# Democratic Fitness Indicator (DFI)

## Research Phase Guidelines v4.4

## 1. Introduction

The Democratic Fitness Indicator (DFI) assessment process is divided into two distinct phases:
1. **Research Phase**: Targeted documentation of scoring-relevant institutional features
2. **Scoring Phase**: Application of DFI criteria to evaluate democratic quality

This document provides focused guidelines for the Research Phase, ensuring efficient collection of only information directly relevant to DFI scoring criteria.

## 2. Core Research Principles

### 2.1 Relevance and Efficiency

- Document **only** features that directly impact DFI scoring
- Focus exclusively on factors required by the scoring methodology
- Avoid collecting extraneous information not needed for evaluation
- For each component, reference the specific scoring options from the DFI framework

### 2.2 Scoring-Driven Documentation

- Begin with the DFI scoring criteria and work backwards
- Structure research to directly answer the specific questions in scoring framework
- Prioritize information that distinguishes between different scoring thresholds
- Document only the elements needed to accurately apply scoring criteria

### 2.3 Source Hierarchy

Follow this hierarchy of authoritative sources:

1. Constitutional provisions (primary)
2. Organic laws or statutes governing institutions
3. Regular legislation
4. Established case law or judicial interpretations
5. Official government publications and websites
6. Academic research and expert analyses (when necessary)

## 3. Category-Specific Research Requirements

### 3.1 Elections (25%)

#### 3.1.1 Campaign Finance Controls (20% of category)
**RESEARCH ONLY:**
- Campaign account structure (official, mixed, or none)
- Foreign donation restrictions (for official/other channels)
- Corporate donation restrictions (official/other channels/non-election)
- Individual donation limits (to presidential candidates/parties)
- Campaign spending controls (presidential/parliamentary campaigns)
- Public funding systems (more details below)
- Transparency requirements (full, partial, or none)

#### 3.1.1.1 Foreign Donation Loopholes Research Requirements

**CRITICAL INVESTIGATION AREA:** When researching foreign donation restrictions, it is essential to investigate not only the explicit legal prohibitions but also potential loopholes, enforcement gaps, and technical workarounds that may exist in practice.

**REQUIRED RESEARCH AREAS:**

1. **Subsidiary Corporations**
   - Research whether domestic subsidiaries of foreign corporations can make political contributions
   - Document any provisions allowing subsidiaries to contribute if they are incorporated domestically
   - Investigate whether there are restrictions on foreign parent company involvement in subsidiary donation decisions
   - Document whether funds must originate from domestic operations

2. **Shell Companies and Opacity Mechanisms**
   - Research the requirements for verifying the ultimate source of donations from corporate entities
   - Document any gaps in requirements for beneficial ownership disclosure
   - Investigate whether anonymous corporate donations are possible through any channels
   - Document any cases of known shell company contributions

3. **Nonprofit/NGO Channels**
   - Research whether nonprofit organizations can receive foreign funds
   - Document disclosure requirements for nonprofit political activity donors
   - Investigate whether nonprofits engaged in political activities must disclose foreign funding sources
   - Document any "dark money" channels identified in expert reports or investigations

4. **Enforcement Mechanisms**
   - Research the responsible authority for enforcing foreign donation prohibitions
   - Document the investigation powers and resources of enforcement bodies
   - Investigate penalty structures for violations of foreign donation restrictions
   - Document historical enforcement actions or the lack thereof

5. **Regulatory Advisory Opinions and Case Law**
   - Research any regulatory body opinions regarding foreign donation prohibitions
   - Document judicial interpretations that may create exceptions to broad prohibitions
   - Investigate any precedent-setting cases related to foreign influence channels
   - Document any evolving interpretations that may have created loopholes

**DOCUMENTATION FORMAT:**

```
FOREIGN DONATION LOOPHOLES ASSESSMENT:

LEGAL PROHIBITION STATUS:
"[Direct quote of foreign donation prohibition law]"
SOURCE: [Citation with article/section numbers]

IDENTIFIED LOOPHOLES:
1. [Specific loophole #1] - [Legal or regulatory source]
   "[Direct quote of relevant provision/opinion/case]"
   SOURCE: [Citation with article/section numbers]

2. [Specific loophole #2] - [Legal or regulatory source]
   "[Direct quote of relevant provision/opinion/case]"
   SOURCE: [Citation with article/section numbers]

ENFORCEMENT ASSESSMENT:
"[Description of enforcement agency, powers, and record]"
SOURCE: [Official documentation, expert assessment, or enforcement data]

DOCUMENTED EXAMPLES OF EXPLOITATION (IF ANY):
"[Evidence of foreign influence through identified loopholes]"
SOURCE: [Investigation reports, academic studies, or official findings]

CLASSIFICATION:
- Official Campaign Account: [Completely prohibited/Partially restricted/Allowed]
- Other Campaign Channels: [Completely prohibited/Partially restricted/Allowed]
- Loopholes: [Exist/Do not exist] based on [specific evidence]
```

**NOTE ON EVIDENCE STANDARD:** 
To document the existence of loopholes requires clear evidence from authoritative sources - not speculation or political claims. Evidence can include:
- Official regulatory opinions or advisory rulings
- Court decisions interpreting campaign finance laws
- Expert analyses from nonpartisan electoral system specialists
- Documented cases of foreign influence through technical workarounds
- Academic research identifying specific legal or regulatory gaps

#### 3.1.2 Electoral District Design (20% of category)
**RESEARCH ONLY:**
- Population deviation between districts (exact percentages)
- District boundary drawing mechanism (independent commission, mixed process, legislative body with/without oversight)
- District type structure (at-large PR, multi-member PR, mixed system, single-member)
- For upper houses: whether districts are drawn or fixed territorial units

#### 3.1.3 Parliamentary Election Vote Counting Methods (25% of category)
**RESEARCH ONLY:**
- Specific vote counting method used (from scoring chart options)
- For lower house and upper house separately
- For mixed systems: exact components and their proportions

#### 3.1.4 Electoral Threshold (10% of category)
**RESEARCH ONLY:**
- Exact threshold percentage for parliamentary entry
- Any special thresholds for coalitions
- Whether system is PR, MMP, or mixed non-compensatory

#### 3.1.5 Presidential Election Voting Methods (25% of category)
**RESEARCH ONLY:**
- Specific method (ranked choice/instant runoff, two-round, qualified plurality, simple majority)
- Whether direct presidential elections exist

#### 3.1.6 Distortions of Popular Vote
**RESEARCH ONLY:**
- Electoral college mechanisms that can override popular vote
- Monarch's power over PM selection
- Religious authorities' veto powers
- Military veto power
- Special veto powers of ethnic/traditional leaders
- Upper house selection method and legislative powers
- Presidential power to dissolve parliament
- Election results data for the Electoral disproportionality assessment (national vote share + seat share by party, both chambers)
- Documented evidence of intent in district-boundary drawing for the Intentional gerrymandering assessment (court rulings, legislative records, public partisan-advantage statements)
- Actual historical use of these powers

#### 3.1.7 Electoral Disproportionality and Intentional Gerrymandering Research Requirements

The DFI framework v3.1 splits the previous single "gerrymandering" assessment into two independent rows scored separately: **Electoral disproportionality** (mathematical vote-to-seat translation, measured by the Gallagher Index) and **Intentional gerrymandering** (binary intent assessment based on Strong evidence). Researchers must produce data and evidence for both.

The full methodology is specified in:
- `Special research requests/Electoral disproportionality 1.2.md` — Gallagher computation, mixed-system handling, satellite-party clause, sub-1% aggregation rule
- `Special research requests/Intentional gerrymandering 1.0.md` — Strong-evidence A/B/C/D framework, present-state rule, edge cases
- `New scoring guidelines/DFI - Scoring Guidelines 1 - Elections.md` §1.3 + §1.4 — operational scoring details, per-chamber penalty schedules, asymmetric chamber-pair convention

This section specifies what the research-phase researcher must collect and document.

##### 1. Most Recent Election Cycle Requirement

**Required Standard**: Researchers MUST use data from the most recent complete national election cycle when computing the Gallagher Index.

**Rationale**: Electoral boundaries, voting patterns, and political configurations change over time. Using the most recent election data ensures that the assessment reflects the current state of democratic representation rather than historical conditions that may no longer apply. Mid-decade redistricting cycles (e.g., USA 2025–26) require using whichever boundaries are currently in force.

##### 2. Protocol for Bicameral Systems

**Lower House Assessment**: Use data from the most recent lower house election.

**Upper House Assessment**: Use data from the most recent upper house election, even if it occurred at a different time than the lower house election.

**Documentation Requirement**: If the upper and lower house elections occurred in different years, explicitly note this in the research report:
```
ELECTION CYCLE NOTE:
Lower House data from: [Month/Year election]
Upper House data from: [Month/Year election]
```

For staggered upper houses (e.g., Japan's House of Councillors, half-renewed every three years), compute Gallagher on the renewing half against the votes cast for that half — see methodology 1.2 for the convention.

##### 3. Protocol for Unavailable or Incomplete Recent Data

If the most recent election data is unavailable or incomplete, researchers must:

1. Use the next most recent complete election cycle
2. Explicitly document this exception in the research report:
   ```
   ⚠️ ELECTION DATA EXCEPTION ⚠️
   Most recent election ([Month/Year]) data not used due to: [specific reason]
   Alternative data source: Election of [Month/Year]
   Impact assessment: [brief analysis of how this might affect results]
   ```
3. If partial recent data is available, document why it was deemed insufficient

**REQUIRED DATA COLLECTION — Electoral Disproportionality (§1.3):**

1. **Electoral System Classification**
   - Determine the electoral system family (FPTP / list-PR / mixed parallel / compensatory MMP / nationwide PR)
   - Identify each chamber individually for bicameral countries
   - Flag chambers that are Not Applicable for Gallagher: indirectly elected, appointed, hereditary, or based on fixed territorial units (US Senate, Swiss Council of States)

2. **National-Level Vote and Seat Data**
   - Total valid votes cast in the most recent election (per chamber)
   - Votes received by each party that won ≥1% of national vote, listed individually
   - Combined "Other" share of sub-1% parties (only aggregate if combined ≤2%; otherwise list each individually)
   - Seats won by each party
   - Total seats in the chamber

   District-level data is **not required** for Gallagher — only national-level vote and seat totals.

3. **Mixed-System Special Considerations**
   - For parallel mixed and compensatory MMP systems, document whether the **PR-block (party-list) vote** or the **constituency (SMD) vote** is used as the Gallagher denominator (default: PR-block vote, except in satellite-party situations where the constituency vote is required — see methodology 1.2).
   - For compensatory MMP (Germany), note that the final seat allocation is determined by the second vote (Zweitstimme); use Zweitstimme as the vote share.

4. **Gallagher Computation**
   - Compute per chamber: V%, S%, (V−S)² for each party; sum; divide by 2; take square root.
   - Round to 1 decimal place.
   - Show the computation in the research output (party-by-party table).

