Structure The People Index (TPI) measures the quality of political systems by means of three main indicators: A) Human rights (of the people), B) Participation (by the people), C) Coordination (for the people). All three indicators refer not only to formal proclamations, but to effective practice. They are defined with reference to the following questions: A) Human rights 1. Are all inhabitants respected as free and equal citizens? 2. Are fair and free procedures common? 3. Are all international borders respected? B) Participation 1. May the people elect and recall their government? 2. May the people participate in current decision-making? 3. How representative are the people’s representations? C) Coordination 1. Is there guaranteed peace? 2. Is the public infrastructure sufficiently fostered? 3. Is the economy well coordinated? 4. How equally are the incomes distributed? 5. Is health effectively protected? 6. Are qualification and education, research & development well managed? 7. Ecological and financial sustainability Used terms are operationalized in the TPI Manual. Evaluation Each operationalized question is - referring to a defined case - answered with a score in the spectrum from 0% to 100%. The individual scores to any main indicator are summed up and divided without any specific weighting. The three main indicators (human rights, participation, coordination) are evaluated only individually without any reciprocal offsetting. Indeed, the constellations between individual indicator scores are routinely sorted according to the following patterns: Democracy is considered to be given whenever the scores for all three indicators reach more than 66.7%. Anomy is considered to be given whenever the scores for all three indicators are lower than 33.3%. Autocracy is considered to be given whenever the human rights score is lower than 33.3% while the score for coordination is higher than this value. Forms of autocratic participation are possible. Any political system shows case-specific constellations  of the three main indicators. Thus there are more or less effectively coordinated democracies, more or less participative democracies, and more or less protected human rights in a democracy. These different constellations can be generalized to sub-types of democracy. Particularly relevant sub-types of autocracies are authoritarian and totalitarian systems: While authoritarian systems exhibit (compared to totalitarian systems) relatively low degrees of participation and relatively low losses of human rights, totalitarian systems are usually characterized through high degrees of autocratic participation and a complete loss of human rights. An extreme form of totalitarian systems are murderous autocracies, that try to systematically annihilate marginal or anyhow deviant parts of their population.      Any other indicator constellation makes up a hybrid. Specific types of hybrids are: Democracy - Autocracy Hybrid: coordination and participation scores over 66.7%; human rights score lower Middle Range Hybrid: scores between 33.3% and 66.7% for all three indicators Weak Coordination: coordination score distinctly lower than human rights and participation Traversing Hybrid: Scores for single variables and main indicators traversing all three areas of evaluation (higher than 66.7%, between 33.3 and 66.7%, lower than 33.3%)    Altogether we see that any constellation of evaluation results can be sorted within a three-pole model of democracy, autocracy, and anomy. This model reflects the fact that democracies and autocracies differ regarding some variables; both system types can fulfill significant coordination functions. Anomies, particularly given in and through (civil) wars, in contrast, do not so.    
Comparative Profiles Compared with other political system indices, The People Index (TPI) shows some special features: While other indices usually operate with a two- pole model of democracy versus autocracy, TPI operates with the described three-pole model of democracy, autocracy, and anomy. By including anomy TPI becomes significantly more realistic  than the other indices - see for instance the evaluation of the Arabic Spring and civil wars such as in Syria.  While political systems used to be conceived of only as frames of political decision-making and political legitimation, they are now considered to be institutional frames of more or less effective governance. At it, governance of the people (human rights), governance  by the people (participation), and governance for the people (coordination) are conceived of as functionally linked with each other - a new model of political systems.  In contrast to other political system indices, TPI excludes any offsetting (average-building) of its main indicators. Instead human rights, participation, and coordination are strictly independently assessed and evaluated regarding their constellations. hence TPI is a constellational index. While many other indices focus on formal institutional patterns, TPI clearly focusses on the effective practice of human rights, participation, and coordination. At it, analysts should try to understand linkages and functions of formal and informal mechanisms as well as possible. Insofar the index strives at fostering a better understanding of political systems. While some other indices (particularly Freedom House, Polity IV, and implicite Bertelsmann Index) tend to give best marks (10 from 10 and suchlike) for the individual own country - particularly the USA -, TPI uses the full spectrum of grades not only for evaluating developmental countries, but also for evaluating developed countries.    In contrast to closed expert shops of making and managing indices, TPI is a public project with open access, open discussion, and full transparency: Anybody interested in participating, above all in selecting, developing, and performing a TPI case study, is invited to to so. We try to support you, as far as you want to get support, and we communicate all studies in the best possible way. If there should arise a difference of evaluation that cannot be cleared out, an open and public discussion on this case will be take place. In contrast to other indices, TPI is not financed by national governments, big business, religions, or any other source of overly power. In that sense it is a strictly independent index - indeed dependent on voluntary support by its users and the public. Experiences and Current Studies Hitherto five pilot studies on Germany, Finland, USA, Saudi Arabia, and the NS (Nazi) System have been published. Eight further case studies are under construction: China, Islamic State, France, Ukraine, Luxemburg, Namibia, Democratic Congo, Egypt. Uses The People Index (TPI) can be fruitfully used in diverse manners: 1. Based on the index, qualities of political systems can be presented in an instructive overview. 2. The index opens up insights into specific indicator areas, particularly human rights, participation, and coordination. 3. Diverse political systems can be compared with each other.  4. The results of evaluations and comparisons may incite the political practice to protect human rights better, to enable political participation, and to strengthen effective coordination. 5. Basic models and concepts of the index may incite the scientific discussion on political systems’ theory. 6. The TPI may become the starting point for systematical empirical research on relations between political coordination, participation, and human rights (citizenship). At it, also relations between single variables, for example between ecological sustainability and human rights, may become a subject of systematical research.     
IPA Institute for Political Analysis Prof. Dr. Volker von Prittwitz
The People Index  Structure - Evaluation - Comparative Profiles - Uses Volker von Prittwitz/March 03, 2016 
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Human Rights Participation Coordination Totalitarian Authoritarian Types of  Autocracies (TPI/  Exemplaric)