Search
Filter by
Type
Publication date
Language
Type
Publication date
Language
Showing 4091 - 4100 of 7817 results
Publication
Survey
2004 Tracking Survey Results from Wave XIII (June 23, 2004)
Methodology • Waves I, II, IX, and X surveys were conducted using face-to-face interviews with 1250 respondents (each wave), selected by multi-stage random sampling of eligible voters throughout each of the 32 provinces of Indonesia. The Wave III survey was conducted in half the sampled locations throughout the country in 16 provinces with 1000 respondents, and the Wave IV survey was conducted in the rest of the sampled locations, in the other 16 provinces, with 1000 respondents. Each of the Waves V to VIII surveys were conducted in 8 different provinces with 1000 respondents in each Wave, for a national total of 4000 respondents covering all provinces. The Wave XI survey was conducted in half the sampled locations throughout the country in 16 provinces with 1000 respondents, and the Wave XII survey was conducted in the rest of the sampled locations, in 15 provinces, with 1000 respondents. The Wave XIII survey was conducted in 31 provinces with 1250 respondents. The province of Maluku was omitted fromthe Wave XII and Wave XIII surveys due to security problems. • The composition of the data in Wave I, Wave II, Waves III and IV combined, Waves V through VIII combined, Wave IX, Wave X, Waves XI and XII combined, and Wave XIII reflects the rural/urban, men/women and inter-provincial proportions of the Indonesian population. • The margin of error for the national data for each wave in Waves I, II, IX, X, and XIII is +/-2.8% at a 95% confidence level. The margin of error for each of the combined Waves III & IV, and Wave XI & XII data is +/-2.2% at a 95% confidence level. The margin of error for the combined Waves V through VIII data is +/-1.55% at a 95% confidence level. • For Wave I, the face-to-face interviews were conducted between 13 and 18 December 2003. For Wave II, the interviews were conducted between 12 and 15 January 2004. For Wave III, the interviews were conducted between January 26 and February 1. For Wave IV, the interviews were conducted between February 1 and 6. For Wave V, the dates of interviews were February 15-19; for Wave VI, February 21-25; for Wave VII, February 27-March 2; for Wave VIII, March 6-10 (the day before the commencement of the election campaign). For Wave IX, face-to-face interviews were conducted between March 21 and 28, 2004. For Wave X, face-to-face interviews were conducted between April 7 and 14, 2004. For Wave XI, face-to-face interviews were conducted between April 20 and 27. For Wave XII, face-to-face interviews were conducted between May 1 and 8. For Wave XIII, face-to-face interviews were conducted between June 4 and 9. • In this report, any data from the Wave I, Wave II, Waves III-IV, Waves V through VIII surveys, Wave IX, Wave X, Wave XI and XII combined is specifically cited in the charts and text. All other data points are from the Wave XIII survey. Regional breakdowns reflect data from the Wave XIII survey.
June 22, 2004
Publication
Survey
2004 Tracking Survey Results from Wave XI through XII (June 2004)
Methodology • Both the Wave I and Wave II surveys were conducted using face-to-face interviews with 1250 respondents (each wave), selected by multi-stage random sampling of eligible voters throughout each of the 32 provinces of Indonesia. The Wave III survey was conducted in half the sampled locations throughout the country in 16 provinces with 1000 respondents, and the Wave IV survey was conducted in the rest of the sampled locations, in the other 16 provinces, with 1000 respondents. Each of the Waves V to VIII surveys were conducted in 8 different provinces with 1000 respondents in each Wave, for a national total of 4000 respondents covering all provinces. The Wave IX survey was conducted nationally with 1250 respondents. The Wave X survey was also conducted nationally with 1250 respondents. The Wave XI survey was conducted in half the sampled locations throughout the country in 16 provinces with 1000 respondents, and the Wave XII survey was conducted in the rest of the sampled locations, in 15 provinces, with 1000 respondents. The province of Maluku was omitted from the Wave XII survey due to security problems. • The composition of the data in Wave I, Wave II, Waves III and IV combined, Waves V through VIII combined, Wave IX, Wave X, and Waves XI and XII combined, reflects the rural/urban, men/women and inter-provincial proportions of the Indonesian population. • The margin of error for the national data for each wave in Waves I, II, IX, and X is +/-2.8% at a 95% confidence level. The margin of error for the combined Waves III and IV data is +/-2.2% at a 95% confidence level. The margin of error for the combined Waves V through VIII data is +/-1.55% at a 95% confidence level. The margin of error for the combined Waves XI and XII data is +/-2.2% at a 95% confidence level. • For Wave I, the face-to-face interviews were conducted between 13 and 18 December 2003. For Wave II, the interviews were conducted between 12 and 15 January 2004. For Wave III, the interviews were conducted between January 26 and February 1. For Wave IV, the interviews were conducted between February 1 and 6. For Wave V, the dates of interviews were February 15-19; for Wave VI, February 21-25; for Wave VII, February 27-March 2; for Wave VIII, March 6-10 (the day before the commencement of the election campaign). For Wave IX, face-to-face interviews were conducted between March 21 and 28, 2004. For Wave X, face-to-face interviews were conducted between April 7 and 14, 2004. ForWave XI, face-to-face interviews were conducted between April 20 and 27. For Wave XII, face-to-face interviews were conducted between May 1 and 8. • In this report, any data from the Wave I, Wave II, Waves III-IV, Waves V through VIII surveys, Wave IX, and Wave X is specifically cited in the charts and text. All other data points are from the combined Wave XI and XII surveys. Regional breakdowns reflect data from the combined Wave XI and XII surveys.