5. **Classification and Penalty**
   - Look up the bracket: Minimal (<7) / Limited (7–15 inclusive) / Severe (>15)
   - Apply the per-chamber penalty schedule from Scoring Guidelines §1.3.5
   - For asymmetric chamber pairs, apply max-per-chamber-penalty-value convention

6. **Upper House Special Considerations**
   - For chambers Not Applicable, explicitly document why (appointed, hereditary, indirectly elected, fixed territorial units) and mark the row Not Applicable in the YAML.
   - For drawn-district upper houses (e.g., Polish Senat, Japan's House of Councillors prefectural tier), compute Gallagher independently using upper-house election data.

**REQUIRED DATA COLLECTION — Intentional Gerrymandering (§1.4):**

1. **Boundary-Drawing Process Documentation**
   - Identify which body draws district boundaries (legislature, independent commission, courts)
   - Document the statutory framework (e.g., UK Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986/2020, US state-level redistricting authority, Mexican INE constitutional autonomy)
   - Note the date the currently-in-force map was finalized

2. **Per-Chamber Applicability Determination**
   - **Not Applicable**: chamber has no manipulable boundaries — fixed territorial units, nationwide PR, indirectly elected, appointed (e.g., US Senate, German Bundesrat, Netherlands Tweede Kamer)
   - **Boundaries are drawn**: assess for intent

3. **Strong-Evidence Investigation**

   For each chamber where boundaries are drawn, investigate:

   - **Type A — Court rulings**: Has any domestic or international court found the currently-in-force boundaries were drawn with partisan or racially-discriminatory intent? Cite the case, court, date, and ruling. (Example: LULAC v. Texas 2025 federal panel; NC Supreme Court 2022.)
   - **Type B — Legislative-record evidence**: Do transcripts, official documents, or formal debate show partisan-advantage as the explicit goal? Cite the source. (Example: Hungary 2011 Fidesz parliamentary debate.)
   - **Type C — Public statements**: Have lawmakers, governors, or officials with authority over the boundary process publicly stated that partisan advantage was the motive? Cite the statement, source, and date. (Example: Newsom on California Prop 50; Abbott on Texas 2025 "5 GOP seats".)
   - **Type D — Quantitative pattern**: Note any unusually extreme efficiency gap, seats-votes asymmetry, or local Gallagher figure as supporting evidence — but Type D alone does NOT establish intent and should not by itself trigger a "Present" classification.

4. **Present-State Rule Application**
   - Only the boundaries currently in force matter. Past manipulations that have been redrawn don't count.
   - Court-struck-down maps under stay (still in use): Present (Type A applies).
   - Court-ordered remedial maps: Not Present (the current map was court-drawn).
   - Stacked nominally-independent commissions: assess the appointment process for Type A or B evidence.

5. **Federal-Aggregate Treatment**
   - For federal countries where each state/province draws its own portion of the federal lower-house map (USA, Canada, Australia), the federal aggregate inherits the highest-evidence classification across constituent jurisdictions. Document state-by-state findings.

6. **Classification**
   - **Not applicable** / **Not present** / **Lower house — Present** / **Upper house — Present** / **Both houses — Present**
   - Apply per-chamber penalty schedule from Scoring Guidelines §1.4.5

##### Independence of the Two Assessments

The two rows (§1.3 + §1.4) measure independent dimensions and apply penalties independently. A country may show:
- High disproportionality + no intent (UK 2024 — Severe Gallagher 23.7, no Type A/B/C evidence)
- Low disproportionality + intent (USA House 2024 — Minimal Gallagher 1.9 + Lower house — Present from Texas LULAC ruling and California Prop 50)
- Both
- Neither

Researchers must complete both assessments and report each result independently.

#### 3.1.8 Campaign Finance Transparency Requirements Research

When researching campaign finance transparency requirements, researchers must collect specific quantitative data to enable accurate scoring. This component requires particular attention to numeric thresholds and economic context.

**Required Data Collection:**

1. **Minimum Wage Information**
   - Document the country's official monthly minimum wage
   - Include citation to labor law or official statistics
   - Note the effective date of the minimum wage figure
   - If multiple minimum wage levels exist, use the standard national rate

2. **Donation Disclosure Thresholds**
   - Document the exact monetary threshold that triggers disclosure requirements
   - Cite specific article/section of relevant campaign finance or electoral law
   - Note any different thresholds for different types of recipients (parties vs. candidates)
   - Document whether thresholds apply per donation or cumulative donations

3. **Disclosure Content Requirements**
   - Document exactly what donor information must be disclosed:
     * Personal identifiers (name, address, ID numbers)
     * Geographic information (municipality, district)
     * For legal entities: registration numbers, ownership information
   - Document donation details required:
     * Amount
     * Date received
     * Form of donation (monetary/in-kind)

4. **Public Accessibility**
   - Document how disclosed information is made available to the public
   - Verify if a searchable database exists and provide URL
   - Document any access restrictions or fees
   - Note format of available data (machine-readable, PDF, etc.)

5. **Implementation Evidence**
   - Verify practical implementation through examples
   - Document compliance levels if available
   - Note any enforcement actions against non-compliance

**Calculation Requirements:**
```
TRANSPARENCY DATA VERIFICATION:
Monthly minimum wage: [Amount] ([Currency]) - [Citation with date]
Calculated 10% threshold: [Amount] ([Currency])
Legal disclosure threshold: [Amount] ([Currency]) - [Legal citation]
Ratio comparison: [Legal threshold ÷ 10% threshold = X]

This data indicates the disclosure threshold is [X times] the 10% minimum wage benchmark.
```

### 3.2 Holding Politicians Accountable (15%)

#### 3.2.1 National-Level Recall Referendums (60%)
**RESEARCH ONLY:**
- Existence of presidential recall mechanism
- Existence of full parliament recall mechanism
- Existence of partial parliament recall mechanism
- Exact signature thresholds for each mechanism
- Country population for threshold calculation
- Signature collection method (electronic and/or paper)
- Any veto powers over recall referendums

#### 3.2.2 Abrogative Processes (20%)
**RESEARCH ONLY:**
- Citizen-initiated referendum power to repeal laws
- Citizens' assembly power to repeal laws
- Exact signature thresholds
- Country population for threshold calculation
- Signature collection method (electronic and/or paper)
- Any veto powers over citizen-initiated processes

#### 3.2.3 Freedom of Information Laws (20%)
**RESEARCH ONLY:**
- Scope of covered bodies (public institutions, legislative branch, state enterprises, private bodies)
- Response time requirements
- Cost structure (digital and paper formats)
- Format requirements (digital, machine readability, accessibility)
- Oversight body existence and independence level
- Enforcement powers

#### 3.2.4 Independent Accountability Institution Bonus Research Guide

*Purpose*
This guide outlines the essential information researchers must collect to determine if a country qualifies for the 20% or 10% bonus to the "Holding Politicians Accountable" category score.

*Core Qualification Criteria*
To qualify for the bonus, document evidence for ALL four required elements:

1. Authority to investigate misconduct by elected officials at all levels
2. Power to issue remedial actions (binding or non-binding)
3. Accessibility to citizens through direct complaints
4. Independence from electoral, legislative, and judicial processes

*Essential Research Documentation*

##### 1. Investigative Authority
**Document:**
- Legal basis for authority to investigate officials (constitutional or statutory)
- Specific provision confirming jurisdiction over highest officials (president, ministers)
- Evidence of actual investigations of high-level officials (if available)

**Required sources:**
- Direct quotes from constitutional/legal provisions
- Citation of relevant articles/sections

### Key Distinction for DFI Accountability Bonus

When assessing whether a Commissioner for Human Rights, Ombudsman, or similar institution qualifies for the DFI accountability bonus, researchers must carefully distinguish between:

### Rights Protection vs. Misconduct Investigation

**Rights Protection Focus (generally DOES NOT qualify):**
- Primary mandate centers on protecting citizens' rights against violations
- Authority extends to cases where rights have been violated
- May lack explicit authority to investigate misconduct unrelated to rights violations
- Cannot directly investigate corruption, abuse of power, or other misconduct absent a rights violation

**Misconduct Investigation Focus (may qualify):**
- Explicit statutory authority to investigate misconduct, corruption, or abuse of power
- Can proactively investigate officials for ethical breaches or misconduct
- Mandate specifically includes investigating corruption or misuse of office
- Authority clearly extends to the highest officials, including president and ministers
- Can initiate investigations based on misconduct allegations, not just rights violations

### Evidence Requirements

Researchers must document:
1. **Specific legal provisions** granting authority to investigate misconduct (not just rights violations)
2. **Jurisdiction over highest officials** clearly established in law
3. **Practical examples** of investigations into high-level misconduct (when available)
4. Any **limitations or exclusions** that would prevent investigation of certain officials

### Common Terminology Distinctions

- "Human Rights Commissioner/Ombudsman" - Often focused on rights protection, may not qualify
- "Anti-Corruption Commission/Bureau" - More likely to qualify if has proper independence
- "Public Integrity Office/Commission" - Often focused on misconduct, may qualify
- "Auditor General/Court of Accounts" - May qualify if can investigate individual misconduct

### Documentation Example

```
MISCONDUCT INVESTIGATION AUTHORITY:
Legal basis: "[Direct quote showing explicit authority to investigate misconduct, not just rights violations]"
Source: [Law/article establishing this power]

Jurisdiction over highest officials: "[Direct quote confirming authority extends to president, ministers, etc.]"
Source: [Specific provision addressing high-level officials]

Evidence of application: [Documented case of investigation into ministerial or presidential misconduct]
```

##### 2. Remedial Powers
**Document:**
- Legal provisions defining the status of remedial actions
- Evidence determining whether powers are binding or non-binding:
  - **For binding powers (20% bonus)**: Legal language making directives enforceable OR court decisions confirming binding nature
  - **For non-binding powers (10% bonus)**: Requirements for response/consideration of recommendations
- Implementation evidence (compliance rates or notable examples)

**Required sources:**
- Direct quotes from constitutional/legal provisions
- Court decisions interpreting powers (if applicable)
- Evidence of implementation

##### 3. Citizen Accessibility
**Document:**
- Legal provisions establishing direct complaint mechanisms
- Basic complaint procedure (how citizens can file complaints)
- Any significant barriers to access

**Required sources:**
- Direct quotes from constitutional/legal provisions
- Official website or procedures documentation

##### 4. Institutional Independence
**Document:**
- Legal status establishing independence
- Appointment and removal protections
- Term of office and security of tenure
- Basic budgetary arrangements

**Required sources:**
- Direct quotes from constitutional/legal provisions

#### Documentation Template

```
INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTABILITY INSTITUTION ASSESSMENT

INSTITUTION NAME: [Name]

1. INVESTIGATIVE AUTHORITY
Legal basis: "[Direct quote]" [Source citation]
Jurisdiction over highest officials: "[Direct quote]" [Source citation]
Evidence of application: [Brief example if available]

2. REMEDIAL POWERS
Legal status: "[Direct quote]" [Source citation]
Classification determination: [Binding/Non-binding] based on:
- [Primary legal evidence] 
- [Implementation evidence]

3. CITIZEN ACCESSIBILITY
Complaint mechanism: "[Direct quote]" [Source citation]
Procedure: [Brief description of how citizens file complaints]

4. INSTITUTIONAL INDEPENDENCE
Legal status: "[Direct quote]" [Source citation]
Term and removal: "[Direct quote]" [Source citation]
Budgetary arrangements: "[Direct quote]" [Source citation]

BONUS QUALIFICATION DETERMINATION:
[Qualifies for 20% bonus (binding remedial powers)/
Qualifies for 10% bonus (non-binding remedial powers)/
Does not qualify due to [specific criterion failure]]
```

#### Example of Completed Assessment

```
INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTABILITY INSTITUTION ASSESSMENT

INSTITUTION NAME: Public Protector of South Africa

1. INVESTIGATIVE AUTHORITY
Legal basis: "The Public Protector has the power to investigate any conduct in state affairs, or in the public administration in any sphere of government, that is alleged or suspected to be improper or to result in any impropriety or prejudice." [Constitution of South Africa, Section 182(1)]
Jurisdiction over highest officials: "The Public Protector has jurisdiction over all organs of state, including the national executive." [Public Protector Act 1994, Section 6]
Evidence of application: Investigation of former President Jacob Zuma regarding improper benefits in the Nkandla case (2014)

2. REMEDIAL POWERS
Legal status: "The remedial action taken by the Public Protector has a binding effect." [Constitutional Court ruling in Economic Freedom Fighters v. Speaker of the National Assembly (2016)]
Classification determination: Binding based on:
- Constitutional Court ruling explicitly confirming binding nature
- Implementation of directives in high-profile cases

3. CITIZEN ACCESSIBILITY
Complaint mechanism: "Any person may, free of charge, report a matter falling within the jurisdiction of the Public Protector." [Public Protector Act 1994, Section 6(1)]
Procedure: Citizens can file complaints through offices across the country, online portal, or toll-free number

4. INSTITUTIONAL INDEPENDENCE
Legal status: "The Public Protector is subject only to the Constitution and the law." [Constitution of South Africa, Section 181(2)]
Term and removal: "The Public Protector is appointed for a non-renewable period of seven years and may only be removed by a two-thirds majority vote in the National Assembly." [Constitution of South Africa, Section 183]
Budgetary arrangements: "The Public Protector is funded through appropriations by Parliament." [Public Protector Act 1994, Section 3]

BONUS QUALIFICATION DETERMINATION:
Qualifies for 20% bonus (binding remedial powers) based on explicit Constitutional Court ruling confirming the binding nature of remedial actions
```

#### Note on Evidence Standards

- Focus on primary legal sources (constitution, legislation, court rulings)
- Include only the most relevant quotations needed for determination
- When possible, document evidence of actual implementation
- Be explicit about binding vs. non-binding classification
- Ensure all four qualification criteria are addressed

#### Foreign Equivalents Terminology Note

When researching this institution in different countries, look for these common equivalents:
- Ombudsman/Ombudsperson
- Public Protector
- Parliamentary Commissioner
- Inspector General
- People's Advocate
- Human Rights Defender (if has broader powers)
- Public Complaints Commission

### 3.3 Parliamentary Legislative Initiative (5%)

Parliamentary Legislative Initiative is a mechanism that enables citizens to submit proposals for ordinary legislation directly to parliament for deliberation and potential adoption, without automatically triggering a referendum, thus creating a citizen-initiated pathway into the regular parliamentary legislative process.

Parliamentary Legislative Initiative:
1) Works within the parliamentary system rather than bypassing it
2) Preserves parliamentary deliberation and decision-making
3) Gives citizens agenda-setting influence without transferring final decision authority
4) Differs from constitutional change mechanisms and direct democracy processes

**RESEARCH ONLY:**
- Signature collection period length
- Signature requirements (exact thresholds)
- Country population for threshold calculation
- Signature collection method (electronic and/or paper)
- Timeline for initial consideration
- Initiative continuity rules

### 3.4 Referenda (10%)

#### 3.4.1 Legislative Referendum
**RESEARCH ONLY:**
- Legal effect (binding or consultative)
- Turnout requirements (exact percentages)
- Signature requirements (exact thresholds)
- Country population for threshold calculation
- Signature collection method (electronic and/or paper)
- Majority requirements
- Any veto powers over referendums

#### 3.4.2 Policy Issue Referendum
**RESEARCH ONLY:**
- Legal effect (binding or consultative)
- Turnout requirements (exact percentages)
- Signature requirements (exact thresholds)
- Country population for threshold calculation
- Signature collection method (electronic and/or paper)
- Majority requirements
- Any veto powers over referendums

### 3.5 Citizens' Assemblies (15%)

**RESEARCH ONLY:**
- Existence of legislative citizens' assemblies at the national level
- Existence of policy issue citizens' assemblies at the national level
- Legal effect (binding or consultative)
- Signature requirements (exact thresholds)
- Country population for threshold calculation
- Signature collection method (electronic and/or paper)
- Citizens' body for agenda setting (exists or not)
- Independence of coordination (independent or political influence)
- Any veto powers over citizens' assemblies
- For countries without formal provisions: any government-initiated citizens' assemblies (exact number)

#### 3.5.1 Citizens' Assemblies Research Clarification Note

## National-Level Requirement for Citizens' Assemblies

### Important Clarification

When researching citizens' assemblies for the DFI assessment, it is critical to document **only national-level assemblies** that address matters of national significance. 

