'Freedom House' is a non-profit organization headquartered in
Washington, D.C. with field offices in about a dozen countries. It is best known for its annual assessment of the degree of democratic freedoms in each country.
The organisation was founded by
Wendell Wilkie and
Eleanor Roosevelt in
1941, and describes itself as "a clear voice for democracy and freedom around the world". It is predominantly funded by the
United States government, but also receives funding from the
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the
Sarah Scaife Foundation and the
Soros Foundation. The organzation has been criticized for having ties to state power and supporting U.S. international military interventions.
Mission Statement
As stated by Freedom House:
"Freedom House is an independent organization that supports the expansion of freedom in the world. Freedom is possible only in democratic political systems in which the governments are accountable to their own people; the rule of law prevails; and freedoms of expression, association, belief and respect for the rights of minorities and women are guaranteed."
"Freedom ultimately depends on the actions of committed and courageous men and women. We support nonviolent civic initiatives in societies where freedom is denied or under threat and we stand in opposition to ideas and forces that challenge the right of all people to be free. Freedom House functions as a catalyst for freedom, democracy, and the rule of law through its analysis, advocacy, and action."[2]
Freedom House also states that "Our diverse Board of Trustees is united in the view that American leadership in international affairs is essential to the cause of human rights and freedom."
[2]
History
The organization was founded by
Wendell Willkie,
Eleanor Roosevelt, George Field,
Dorothy Thompson,
Herbert Bayard Swope, and others in
1941. Originally launched in response to the threat posed by
Nazism, it now describes itself as a clear voice for democracy and freedom around the world. Freedom House states that it:
"has vigorously opposed dictatorships in Central America and Chile, apartheid in South Africa, the suppression of the Prague Spring, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, genocide in Bosnia and Rwanda, and the brutal violation of human rights in Cuba, Burma, the People's Republic of China, and Iraq. It has championed the rights of democratic activists, religious believers, trade unionists, journalists, and proponents of free markets."
It states that during the
1940s, Freedom House supported the
Marshall Plan and the establishment of
NATO. Freedom House also states that it was highly critical of
McCarthyism.
[4] During the
1950s and
1960s, it supported the
U.S. civil rights movement
and its leadership included several prominent Civil Rights activists. It supported Andrei Sakharov, other Soviet dissidents, and the
Solidarity movement in
Poland. Freedom House assisted the post-Communist societies in the establishment of independent media, non-governmental think tanks, and the core institutions of electoral politics.
4
More recently, it supported citizens involved in revolutions in Serbia, Ukraine, and Kyrgyzstan. It states "In Jordan, Freedom House worked to stem violence against women; in Algeria, it sought justice for victims of torture; in Uzbekistan, a brutal dictatorship, it sought to defend human rights advocates; in Venezuela, it worked with those seeking to protect and promote human rights in a difficult political environment."
4
Organization
Freedom House is a nonprofit organization. It is predominantly funded by the
United States government[5], and is headquartered in
Washington, D.C., It has field offices in about a dozen countries, including
Ukraine,
Hungary,
Serbia,
Jordan,
Mexico, and a number of countries in
Central Asia.
It is controlled by a Board of Trustees, which it describes as composed of 'business and labor leaders, former senior government officials, scholars, writers, and journalists'. While some board members were born outside the United States, and many have been affiliated with international groups, all are current residents of the United States. It does not identify itself with either of the American
Republican or the
Democratic parties. The board is currently chaired by
Peter Ackerman. Ackerman took over chairmanship of the board in September of 2005 from former
CIA director
James Woolsey. Other notable board members included
Steve Forbes,
Samuel Huntington,
Azar Nafisi,
Farooq Kathwari,
P. J. O'Rourke,
Mara Liasson, and
Mark Palmer,
Kenneth Adelman,
Donald Rumsfeld,
Paul Wolfowitz,
Otto Reich,
Jeane Kirkpatrick, and
Zbigniew Brzezinski.
Freedom House is funded by a number of foundations, including
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the
Sarah Scaife Foundation and the
Soros Foundation. It also receives funding from the
US Government through the
National Endowment for Democracy,
USAID, and the
State Department.
[6] Around 75% of its income is
US federal grants.
Freedom House describes its relationship with the US government as follows: "Freedom House is an independent, non-governmental organization that was initially created in 1941 to urge the U.S. government to adopt policies supporting democracy and human rights at home and abroad. Its reports and analyses are independent of any governmental influence and are enriched by an intellectual atmosphere of scholarly inquiry. In recent years, Freedom House has received grants from the U.S. Agency for International Development and the State Department for various projects, usually as a result of public competition. Freedom House has also applied for and received funds from other democratic governments and international bodies that promote democracy, including the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Norway and the European Union. Freedom House chooses to respond to specific funding opportunities, but never accepts funds from government institutions, including U.S. government agencies, in the form of contracts, and never functions as an extension of any government."
[7]
Reports
This map reflects the findings of Freedom House's 2007 survey
Freedom in the World, concerning the state of world freedom in 2006.
This graph shows the number of nations in the different categories given above for the period for which there are surveys,
1972-
2005
:''See also:
Freedom in the World (report)
Since 1972, (1978 in book form) Freedom House publishes an annual report,
Freedom in the World, on the degree of democratic freedoms in nations and significant disputed territories around the world, by which it seeks to assess
[8] the current state of
civil and
political rights on a scale from 1 (most free) to 7 (least free). These reports are often
[9] used by
political scientists when doing research. The ranking is highly correlated with several other ratings of democracy also frequently used by researchers.
In its
2003 report, for example,
Canada (judged as fully free and democratic) got a perfect score of a "1" in
civil liberties and a "1" in political rights, earning it the designation of "free."
Nigeria got a "5" and a "4", earning it the designation of "partly free," while
North Korea scored the lowest rank of "7-7", and was thus dubbed "not free." Nations are scored from 0 to 4 on several questions and the sum determines the rankings. Example questions: "Is the head of state and/or head of government or other chief authority elected through free and fair elections?", "Is there an independent judiciary?", "Are there free trade unions and peasant organizations or equivalents, and is there effective collective bargaining? Are there free professional and other private organizations?"
[10] Freedom House states that the rights and liberties of the survey is derived in large measure from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
10
The research and ratings process involved two dozen analysts and more than a dozen senior-level academic advisors. The eight members of the core research team headquartered in New York, along with 16 outside consultant analysts, prepared the country and territory reports. The analysts used a broad range of sources of information--including foreign and domestic news reports, academic analyses, nongovernmental organizations, think tanks, individual professional contacts, and visits to the region--in preparing the reports.
[11]
The country and territory ratings were proposed by the analyst responsible for each related report. The ratings were reviewed individually and on a comparative basis in a series of six regional meetings--Asia-Pacific, Central and Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union, Latin America and the Caribbean, Middle East and North Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Western Europe--involving the analysts, academic advisors with expertise in each region, and Freedom House staff. The ratings were compared to the previous year's findings, and any major proposed numerical shifts or category changes were subjected to more intensive scrutiny. These reviews were followed by cross-regional assessments in which efforts were made to ensure comparability and consistency in the findings. Many of the key country reports were also reviewed by the academic advisers.
[11] Regardless, such a process contains elements of subjectivity.
The survey's methodology is reviewed periodically by an advisory committee of political scientists with expertise in methodological issues.
[11]
Freedom House also produces annual reports on press freedom (''Press Freedom Survey''), governance in the nations of the former
Soviet Union (''Nations in Transit''), and countries on the borderline of democracy (''Countries at the Crossroads''). In addition, one-time reports have included a survey of women's freedoms in the
Middle East.
Freedom House generally uses standard geographic regions for its reports, though it groups the countries of the
Middle East and
North Africa together, separately from Sub-Saharan Africa; and it still uses the arguably outdated concept of
Western Europe, to include countries such as
Turkey and
Cyprus, while categorizing Central and Eastern Europe separately -- a division stemming from the
Cold War era which ignores the eastwards expansion of such organizations such the EU and NATO. However, these groupings have nothing to do with the individual country ratings; they're merely used to make nations easier to find when perusing their reports, and also for comparative statistics between the modern day and the ratings of decades past.
