Theoretical foundation The People Index is based on the functional theory of democracy and good governance   (http://diberlin.info/logic_democracy.htm) - originally following Abraham Lincoln’s famous Gettysburg Address: …a government of the people, by the people, for the people. According to that theory, democracy is constituted through meeting three essential requirements:  protected human rights (governance of the people), participation (governance by the people), and effective coordination (governance for the people). These three functional needs are causally linked with each other: Effective coordination (that strives at serving the interests of the general public and the interests of all involved people as well as possible) fosters the reproduction of the whole society; its results legitimate the whole functional cycle including protected human rights and participation. Human rights, defined as strict respect for any person as a human and free and equal citizen, is a mandatory precondition of any sensible and effective participation; since that participation is possible only if the civil and political rights of any citizen are effectively protected. Participation stimulates and controls the whole functional cycle up to effective coordination best - corresponding with the  basic assumption of reliable self-interest: The people themselves tend to be the best institution of controlling governance in the interest of the people. That’s why democracy is only possible if all three functions are met. Indeed, how the functions are fulfilled can institutionally vary. In principle, democracy is possible all over the Earth; sources and historic cradles of democracy are located in diverse regions and cultures of the Earth - see for example historic elements of effective coordination, participation, and human rights in very old cultures such as Mesopotamia (influencing the Athenian democracy) or China. The opinion that democracy would be a nothing but Western cultural institution goes wrong. The People Index Corresponding with the described theoretical model, governance and political systems can be systematically assessed by usage of The People Index. This index combines three main indicators: human rights, participation, coordination. Each indicator is empirically surveyed by thoroughly answering certain questions. Indicator A) Human Rights   … is empirically surveyed with reference to how far human rights are respected in a certain territorial or organizational unit during a certain time-period - in response to three questions: 1. Are all inhabitants respected as free and equal citizens? 2. Are fair and free procedures common? 3. Are all international borders respected? Question A1 (Free and equal citizens) refers not only to formally accepted citizens, but to all people regularly living in a country or organization (all inhabitants). The criterion of freedom comprises all basic freedom rights such as the right to life and health, the right of free opinion and free expression, the rights of free mobility, free choice and usage of religion including the right of free change of religion; the criterion of equality comprises the principal and effective right to be not discriminated in any respect (gender, age, race, religion, income, education and so forth). For any of these specific criterions, scores between 0% and 100% are constituted and then combined to an overarching score value for question 1. Question A2 (Fair and free procedures) is dealt with in the same way as question 1. In contrast to question 1, that refers to the social reality of more or less given freedom and equality, this question issues institutional procedures such as juridical procedures, political procedures, scientific procedures, economic market procedures, sportive procedures and so forth. Precarious criterions of investigation and assesment refer to juridical deals, tax dodge, corruption, overly power of lobbyism, other criminal activities, impacts of overly powerful state authorities, and overly network power.  Question A3 (Border respect) widens the spectrum of assessment beyond national or intra- organizational scales. This question issues the degree to which the assessed unit respects human rights in other units, first by respecting given borders; since external frontier violations usually injure the freedom of the citizens in the attacked unit. Indeed, in case human rights are massively violated within another country or organization, particularly by a genocide, a humanitarian intervention or other measures to stop this genocid are acts of good governance.  After having assessed the questions A1, A2, and A3 by scores from 0% to 100%, the whole indicator Respect of the people is assessed in the same way (as unweighted average). Indicator B) Participation    … is to show to which degree the people (conceptualized as everybody regularly living in a territory) participates in common decision- making. Its empirical survey is structured through the following questions: 1. May the people elect and recall their government? 2. May the people participate in current decision- making? 3. How representative are the people’s representations? Question B1 (Election and recall) issues the degree to which the people are practically empowered to elect and to recall their political representatives. Here both is relevant, the formal empowerment of the people to elect and to recall their representatives and practical context conditions that enable effective election and recall such as a certain degree of political information and education.      Question B2 (Participation) refers to the degree to which the people practically participate in political decision-making - top down and bottom-up. Special criterions of participation are referendums and similar institutions. Question B3 (Representativity) asks for how representative the official representative organs of a unit are for the entire unit. At it, aspects of political representativity (majority/minorities) and social representativity (gender, social stratification, professional groups, age groups) are to be taken into consideration. The scoring of indicator B) (Participation) is handled in the same way as indicator A as unweighted average of single scores from 0% to 100%.   Indicator C) Coordination …is to show to which degree governance functions of coordination are fulfilled. In order to represent these functions empirically, the performance record of a state or another organization is assessed according to the following questions: 1. Is there guaranteed peace? 2. Is the public infrastructure sufficiently fostered? 3. Is the economy well coordinated? 4. How equally are the incomes distributed? 5. Is health effectively protected? 6. Are qualification and education, research & development well managed? 7. Ecological and financial sustainability Question C1) (Peace) asks for a) how far there is  a guaranteed state monopoly of legitimated force, b) how far the usage of violence by legitimated institutions make a peaceful every-day life impossible.    Main criterions for the assessment of a) are the degree of existing civil or external war, riots, up-
