Актуальные проблемы Европы №2 / 2014

This study examines how all twenty-two Mediterranean countries differ on the sole Worldwide Governance Indicator, Rule of Law (RL). RL scores for 214 countries in 2011, collected under the auspices of the World Bank, are freely available on the Internet (17). The scores were normed so that the mean (average) for all 214 countries was 0 and the standard deviation was 1. Positive scores above 0 indicated that the nation scored above average on Rule of Law, while negative scores indicated below average scores.

In 2011, Finland had the highest score of +1.96, with seven other nations above +1.8. Somalia had the lowest score at –2.35. For further reference, Russia’s score was –0.78 and the United States scored +1.59. The distribution of scores for 214 nations is given in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Distribution of 214 polities on Rule of Law in 2011

This study focuses on the 22 Mediterranean countries – including Portugal. It compares the 2011 Rule of Law for countries north of the Mediterranean Sea with those to the south and east. It also compares RL scores for Mediterranean countries in the European Union, for those seeking EU membership, for those entirely out of the EU, and for all non-Mediterranean EU countries. The 9 EU Mediterranean countries averaged +0.93 on Rule of Law, below the +1.2 average of the 19 EU countries outside the Mediterranean. The 4 EU applicant countries scored –0.17 on RL, and the 9 countries not in the EU averaged –0.24. The data for all 41 Mediterranean and EU countries are plotted in Figure 3.

Figure 3.2011 RL Scores for Mediterranean countries, by EU Status

Figure 3 shows that EU members generally scored higher on Rule of Law in 2011 than the other countries, but two member states (Romania and Bulgaria) scored about the same as the EU applicants. All nine Mediterranean EU members scored higher on Rule of Law as a group than the non-EU countries – with the exception of Monaco and Israel. Tiny Monaco, by location and heritage a European polity, even adopted the Euro for its currency. The «External Action Service» of the EU is studying how it might incorporate «microstates» like Monaco, Andorra, and San Marino, but has not decided how (15). Israel, it might be argued, is by heritage a European country, but it is not by location. Moreover, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict presents political problems for the EU. Israel has attracted special attention in the EU’s «neighbourhood policy» (3).

All four EU applicants among the Mediterranean countries rated lower in Rule of Law than the nine already in the EU, but the small differences between Croatia at the bottom of the EU scores and the Rule of Law scores for Turkey and Montenegro fall short of statistical significance for the Worldwide Governance Indicators (10, p. 11). Clearly, however, the seven Arab nations (all in Africa except Lebanon) as a group rate below all the European countries, regardless of their EU status.

Alternative Theories of Country Governance

The XVIII century French philosopher Charles-Louis Montesquieu might explain differences between European and African countries in Rule of Law by differences in climate. He wrote that «passions disclose themselves earlier» in «warm climates»9. Northern European countries score higher in Rule of Law than African countries, he might say, because of climatic differences. The temperate European climate, presumably, favors rational development of rule of law in public affairs, while the hot African climate produces hot-blooded politics and authoritarian government. Long before Montesquieu wrote, however, inhabitants in the mild climates of today’s European territories were mired in ignorance during the «middle ages» of the V through the XV centuries, while Arabs in hot climates of today’s northern Africa embraced a «golden age» of science, philosophy, medicine, and government during the VIII to the XIII centuries.

Clearly, complex historical factors account for contemporary differences in the political development of the Mediterranean countries. This study seeks only to explain differences in their 2011 Rule of Law scores in terms of country size, wealth, and party systems. It will follow the worldwide analysis of 212 polities employed in «Party Systems and Country Governance», which theorized that the quality of governance depended on size, wealth, and politics – as reflected in features of a nation’s party system (9, p. 59–80). The social conditions of size and wealth are easily expressed. The smaller the country, the easier to govern and therefore the better its governance. The wealthier the country, the more governmental resources available and the better its governance. The study of 212 polities used the log of country area in square kilometers to measure size (9, p. 59–81), and the log of GDP per capita in 2004 to measure wealth (9, p. 81–94.)

Concerning country party systems, three traits were studied: