news  articles  all
rus на русском ქართულად
Friday, 21 October 2016


Bad mark for freedom

2010-01-14 14:54

5083.jpegFor the past two days the press all over post-Soviet space has been actively discussing Freedom House's annual report on civil rights and political freedoms worldwide. Freedom House rights defending NGO estimated the level of civil and political freedoms in 194 world countries and a number of "special territories", i.e. state establishments of disputable status, as the rights defenders evaluate. Such indexes as electoral process, country management, women's rights, media independence and basic civil rights have been assessed by tradition. As a result a country was either acknowledged as "Free", "Partly Free" or "Not Free". Calculation of points is made by a 1-7 scale with 1 as the


highest level of freedom.

This year Georgia's status hasn't changed preserving 4 points that stand for a "Partly Free" state. Earlier, in 2007 Georgia was named as a "Free" state losing Freedom's House rating after the autumn 2007events. As remarks with reference to the report "Georgia was the site of the first in the recent spate of color revolutions and represented one of the few bright spots in the former Soviet Union; its erratic course, including a state of emergency in 2007 and war with Russia in August, ranks among the more disturbing developments of the past two years". US rights defenders believe that the results of last year's parliamentary and presidential election disqualified Georgia from the electoral democracy list thus making the prospects of retaining its "Partly Free" status rather vague. However that doesn't stop Georgian leaders from being pleased that Russia, as well as South Ossetia preserve their "Not Free" status. It's absolutely unclear what these figures mean except for realization of self-importance and superiority since index evaluation criteria that affect the standing are rather subjective. Can Freedom House data be in any way close to reality? Most probably not as underscored by Elnur Aslanov, head of political analysis and information department at the Azerbaijani President's Administration in an interview with Trend agency: "Freedom House evaluation is a subjective view of a group of people that execute somebody's order... This is the way Freedom House is enhancing its reputation to survive in conditions of the financial crisis". A number of Russian politologists and politicians expressed this point of view earlier. No wonder, since the NGO has long been funded by US Department of State with either ex CIA chief or ex Defense Minister in charge of it. It is quite obvious that the aim of Freedom House's "researches" is to influence public opinion over the post-Soviet space and in countries of new Europe. Certainly any other meaning is out of question given the bias and custom-designed nature of surveys.

Code for blog
Add: Magnolia Livejournal Reddit Google
Permanent link :
Rambler's Top100
Select spelling error with mouse and press Ctrl+Enters
Система Orphus