Countries at the Crossroads is an annual analysis of government performance in 70 strategically important countries worldwide that are at a critical crossroads in determining their political future. The in-depth comparative analyses and quantitative ratings—examining government accountability, civil liberties, rule of law, and anticorruption and transparency efforts—are intended to help international policymakers identify areas of progress, as well as to highlight areas of concern that could be addressed in diplomatic efforts and reform assistance. A new edition of Crossroads is published each year, with approximately half of the 70 countries analyzed in odd-numbered years and the other half in even-numbered years.

The 2010 edition is the fifth in the Countries at the Crossroads series. It evaluates 21 of the countries last examined in the 2006 edition, providing an opportunity for time series analysis and assessment of the extent to which this group of countries is backsliding, stalling, or improving in terms of democratic governance. The time frame for events covered by the country scores is December 1, 2005 through May 31, 2009. In addition, 11 countries are included in the analysis for the first time.

In cooperation with a team of methodology experts, Freedom House designed a methodology that includes a questionnaire used both to prepare analytical narratives and for numerical ratings for each government. The methodology provides authors with a transparent and consistent guide to scoring and analyzing the countries under review, and uses identical benchmarks for both narratives and ratings, rendering the two indicators mutually reinforcing. The final result is a system of comparative ratings accompanied by narratives that reflect governments’ commitment to passing good laws and also their records on upholding them.

Freedom House enlisted the participation of prominent scholars and analysts to author the publication’s country reports. In preparing the written analyses with accompanying comparative ratings, Freedom House undertook a systematic gathering of data. Each country narrative report is approximately 7,000 words long. Expert regional advisers reviewed the draft reports, providing written comments and requests for revisions, additions, or clarifications. Authors were asked to respond as fully as possible to all of the questions posed when composing the analytical narratives.

For all countries in the analysis, Freedom House, in consultation with the report authors and academic advisers, has provided detailed numerical ratings.

Authors produced a first round of ratings by assigning scores on a scale of 0-7 for each of the 75 methodology questions, where 0 represents weakest performance and 7 represents strongest performance. The scores were then aggregated into seventeen subcategories and four main thematic areas. The regional advisers and Freedom House staff systematically reviewed all country ratings on a comparative basis to ensure accuracy and fairness. All final ratings decisions rest with Freedom House.

In devising a framework for evaluating government performance, Freedom House sought to develop a scale broad enough to capture degrees of variation so that comparisons could be made between countries in the current year, and also so that future time series comparisons might be made to assess a country’s progress in these areas relative to past performance. These scales achieve an effective balance between a scoring system that is too broad—which may make it difficult for analysts to make fine distinctions between different scores—and one that is too narrow—which may make it difficult to capture degrees of variation between countries and therefore more difficult to recognize how much a given government’s performance has improved or eroded over time.

Narrative essays and scoring were applied to the following main areas of performance, which Freedom House considers to be key to evaluating the state of democratic governance within a country:

 

 

 

 

The analysis rates countries’ performance on each methodology question on a scale of 0-7, with 0 representing the weakest performance and 7 the strongest. The scoring scale is as follows:

 

Score of 0–2: Countries that receive a score of 0, 1, or 2 ensure no or very few adequate protections, legal standards, or rights in the rated category. Laws protecting the rights of citizens or the justice of the political process are minimal, rarely enforced, or routinely abused by the authorities.

Score of 3–4: Countries that receive a score of 3 or 4 provide some adequate protections, legal standards, or rights in the rated category. Legal protections are weak and enforcement of the law is inconsistent or corrupt.

Score of 5: Countries that receive a score of 5 provide many adequate protections, legal standards or rights in the rated category. Rights and political standards are protected, but enforcement may be unreliable and some abuses may occur. A score of 5 is considered to be the basic standard of democratic performance.

Score of 6–7: Countries that receive a score of 6 or 7 ensure all or nearly all adequate protections, legal standards, or rights in the rated category. Legal protections are strong and are enforced fairly. Citizens have access to legal redress when their rights are violated, and the political system functions smoothly.