### Specific Requirements

For formal citizen-initiated assemblies or government-initiated assemblies, the following criteria must be met:

1. **National Scope**: The citizens' assembly must address policy issues of national significance (not local, municipal, or regional matters)

2. **National Authority**: For government-initiated assemblies, they must be established by:
   - National legislature/parliament
   - Head of state/president
   - Prime minister/cabinet
   - Federal/national ministries or departments

3. **National Participation**: The assembly must include participants drawn from across the country, not just a specific locality

### Instances That Do NOT Qualify

The following do not qualify as national-level citizens' assemblies for DFI purposes:

- **Local assemblies**: Citizens' assemblies organized at the municipal or city level (e.g., city of Gdańsk flood management assembly)
- **Regional assemblies**: Assemblies organized by provincial, state, or regional governments
- **Thematic assemblies**: Assemblies that address only local concerns even if organized by national authorities
- **Academic or NGO initiatives**: Assemblies organized by non-governmental entities, even if they address national issues

### Documentation Requirements

When documenting citizens' assemblies, researchers must:

1. Explicitly verify and document the organizing/initiating authority
2. Confirm the geographic scope of both the issues addressed and participant selection
3. Provide evidence of national-level mandate through official documents
4. When in doubt, document the assembly but flag it for further verification during the scoring phase

### Example Distinctions

**Qualifying Example**:
- National Climate Assembly established by parliamentary resolution, with participants selected from across the country to make recommendations on national climate policy

**Non-Qualifying Example**:
- Municipal Citizens' Assembly established by a city council to address local transportation issues, even if well-organized and impactful

### Research Verification Process

For each potential citizens' assembly, complete this verification checklist:

```
CITIZENS' ASSEMBLY VERIFICATION:
Initiating authority: [Specify exact government body]
Official documentation: [Cite specific founding document]
Geographic scope: [National/Regional/Local]
Participant selection: [Nationwide/Regional/Local]
Issues addressed: [National policy/Regional concerns/Local matters]
Final determination: [Qualifies as national-level/Does not qualify]
Reason: [Explicit justification for qualification decision]
```

This strict interpretation is essential for methodological consistency in the DFI framework, as the special scoring provisions for government-initiated assemblies are designed specifically to recognize national-level democratic innovations.

## Expanded Research Scope for Citizens' Assemblies

When researching the existence and characteristics of citizens' assemblies, particularly recent ones that may not yet appear in formal academic publications, researchers must conduct a more extensive investigation beyond traditional academic sources. This is especially important given the rapid evolution of deliberative democracy practices.

### Required Research Sources Beyond Academic Publications

1. **Government Official Websites and Announcements**
   - National parliament and ministry websites
   - Presidential or prime ministerial announcements
   - Official government communications platforms
   - Parliamentary committee reports and proceedings

2. **Dedicated Deliberative Democracy Platforms**
   - Participedia (participedia.net)
   - Democracy R&D Network resources
   - OECD Innovative Citizen Participation database
   - Local Democracy Research Centre resources

3. **Civil Society Organizations**
   - Reports from organizations specializing in democratic governance
   - Documentation from organizations that may have facilitated assemblies
   - Civil society observatory reports on democratic innovations

4. **News Sources in Local Languages**
   - National news agencies and major newspapers
   - Public broadcaster coverage of democratic initiatives
   - Specialized political reporting platforms
   - Parliamentary/governmental press releases

5. **Social Media and Official Government Profiles**
   - Official government social media announcements
   - Dedicated citizens' assembly social media accounts
   - Event documentation and recordings shared on official channels

### Verification Standards for Recent Assemblies

For citizens' assemblies not yet documented in academic literature, researchers must:

1. **Verify Official Status**
   - Document direct evidence of government initiation or endorsement
   - Identify the specific government entity responsible for the assembly
   - Confirm national (rather than local/regional) scope and authority

2. **Document Multiple Independent Sources**
   - Obtain confirmation from at least two independent sources
   - Include at least one primary government source when possible
   - Supplement with expert or civil society confirmation

3. **Gather Specific Details to Confirm National Character**
   - Selection process for participants (nationwide or local)
   - Scope of issues addressed (national policy questions vs. local matters)
   - Implementation authority for recommendations

### Documentation Format for Recent Assemblies

```
RECENT CITIZENS' ASSEMBLY VERIFICATION:
Assembly Name: [Official name of the assembly]
Date Conducted: [Month/Year or range]
Initiating Authority: [Specific government entity that established the assembly]
Primary Source: [Official government documentation - provide URL and access date]
Secondary Source: [Independent verification - provide URL and access date]
Geographic Scope: [Evidence of national rather than local/regional character]
Participant Selection: [Details on selection method and geographic representation]
Issues Addressed: [Summary of policy questions of national significance]
Recommendation Authority: [Legal or political status of the assembly's output]
Determination: [Qualifies/Does not qualify as national-level citizens' assembly]
Rationale: [Specific reasoning with reference to verification criteria]
```

### Language Considerations

Researchers must make reasonable efforts to examine sources in the country's official language(s), especially for recent developments that may not be documented in English. This may include:

1. Using official translation tools to review government websites
2. Consulting local research partners when available
3. Documenting key terms used in searches in the local language
4. Noting any language limitations that affected the research process


### 3.6 Safeguards (15%)

#### 3.6.1 Appointment of Judges (2%)
**RESEARCH ONLY:**
- **Who** appoints judges and through what mechanism
- Match to specific model in scoring framework:
  - Political Appointment Model
  - Independent Commission Model
  - Career Judiciary Model
  - Mixed System Model
  - Parliamentary Model
  - Citizens' Assembly with Expert Commission
  - Bar Examination Model

#### 3.6.2 Media Control Bodies (2%)
**RESEARCH ONLY:**
- **Who** appoints media regulatory bodies and through what mechanism
- Match to specific model in scoring framework:
  - Executive Appointment Model
  - Parliamentary Model
  - Professional Community Model
  - Mixed Stakeholder Model
  - Judicial Oversight Model
  - Independent Commission Model
  - Statutory Public Corporation Model
  - Citizens' Assembly Model

