As for issues of observations. Subjective assessments of objective phenomena vary according to the vantage point of the observer. But, as I noted in the post about conceptual stretching, that does not obviate the original objective condition. What makes for subjective difference is the objective insertion of the observer in the social milieu. It is recognition of this fact that gives credence to the more informed of post-modern analyses.

Can you have a democracy when the majority population may score above the line for the catagories you mentioned, namely procedual, institutional, societal and economic. But a subset of that population may score below the line, from their perspective. A extreme example may be slavery. The slaves don’t live or participate in a democratic society yet the larger society could be seen as having a number of democratic features, and perhaps could score above the democracy line.

Colonisation or more specifically de-colonisation is surely on the spectrum with slavery at one end and freedom at the other. Is there a correlation between these degrees of freedom and the amount of democracy? If a person is less free does that mean they have less democracy?

If one of the tenents of democracy is personal freedom, does an indigenous, disadvantaged, colonised people actually live in a democracy? For them there is less freedom than for the majority. I suppose when the minority is 1% or 2% it is perhaps not such a major consideration but what if the minority is 30% of the population?

So I suppose my questions (longwinded i know) are, Can a country be called democratic when there is a subset of indigenous, disadvantaged people living within that population who do not experience the same manifestation of democracy as the majority?
And further, if that country cannot truely be called a democracy – what is the correct term for the political structure?
Is colonisation a macro external event that affects democracy, like war, or is colonisation incorporated within the internal workings of democracy, as articulated by the various scoring you have mentioned. In other words if a country is colonised do we just score them lower in certain catagories because the overall theme of democracy is intact?

Finally it all boils down to this… If a country cannot be actually called a true democracy while certain indigenous citizens are structurally disadvantaged… then is NZ a democracy? is the US a democracy? Is australia a democracy? and is canada a democracy? These 4 countries are all colonised and the indigenous peoples of those countries are disadvantaged. Also interesting to note they are the 4 countries that did not ratify the UN declaration on indigenous rights.
I am born and breed in this country, I have never lived in an autocratic society, perhaps i haven’t ever lived in a democratic society either.
Appreciate your thoughts.
All the best.

How much does the observer distort the observation by the very act of observing? For example an indigenous person placed into a society that has undergone colonisation may look at the minority who have less democracy than the majority and score/say that this society is not very democratic. The same person may instead identify with the majority and say there is a high degree of democratisation. I’m interested in how those views are reconcilled.