 |
Foundation for Democratic Advancement |
|
|
| FDA Reports | FDA in the News | Public Input | Contact the FDA | FDA Blog |
Greek Protest December 2009
|
|
|
The Foundation for Democratic Advancement (FDA)'s mission is to advance a people's democracy, whereby a democratic government is "of the people, by the people, and for the people." The FDA applies this basic democratic standard to developed democracies. Moreover, the FDA assists emerging and developing democracies with their development to a people's democracy. The FDA supports the promotion of a people's democracy as an end-in-itself.
To fulfill its mission, the FDA audits political candidates and parties during elections, and audits policies of elected representatives. For example, the FDA has conducted audits on the main candidates in the 2008 US Presidential elections and 2009 Afghanistan Presidential elections, the Aldermen candidates in the 2007 Lethbridge Civic Evaluation, the immigration policies of the main parties in the 2010 Dutch General election, and the proposed Jumbo Glacier Resort. Currently, the FDA is planning audit programs for Pakistan, Venezuela, Turks and Caicos Islands, Lethbridge (Alberta), and the United States. Moreover, the FDA blog provides daily information on democracy audits and issues.
|
|
|
|
FDA Evaluation of the 2010 Dutch Immigration Policies FDA ranking and grading of the immigration policies of the six main candidates from the 2010 Dutch Election:
The lower the grade, the less satisfactory the candidate is. The higher the grade, the more satisfactory the candidate is.
Balkenende’s immigration policy is Euro-centric, Dutch-centric, anti-immigrant, inconsistent with Dutch western values such as freedom of expression, encourages brain drain from other countries, in denial of cultural and ethnic diversity of the Netherlands, and overall reactionary and controlling. Specifically the Balenende’s policy promotes stricter immigrant integration, stricter requirements for family reunification and marriage migration, stricter requirements for migration, and supports restrictions on Dutch Muslims. The score of 30% derived from Balkenende’s partial understanding democratic values, some of the limits to Dutch immigration, and social cohesion. Cohen’s policy is all embracing, and demonstrates an understanding of the ethnic dynamic of Dutch society. Also, the policy upholds Dutch democratic values and values of human dignity, equality, and solidarity. The score of 70% as opposed to a higher score derived from lack of policy specifics. Roemer’s policy is based on democratic values, anti-brain drain, and demonstrates a respect for immigrants, which is lacking in the Balkenende’s policy. The score of 70% as opposed to a higher score derived from lack of policy specifics. Rutte’s policy is anti-immigration, anti-immigrant, and Dutch-centric, and yet at the same time, anti-integration and anti-immigration bureaucracy. Consequently, Rutte received a score of 50%. Wilder’s policy is backward in terms of the cultural and ethnic diversity of the Netherlands, and an appeal to a nationalistic, ideal Dutch state. His score of 20% reflects his ideal vision. Haselma’s policy has the most developed immigration policy which is in the better interest of the Dutch people. The policy is anti-integration, respects Dutch democratic values, value based, tolerant, and looks at immigration policy from the immigrants’ standpoint. The score of 75% reflects the overall broadmindedness of Haselma’s policy. A higher score would have been awarded if her policy had more specifics.
The evaluation of the Dutch immigration policies resulted in a 50-50 split between broadminded immigration policies versus a narrow-minded immigration policies. The split reflects the division Dutch society and Europe as a whole is facing regarding immigration. In terms of the well-being and better interests of Dutch society, and from the standpoint of immigration, it would be positive if Femke Halsema (GreenLeft), Job Cohen (Dutch Labour Party), and/or Emile Roemer (Socialist Party) were elected to the 2010 Dutch government. On the contrary, if none of these parties or their policies on immigration are part of the next Dutch government, then it does not bode well for the future development of Dutch society.
|
|
|
|
2010 British Election Evaluation Britain Report British Election results Jumbo Glacier Resort Project Quality of Life Assessment Jumbo Report 2009 Afghanistan Presidential Evaluation Afghanistan Report
|
|
|