#### 3.6.3 Electoral Commission (2%)
**RESEARCH ONLY:**
- **Who** appoints electoral commission members and through what mechanism
- For countries without electoral commission: how elections are managed
- Match to specific model in scoring framework:
  - Executive Appointment Model
  - Parliamentary Model
  - Judicial Leadership Model
  - Multi-Party Consensus Model
  - Professional Civil Service Model
  - Independent Commission Model
  - Parliamentary Supermajority Model
  - Citizens' Assembly Model
  - Judicial-Executive Hybrid
  - International Oversight Model
  - Technocratic Model
  - Alternative models for countries without commissions

#### 3.6.4 Prosecutor General (2%)
**RESEARCH ONLY:**
- **Who** appoints the Prosecutor General and through what mechanism
- Match to specific model in scoring framework:
  - Executive Appointment with Legislative Confirmation
  - Independent Council Selection
  - Mixed System
  - Professional Body Selection
  - Multi-stakeholder Model
  - Citizens' Assembly with Expert Commission
  - Direct Parliamentary Selection
  - Judicial Appointment Model

#### 3.6.5 Constitutional Court Members (3%)
**RESEARCH ONLY:**
- **Who** nominates constitutional court members (50%)
- **Who** selects/appoints constitutional court members (50%)
- Match to specific models in scoring framework for both processes

#### 3.6.6 Election Results Validation (3%)
**RESEARCH ONLY:**
- **Which institution** has final authority to validate election results
- Match to specific model in scoring framework:
  - Supreme/Constitutional Court Model
  - Specialized Electoral Court Model
  - Electoral Commission Model
  - Parliamentary Validation Model
  - Multi-Institution Model
  - Decentralized Model
  - Citizens' Assembly Model

### 3.7 Ability to Change the Constitution (15%)

#### 3.7.1 Initiation Methods (30%)
**RESEARCH ONLY:**
- Available citizen-initiated methods and thresholds
- Parliamentary-initiated requirements
- Executive-initiated options
- Federal/Regional unit-initiated mechanisms
- Preliminary referendum options
- Country population for threshold calculation
- Signature collection method (electronic and/or paper)

#### 3.7.2 Process Type (35%)
**RESEARCH ONLY:**
- All constitutionally available amendment pathways:
  - Parliamentary Process
  - Constitutional Convention/Assembly
  - Citizens' Assembly Process
  - Expert Commission Process
  - Hybrid/Multi-Stage Process
  - Direct Democracy Process

#### 3.7.3 Approval Mechanisms (35%)
**RESEARCH ONLY:**
- Direct citizen approval methods and thresholds
- Mixed representative-direct approval systems
- Representative approval with cooling periods
- Unicameral parliamentary approval requirements
- Bicameral parliamentary approval requirements
- Federal system approval requirements

#### 3.7.4 Distortions to Democratic Process
**RESEARCH ONLY:**
- Monarch's veto powers
- Religious authorities' veto powers
- Military veto powers
- Unelected body veto powers
- Provisions protecting elite privileges
- Protections for anti-democratic structures
- Historical use of these powers

## 4. Documentation Format

### 4.1 Country Profile (Required Basic Information)

```
COUNTRY: [Name]
CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM: [Presidential/Parliamentary/Semi-Presidential]
CURRENT CONSTITUTION: [Year adopted]
POPULATION: [Current figure with source]
COUNTRY SIZE CLASSIFICATION: [Small/Medium/Large per DFI methodology]
```

### 4.2 Component Documentation Template

For each scorable component, use this streamlined template:

```
COMPONENT: [Name as in DFI methodology]
SCORING-RELEVANT FEATURES:
- [Exact feature that determines score]
- [Exact threshold or characteristic from scoring criteria]
LEGAL BASIS:
"[Direct quote of relevant constitutional/legal provisions]"
SOURCE: [Citation with article/section numbers]
CLASSIFICATION:
[Which scoring category this clearly matches]
```

### 4.2.1 Example of Documentation: Foreign Source Donations with Loopholes

```
# DFI Research Report - United States

## Country Profile
COUNTRY: United States
CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM: Presidential
CURRENT CONSTITUTION: 1789 (with amendments)
POPULATION: 331,449,281 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2020)
COUNTRY SIZE CLASSIFICATION: Large (>50 million per DFI methodology)

## 1. Elections

### 1.2. Donation Restrictions

#### 1.2.1 Foreign Source Donations
SCORING-RELEVANT FEATURES:
- Foreign donations to federal campaigns and political parties are explicitly prohibited
- Foreign nationals cannot make contributions to federal, state, or local elections
- Technical loopholes exist through domestic subsidiaries of foreign corporations

LEGAL BASIS:
"It shall be unlawful for a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value... in connection with a Federal, State, or local election."
SOURCE: Federal Election Campaign Act, 52 U.S.C. § 30121, https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/feca.pdf

FOREIGN DONATION LOOPHOLES ASSESSMENT:

IDENTIFIED LOOPHOLES:
1. Domestic subsidiaries of foreign corporations - FEC Advisory Opinions
   "A U.S. subsidiary of a foreign corporation may establish a separate segregated fund (corporate PAC) that may make contributions to federal elections if: (1) the foreign parent does not finance election-related contributions or expenditures; and (2) no foreign national participates in decisions regarding contributions or expenditures."
   SOURCE: FEC Advisory Opinion 2006-15, https://www.fec.gov/files/legal/aos/2006-15/2006-15.pdf

2. Opaque nonprofit organizations - Regulatory gap
   "501(c)(4) social welfare organizations and 501(c)(6) trade associations are not required to disclose their donors publicly, and can engage in political activities as long as it is not their primary purpose."
   SOURCE: Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(4), § 501(c)(6)

ENFORCEMENT ASSESSMENT:
"The FEC, which enforces campaign finance laws, requires a majority vote (at least 4 of 6 commissioners) to investigate or penalize violations. The commission has frequently deadlocked along partisan lines on enforcement matters, including those related to foreign influence."
SOURCE: Federal Election Commission v. Weinstein, 462 F. Supp. 243 (S.D.N.Y. 2020)

DOCUMENTED EXAMPLES OF EXPLOITATION:
"U.S. subsidiaries of foreign-owned companies have donated millions to super PACs through their American operations. For example, in the 2018 election cycle, U.S. subsidiaries of foreign companies donated over $1.5 million to super PACs."
SOURCE: Center for Responsive Politics, "Foreign-Connected PACs," https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs/foreign-connected-pacs

CLASSIFICATION:
- Official Campaign Account: Completely prohibited (4 points)
- Other Campaign Channels: Completely prohibited (4 points)
- Loopholes: Exist (-25% penalty) based on documented subsidiary loophole, nonprofit opacity, and enforcement gaps
```

