B&. dna stifania Co of the UP ?ational College of

Pu!lic Adinistration and overnance also felt that there 5as no 3clear agreeent

on fundaental concepts of deocracy7 aong CAD# researchers %/0' 08&.

:astly' Malaya Ronas' then of the UP Dilian Departent of Political Science'

suggested that the Consortiu as a 5hole consider perspectives 3that ephasie

the signi*cance of the econoic and social preconditions of a deocratic polity7

such as that of Seyour Martin :ipset %/0' 0B&.

Their coents sho5 that as CAD# e$pands' the re*neent of 3deocracy

as de-onopoliation7 5ill !e necessary' or ay even undergo a signi*cant

reforulation. %Certainly' a ore nuanced de*nition of civil society is necessary&. #

thin+ the coon concern upon 5hich our /0 conference reactors !ased their

coents can !e %caustically& reforulated into a version of the pro!le # stated in

this paper2s introduction" 3ho5 can a ,orean-forulated tool to easure

deocratiation !e used as a universal evaluator of deocracy in the diverse

countries of Asia67 A good response thereto 5ould refer to the tool2s aversion to

rigidity and stagnation in light of the tool2s foundation on a theory that ephasies

unceasing dynais. # thin+ that such a theory can only have !een conceived !y

scholars fro a country li+e South ,orea' 5hich any consider to have a

consolidated or a 5ell-esta!lished deocracy %e.g.'


17/23

here9that 5ould !e the su!)ect of an entirely ne5 paper. 0B Suce it to say that

aong their ain gripes 5ere 5ith the Consortiu2s respondent classi*cation %the

lac+ of standardiation thereof& and our lac+ of deterination of 5hat the country

scores ean %does o!taining a country score !et5een ;./ and Q./ ean that a

country is a 3iddling7 deocracy6&. The forer a+es cross-country coparisons

of data dicult' 5hile the latter a+es the value or necessity of coing up 5ith acountry score95hich indeed currently has no 5ell-de*ned conceptual ties 5ith all of

the other scores9>uestiona!le. The sae issues cropped up during our discussions

during the August /08 Asian Deocracy #nde$ #nternational Conference' and # can

only state for no5 that their resolution reains pending.

Improvin& the ADI: 5ome 5u&&estions

During our last AD# conference' =er)a ade a couple of suggestions on ho5 to

increase the relia!ility and the validity of our data. She suggested that AD#

researchers should also give scores 3to increase the >uality of the ratingsK7

thereafter' 3Lstatistical techni>ues to assess inter-rater relia!ility could then !e

applied7 %/08' O&. She also gave the opinion that a via!le eans of validating our

data9!esides the Delphi ethod of validation/ and post-survey focus group

discussions done !y soe of the country teas95ould !e to atch AD# data 5ith

pu!lic survey data %=er)a' /08' Q&' 5hich' as can !e seen in the !rief recitation of

our *ndings a!ove' the Philippine tea has already !een doing internally.

# 5anted to !ring up soething that cae up in our discussions during our

/0 conference that ay also contri!ute to iproving our data2s relia!ility and

validity' as suggested !y Miranda %/0' /&" the possi!ility of conducting acopleentary pu!lic opinion AD# survey. 4o5ever' given that the ethodological

discussions during our last conference focused on iproving our current specialist

survey' there has !een little opportunity for us to discuss ho5' if at all' 5e can

construct a pu!lic opinion survey that is grounded in 3deocratiation as de-

onopoliation7 theory and can copleent the elite survey.

4ere are soe of y suggestions' 5hich # hope to reiterate in future AD#

conferences. # proceed fro the fact that the focus of the AD# pro)ect is de-

onopoliation' or deocracy as revolving around the core principles of

li!eraliation and e>ualiation. Thus' # thin+ that an AD# pu!lic opinion survey 5ill

0B A paper that can ta+e oF fro Miranda' /0' 4ussain' /0' Rivera' /0' Co' /0' and Ronas'/0.

/ =er)a suggested the use of the Delphi ethod to validate responses during the /00 conference ofCAD#. Aong the possi!le Delphi-li+e 5ays of validating responses is sho5ing respondents the scores

and coents given !y their fello5 respondents' as+ing the thereafter if they 5ished to change their

scores !ased on the responses of their peers. Apparently' soething siilar to this 5as perfored !y

the #ndonesian tea for their /08 survey round.

0H


18/23

have to as+ citiens 5hich groups they !elieve greatly in(uence their political'

econoic' and social decisions. These are not aied at deterining 5hich group

%e.g.' the governent' religious groups& has the ost in(uence on any society' !ut

to deterine the level of onopoliation in a particular society. Jver5heling

doinance of any single group in a particular *eld can !e construed to ean that a

onopoly 5ithin that *eld e$ists. The survey should also as+ if they thin+ that theyhave the resources to eFect political' econoic' and social change. Their self-

assessent of their capacity to in(uence society can !e seen as re(ective of the

e>ualiation of po5er and resource distri!ution.

Such a survey 5ould therefore focus on a particular country2s potential for

the type of 3citien epo5erent7 that CAD# strongly advocates. The pu!lic opinion

survey can thereafter *gure in validating the specialist survey. The respondents of

the latter ay !e sho5n the results of the forer. Su!se>uently' the e$perts 5ill !e

as+ed if they 5ould li+e to reconsider soe of their responses !ased on the *ndings

of the pu!lic opinion survey. Alternatively' ta+ing oF fro =er)a2s *rst suggestion'

the researchers 5hose scores 5ill !e aggregated 5ith those of the e$perts could

refer to the pu!lic opinion survey *ndings 5hen giving scores for ites concerned

5ith pu!lic perception of a particular politico-socioeconoic institution or

phenoenon.