Criticisms of Freedom House methodology
The methodology Freedom House uses for its reports has been criticised for its perceived bias towards countries with pro-US positions. By relying on 'experts' or 'judges', the methodology is claimed to fall into the what is described as 'systematic measurement error': "Regardless of the direction of distortions, it is highly likely that every set of indicators formed by a single author or organization contains systematic measurement error. The origin of this measure lies in the common methodology of forming measures. Selectivity of information and various traits of the judges fuse into a distinct form of bias that is likely to characterize all indicators from a common publication."
[14]
Other activities
In addition to these reports, Freedom House participates in advocacy initiatives, currently focused on North Korea, Africa, and religious freedom. It has offices in a number of countries, where it promotes and assists local human rights workers and non-government organizations.
On January 12, 2006, as part of a crackdown on unauthorized
nongovernmental organizations, the Uzbek government ordered Freedom House to suspend operations in Uzbekistan. Resource and Information Centers managed by Freedom House in
Tashkent,
Namangan, and
Samarkand offered access to materials and books on human rights, as well as technical equipment, such as computers, copiers and Internet access. The government warned that criminal proceedings could be brought against Uzbek staff members and visitors following recent amendments to the criminal code and Code on Administrative Liability of Uzbekistan. Other human rights groups have been similarly threatened and obliged to suspend operations.
Freedom House is a member of the
International Freedom of Expression Exchange, a global network of more than 70 non-governmental organisations that monitors free expression violations around the world and defends journalists, writers and others who are persecuted for exercising their right to freedom of expression.
The ''
Financial Times'' has reported that Freedom House is one of several organisations selected by the State Department to receive funding for 'clandestine activities' inside
Iran.
[15] In a research study, with Mr Ackerman acting as chief adviser, Freedom House sets out its conclusions: "Far more often than is generally understood, the change agent is broad-based, non-violent civic resistance - which employs tactics such as boycotts, mass protests, blockades, strikes and civil disobedience to de-legitimate authoritarian rulers and erode their sources of support, including the loyalty of their armed defenders."
15
Regarding
regime change, the organization states "Freedom House works directly with men and women around the world to expand the political rights and civil liberties they experience in their countries. More specifically, Freedom House focuses on initiatives that contribute to long-term stability and growth in countries, such as strengthening civil society, promoting open government, defending human rights, and facilitating the free flow of information and ideas. While these activities - and the liberties they represent - may be threatening to some repressive governments, Freedom House does not initiate or sponsor regime change or popular revolutions. We help men and women of good will to improve their own societies."
7
Criticism
As noted in the section on organization above, Freedom House receives most of its funding from the US government, and prominent US government officials reside on its board, most notably
neo-conservatives. These ties to state power and rightist institutions have been criticized.
[16] The organisation states that its
board of trustees contains Democrats, Republicans and Independents who are a mix of business and labor leaders, former senior government officials, scholars and journalists.
[17]
Noam Chomsky describes how Freedom House "had interlocks with AIM, the
World Anticommunist League, Resistance International, and U.S. government bodies such as
Radio Free Europe and the
CIA, and has long served as a virtual propaganda arm of the (U.S) government and international right wing."
[18] He justifies this claim by presenting a series of national elections generally considered as staged, that the Freedom House observers however found "fair". He also criticizes the unconditional support of Freedom House members to all U.S. international military interventions, and the expenditure of "substantial resources in criticizing the media for insufficient sympathy with U.S. foreign-policy ventures and excessively harsh criticism of U.S. client states."
In May 2001, the Committee on
Non-Governmental Organizations of the
United Nations heard arguments pro and against Freedom House.
[19] Representatives of
Cuba described the organization as a U.S. foreign policy instrument linked to the CIA and "submitted proof of the politically motivated, interventionist activities the NGO (Freedom House) carried out against their Government". They also pointed out the lack of criticism of U.S. human rights violations in the annual reports. These violations are well documented by other reports, such as those of
Human Rights Watch. Other countries such as
China and
Germany also offered criticism. The
Russian Federation representative also inquired "why this organization, an NGO which defended human rights, was against the creation of the
International Criminal Court". The United States representative denied the links between Freedom House and
CIA and pointed out that "his country was not immune from criticism from Freedom House" and that "the organization was a human rights organization, which sought to represent those who did not have a voice".