### 4.3 For Non-Existent Mechanisms

```
COMPONENT: [Name as in DFI methodology]
STATUS: Not present in constitutional/legal framework
VERIFICATION:
"[Exact evidence confirming absence]"
SOURCE: [Citation]
```

### 4.4 Headings
For each category and subcategory please add clear headings.


## 5. Quality Control Checklist

Before completing the Research Phase, verify:

- [ ] All components from DFI scoring framework have been researched
- [ ] Each component has the specific information needed for scoring
- [ ] Direct quotes from primary sources are provided for key features
- [ ] Country size classification is correctly determined
- [ ] All population-based thresholds have exact figures for comparison
- [ ] Each institutional mechanism is matched to its specific scoring model
- [ ] No information gaps exist for scorable features
- [ ] No evaluation or scoring language has been included
- [ ] Foreign donation loopholes properly investigated and documented

## 6. Research Phase Implementation Process

1. **Start with scoring criteria**: Review the DFI scoring framework for each category
2. **Create targeted research questions**: For each component, identify exactly what determines the score
3. **Collect only relevant information**: Focus solely on the specific features that affect scoring
4. **Document precisely**: Provide only the information needed to apply the scoring framework
5. **Verify classification fit**: Ensure institutional features are properly matched to scoring categories
6. **Prepare for scoring transition**: Organize information to directly facilitate scoring application

***

## 7. Foreign Donation Loopholes Research Guide

### 7.1 Key Investigation Areas

When researching potential foreign donation loopholes, focus on these key areas:

1. **Legal Review**
   - Campaign finance laws
   - Electoral regulations
   - Regulatory body advisory opinions
   - Court decisions interpreting relevant laws
   - Anti-corruption provisions related to foreign influence

2. **Enforcement Gap Analysis**
   - Structure of enforcement bodies
   - Procedural requirements for investigations
   - Supermajority requirements for enforcement actions
   - Historical enforcement record
   - Resources allocated to enforcement

3. **Corporate Structure Investigation**
   - Domestic subsidiary provisions
   - Requirements for segregation of foreign and domestic funds
   - Foreign parent company influence restrictions
   - Decision-making authority requirements for political spending

4. **Nonprofit/Dark Money Channels**
   - Disclosure requirements for politically active nonprofits
   - Rules governing donor anonymity
   - Foreign funding restrictions for advocacy organizations
   - Reporting requirements for political activities

5. **Shell Company Vulnerability**
   - Corporate beneficial ownership disclosure requirements
   - Corporate donor verification procedures
   - Anti-money laundering provisions related to political donations
   - Requirements for establishing corporate donors' funding sources

### 7.2 Key Sources for Loophole Research

1. **Primary Legal Sources**
   - Electoral laws and regulations
   - Campaign finance statutes
   - Regulatory body rules and opinions
   - Court decisions on campaign finance issues

2. **Expert Assessments**
   - Electoral integrity reports from recognized organizations
   - Academic studies on campaign finance loopholes
   - Parliamentary committee investigations
   - Independent electoral commission reviews

3. **Enforcement Data**
   - Regulatory body enforcement records
   - Settled cases and penalties
   - Investigation statistics
   - Complaint dismissal patterns

4. **Investigative Journalism**
   - Documented cases of foreign influence
   - Investigations tracking money flows
   - Exposure of enforcement failures
   - Case studies of loophole exploitation

### 7.3 Documentation Standards for Foreign Donation Loopholes

For proper documentation of foreign donation loopholes, researchers must:

1. **Precisely identify the specific legal or regulatory provisions** creating the loophole
2. **Provide direct quotes from authoritative sources** describing the loophole
3. **Document any evidence of actual exploitation** of the loophole
4. **Cite expert opinions from nonpartisan sources** analyzing the loophole
5. **Note any reform proposals or attempts** to close identified loopholes
6. **Distinguish between theoretical and demonstrated loopholes** in the documentation

### 7.4 Foreign Donation Loopholes Investigation Checklist

Before finalizing the foreign donation loophole assessment, verify:

- [ ] Have I researched both direct and indirect donation channels?
- [ ] Have I identified specific legal/regulatory provisions creating loopholes?
- [ ] Have I documented enforcement mechanisms and their effectiveness?
- [ ] Have I provided evidence of loophole exploitation from credible sources?
- [ ] Have I distinguished between legal prohibitions on paper versus in practice?
- [ ] Have I avoided speculation and relied on documented facts?
- [ ] Have I included direct quotes from authoritative sources?
- [ ] Have I properly classified the loophole according to DFI criteria?