The survey 5ould also hopefully serve to increase pu!lic a5areness of ho5

deocracy can !e positively construed as the easure of ho5 uch politico-

socioeconoic po5er or capital citiens have. Such a5areness ay help deepen the

collective understanding of deocracy !eyond its procedural eleents.

$oncludin& Thou&hts

@unding considerations o!ligate CAD# researchers to conduct one ore

survey round ne$t year. # do not thin+ any e!er of CAD# 5ants to a!ruptly

discontinue our colla!oration after /0;9any of us are actively searching for

additional funding to +eep the AD# pro)ect running. # 5ould li+e to conduct at least

one ore survey in /0Q' after the national elections' if only to see ho5 5ell the AD#

serves as a tool for assessing the changes in e$pert perceptions of deocratiation

fro one election year %/08& to another. Perhaps !y that year' a pu!lic opinion

survey grounded in 3deocratiation as de-onopoliation7 theory can also !e

conducted in the Philippines %and perhaps in the other countries 5ith CAD#representation as 5ell&.

# use a!out these scheduled and planned future activities 5hile cogniant of

the possi!ility that the CAD# AD# ay soeday !ecoe )ust another deocracy

inde$' or a curiosity +no5n only to the ost intrepid deocracy researchers.

4o5ever' even if there are doens of deocracy assessent tools and data sets

availa!le for the layan and the specialist' # thin+ AD# has the potential to !e a tool

0


19/23

that pushes governents and citienries9perhaps even those !eyond Asia9to

a+e further deocratiation an unceasing activity in the face of the ever-present

threat of po5er onopolists in any society. That a tool li+e this originated fro a

country considered !y any to !e one of the ost successful post-dictatorship

deocracies in Asia9a country that' as sho5n here' has never stopped analying

ho5 5ell deocratiation therein is progressing9adds credence to CAD#2s iplicitclai that deocratiation ends only 5hen society discontinues all eForts to

prevent su!)ugation !y an e$ploitative elite.

6e7erences:

=er)a' Clarinda :usterio. %/08&. 3Achieveents and :iits of the Asian Deocracy

#nde$ %AD#&. Paper presented at the #nternational Conference 3Realities and

Prospects of Deocracies in Asia" To5ards a Su!stantive Developent of

Deocracy'7 Seoul' South ,orea' August B-8/.

=uttigieg'


20/23

Co' dna stifania. %/0&. The /00 AD# Pilot Test" Soe Coents on the

Reports.7 Asian Democracy Review 0' 0-0Q.

Constantino-David' ,arina. %0BBH&. 3#ntra-civil Society Relations" An Jvervie5.7 #n

Coronel @errer' Miria ed.' Philippine Democracy Agenda: Civil Society

#a$ing Civil Society ' 0-O/. ueon City' Philippines" Third World StudiesCenter.

Curato' ?icole. %/08&. 3Deli!erative Capacity as an #ndicator of Deocratic uality"

The Case of the Philippines.7 %nternational Political Science Review. DJ#"

0/.00HHG/0BO0008O/;88H

DaSM# %Deocracy and Social Moveents #nstitute&. 3A!out DaSM#.7 Democracy

and Social #ovements %nstitute website. http"GGdasi.s+hu.ac.+rGengG

0X0.php6P4PSSS#DYQOcOHO8aa8!;fdd/f!faOc8fH!OcOa.

DRA %Deocracy Ran+ing Association&. %/0&. 3Deocracy Ran+ing /0.7

Democracy Ran$ing website. http"GGdeocracyran+ing.orgG5ordpressG6

pageXidYOHZ prettyPhoto.

#U %conoist #ntelligence Unit&. %/0/&. The conoist #ntelligence Unit2s #nde$ of Deocracy. http"GGgraphics.eiu.coGPD@GDeocracyX#nde$X/0/X5e!.pdf.

999. %/00&. The conoist #ntelligence Unit2s #nde$ of Deocracy.

http"GG555.sida.seGlo!alGA!out/SidaGSC8AO/ar!etar

/viG#UXDeocracyX#nde$XDec/00.pdf.

999. %/0&. Deocracy #nde$ /0" Deocracy at a Standstill.

https"GGportoncv.gov.cvGdhu!Gporton.porXglo!al.openX*le6pXdocXidY0/8;.

@reedo 4ouse. %/0/&. @reedo in the World V Philippines.http"GG555.freedohouse. orgGreportGfreedo-5orldG /0/Gphilippines.

999. %/0&. @reedo in the World V Philippines. http"GG555.freedohouse.

orgGreportGfreedo-5orldG/0Gphilippines.

999. %/08&. @reedo in the World V Philippines.

http"GG555.freedohouse.orgGreportG freedo-5orldG/08Gphilippines.

oe'


21/23

@orgacs' David ed. %///&. (he &ramsci Reader: Selected Writings )*)+,)*-.. ?e5

1or+" ?e5 1or+ University Press.

4ussain' =ono)it. %/0&. 3Coents on the AD# Pro)ect fro the #ndian

Perspective.7 Asian Democracy Review 0' /;-/H.


22/23

Ronas' Malaya. %/0&. 3Reaction to the AD# Pilot Studies" #ndonesia' the Philippines'

and South ,orea.7 Asian Democracy Review 0' 0-/.

Sea5right'


23/23

8

Documents

Edited Draft - Miguel Reyes - The (Korean) Asian Democracy Index in the Philippines - An Insider's Perspective