Freedom House reports have criticized both the United States and its major allies to a certain extent, for example in its 2006 report on the U.S. and
Israel.
[20][21] Nevertheless, Israel earns good scores in political and civil rights
[22], despite international perception that the Israeli state violates the rights of arab populations.
[23]
Evidently, Freedom House has also been critical of some traditional US allies, such as
Saudi Arabia and
Chile under
Pinochet, classifying them as "Not Free".
[24] It was also strongly critical of
apartheid South Africa and military dictatorships in Latin America. However, it could be argued that not to criticize the lack of political freedom of these regimes would be contradictory and highly suspicious.
Praise
Despite the criticism, many thinkers defend the organization's dedication to the promotion of human rights. Writing in the right-wing
National Review Online, John R. Miller, a research professor at the George Washington University’s Elliott School, states that
:Freedom House has unwaveringly raised the standard of freedom in evaluating fascist countries, Communist regimes, and plain old, dictatorial thugocracies. Its annual rankings are read and used in the United Nations and other international organizations, as well as by the U.S. State Department. Policy and aid decisions are influenced by Freedom House’s report. Those fighting for freedom in countries lacking it are encouraged or discouraged by what Freedom House’s report covers. And sometimes — most importantly — their governments are moved to greater effort."
[[8]Miller, John R., "Does 'Freedom' Mean Freedom From Slavery? A glaring omission.", article in ''National Review Online'', February 5, 2007, accessed same day]
Miller nevertheless criticized the organization in 2007 as not paying enough attention to slavery in its reports. Democracies such as Germany and India, but mostly repressive regimes, needed to be held to account for their lack of enforcement of laws against human trafficking and the bondage of some foreign workers, he wrote.
Notes
1. http://freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=265#3
2. Freedom House: About Us
3. Freedom House: About Us
4. Freedom House: A History
5. 2005 Freedom House Annual Report, page 26, indicating 75% US federal funding
6. [1]
7. Frequently Asked Questions
8. The Limited Robustness of Empirical Findings on Democracy using Highly Correlated Datasets
9. [2] The political science journal database Illumina lists between 10 and 20 peer reviewed journal articles referencing the "freedom in the world" report each year
10. Methodology
11. Freedom House Methodology
12. Freedom House Methodology
13. Freedom House Methodology
14.
★ Bollen, K.A. (1992) Political Rights and Political Liberties in Nations: An Evaluation of Human Rights Measures, 1950 to 1984. In: Jabine, T.B. and Pierre Claude, R. "Human Rights and Statistics". University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 0812231082
15. Bush enters debate on freedom in Iran
16. [3]Diana Barahona, "The Freedom House Files" Monthly Review, March, 2007
17. Freedom House: Frequently Asked Questions
18. [4]
19. [5]
20. [6]
21. Freedom House Urges President Bush to Bring U.S. Policies on Interrogation and Detention into Compliance with U.S. and International Law
22. http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=363&year=2007&country=7199
23. [7]
24. Comparative scores for all countries from 1973 to 2006
See also
★ Human Development Index
★ List of Indices of Freedom
★ Human rights
★ Negative rights
★ Cultural relativism
★ United States government
★ Democracy
External links
★ Freedom House
★ Freedom House:when “freedom” is only a pretext, Voltaire Network, September 2004
★ What is "good" press freedom? The difficulty of measuring freedom of the press worldwide (PDF), 'Christina Holtz-Bacha', 2004.
Nonprofit Income Tax Declarations (Due to high memory required to post pdf's, these are abstracts in Word format, not true or complete copies)
★ 990 forms posted to Haitianalysis.com
Reports Written by Freedom House
★ Freedom House Publications
★ 2006 essay and survey data
★ Annual Report 2005
★ Annual Report 2004
★ Annual Report 2003
★ Annual Report 2002
★ Annual Report 2001
العربية
中国
Français
Deutsch
Ελληνική
हिन्दी
Italiano
日本語
Português
Русский
Español