heavals, violent criminality (norm-breaking violence), and everyday violence beneath the level of criminality (for instance around schools). Main criterions for the assessment of b) are the rate of imprisoning, the rate of capital punishing up to death penalties, the usage of violence in schools, prisons, and psychiatric institutes. In particular the usage of overly force and violence against weak and marginal parts of the population are significant.   Question C2 (Infrastructure) refers to all relevant kinds of infrastructure, such as traffic and transport structures, cable structures and online networks, communal structures (places and so forth), basic structures of water supply and waste water up to all kinds of waste management structures. Fostering denotes construction and maintenance of those structures.  Question C3 (Economy) issues the degree to which certain ends (functions) of economic coordination are accomplished. Those ends are an adequate common provision of goods and services (no poverty), a high level of employment, stable or only slightly increasing prices, and good chances of economic development. Question C4 (Income distribution) implies the comparative measurement of income inequality, based on the Gini coefficient (Gini index). http://www.fao.org/docs/up/easypol/329/gini_index_040en.p df; see also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient Question C5 (Health) issues the effectivity of health protection, particularly expressed by data on life expectancy. Question C6 (Education, Research& Development) refers to  quality standards of education, research & development. At it, the quality of education is assessed based on criterions of general usability (for the people), not for political rule, extension of power or similar uses of specific regimes. That’s why comparative scores of internationally accepted test series such as  PISA constitute a significant indicator of assessment. Indicators of research & development quality are the distribution of internationally accepted research awards (like the nobel prize) and proved socio-technical innovations based on research & development. Question C7 (Ecological and Financial Sustainability) issues the degree to which  behavior and structures comply with criterions of ecological and financial sustainability.  Ecological sustainability implies a behavior of using natural resources wisely and efficiently so that these resources never become exhausted or overpolluted. http://www.skwirk.com/p-c_s-57_u-500_t-1363_c-5246/qld/sose-geography/environment-and- development-world-environments/exploring-the-issue/what-is-ecological-sustainability- Specific criterions of assessment are energy consumption ratios and the degree of using regenerative energies, furtherly the protection/annihilation of natural biotops (such as wild forests) and the consumption/protection of air, water and soil. In contrast to business criterions http://toolkit.conservationfinance.org/sites/default/files/documents/fundraising/four-pillars- financial-sustainability-tnc.pdf financial sustainability is conceived of as criterion of public financial policy, specifically fiscal policy: Financial sustainability is given to the degree a stable balance of financial ends exists, particularly a situation of limited public debts. Also the scores for the questions C1 to C7 (from 0% to 100%) are summed up and divided by the number of scores without any difference of weighting. Overarching Characteristics The scores of the three main indicators (of, by, for the people) are presented in terms of numbers and by figures without any overarching offsetting. Hence the first result of any assessment based on the People Index is a represented constellation between the scores of the three main indicators. At it, the 1/3 level (33,3%) and the 2/3s level (66,7%) give orientation for sorting the results:  Units that are assessed lower than 33,3% regarding all three main indicators are sorted as anomies. Units that are assessed higher than 66,7% regarding all three main indicators are sorted as democracies. Units that are assessed higher than 66,7% regarding the indicator for the people, but lower than 33,3% regarding the indicators respect of the people and paricipation by the people are sorted as autocracies. All other units are sorted as hybrids. These hybrids can be sorted as specifically featured more or less near the the poles democracy, anomy, or autocracy. The three-pole model of political systems     ------------------------     66,7%    ---------------------- ------------------------     33,3%    --------------------- The People Index is a public project. The sources of all used data shall be cited as precisely as possible. Anybody interested in discussing given results or in performing an own study is entitled and requested to do so. We try to support any effort and are open for any public discussion. Historic Assessment Studies? A specific challenge of using The People Index  results from applying the concept to historic cases - see our previous work on the NS system (http://diberlin.info/tpi%20ns.htm).  Those studies are confronted with a bunch of specific difficulties that may lead to the conclusion to completely give up the project of a systematic historic assessment. See for instance obvious tensions between the ruling principle of context dependent assessment and the TPI principle of a strict assessment according to overall accepted criterions and see the problem of variations in time within historic cases. On the other side, a frank and constructive discussion of those questions will probably stimulate scientific research and the public awareness of political processes now.    
Manual How to sort and to operationalize The People Index (April 22, 2016)
A u t o c r a c y
For the peo ple Of / By
Anomy
Democracy