May 31, 2004
Publication
Survey
2004 Tracking Survey Results from Wave XIV (June 2004)
Methodology • Waves I, II, IX, and X surveys were conducted using face-to-face interviews with 1250 respondents (each wave), selected by multi-stage random sampling of eligible voters throughout each of the 32 provinces of Indonesia. The Wave III survey was conducted in half the sampled locations throughout the country in 16 provinces with 1000 respondents, and the Wave IV survey was conducted in the rest of the sampled locations, in theother 16 provinces, with 1000 respondents. Each of the Waves V to VIII surveys were conducted in 8 different provinces with 1000 respondents in each Wave, for a national total of 4000 respondents covering all provinces. The Wave XI survey was conducted in half the sampled locations throughout the country in 16 provinces with 1000 respondents, and the Wave XII survey was conducted in the rest of the sampled locations, in 15 provinces, with 1000 respondents. The Wave XIII survey was conducted in 31 provinces with 1250 respondents. The province of Maluku was omitted from the Wave XII and Wave XIII surveys due to security problems. The Wave XIV survey was conducted in 32 provinces with 2000 respondents. • The composition of the data in Wave I, Wave II, Waves III and IVcombined, Waves V through VIII combined, Wave IX, Wave X, Waves XI and XII combined, Wave XIII, and Wave XIV reflects the rural/urban, men/women and inter-provincial proportions of the Indonesian population. • The margin of error for the national data for each wave in Waves I, II, IX, X, and XIII is +/-2.8% at a 95% confidence level. The margin of error for each ofthe combined Waves III/IV, Wave XI/XII, and Wave XIV data is +/-2.2% at a 95% confidence level. The margin of error for the combined Waves V through VIII data is +/-1.55% at a 95% confidence level. • For Wave I, the face-to-face interviews were conducted between 13 and 18 December 2003. For Wave II, the interviews were conducted between 12 and 15 January 2004. For Wave III, the interviews were conducted between January 26 and February 1. For Wave IV, the interviews were conducted between February 1 and 6. For Wave V, the dates of interviews were February 15-19; for Wave VI, February 21-25; for Wave VII, February 27-March 2; for Wave VIII, March 6-10 (the day before the commencement of the election campaign). For Wave IX, face-to-face interviews were conducted between March 21 and 28, 2004. For Wave X, face-to-face interviews were conducted between April 7 and 14, 2004. For Wave XI, face-to-face interviews were conducted between April 20 and 27. For Wave XII, face-to-face interviews were conducted between May 1 and 8. For Wave XIII, face-to-face interviews were conducted between June 4 and 9. For Wave XIV, face-to-face interviews were conducted between June 17 and 26. • In this report, any data from the Wave I, Wave II, Waves III/IV, Waves V through VIII surveys, Wave IX, Wave X, Waves XI/XII, and Wave XIII is specifically cited in the charts and text. All other data pointsare from Wave XIV survey. Regional breakdowns reflect data fromthe Wave XIV survey.
May 31, 2004
Publication
Report/Paper
Continuous Registration: Experiences in Trinidad, Tobago, Jamaica and Guyana
In October 23-24, 2003 IFES supported GECOM in conducting a workshop to study the issue of voter registration in Guyana. The goal of this workshop was for GECOM staff to analyze and discuss the pros and cons of the current system in place in Guyana and receive first-hand reports of the benefits of the continuous registration system from international experts, and discuss whether such a system should be implemented in Guyana. With the results of the discussions, a team of GECOM staff will further analyze the legal, administrative and financial issues to take into account for such a system to be implemented in Guyana. We are grateful to Mr. Cayenne from Trinidad and Mr. Walker from Jamaica for their attendance and participation in this workshop. We would also like the thank Mr. Goocol Boodoo, Ms. Octive-Hamilton and Mr. Benn from the Guyana Elections Commission for their input and focus on specific issues pertaining to continuous registration.
May 04, 2004
Publication
Survey
2004 Tracking Survey Results from Wave X (April 28, 2004)
Methodology • All survey waves have been conducted using face-to-face interviews with respondents selected by multi stage random sampling of eligible voters within the relevant provinces. • Both the Wave I and Wave II surveys were conducted with 1250 respondents (each wave), selected throughout each of the 32 provinces of Indonesia. The Wave III survey was conducted in 16 provinces with 1000 respondents, and the Wave IV survey was conducted in the remaining 16 provinces, again with 1000 respondents. Each of the Waves V to VIII surveys were conducted in 8 different provinces with 1000 respondents in eachWave, for a national total of 4000 respondents covering all provinces. The Wave IX survey was conducted in all 32 provinces,with a total of 1250 respondents. The Wave X survey was also conducted in all 32 provinces, with a total of 1250 respondents. • The composition of the data in Wave I, Wave II, Waves III and IVcombined, Waves V through VIII combined, Wave IX, and Wave X reflects the rural/urban, men/women and inter-provincial proportions of the Indonesian population. • The margin of error for the national data for each wave in WavesI, II, IX, and X is +/-2.8% at a 95% confidence level. The margin of error for the combined Waves III and IV data is 2.2% at a 95% confidence level. The margin of error for the combined Waves V through VIII data is 1.55% at a 95% confidence level. • For Wave I, the face-to-face interviews were conducted between 13 and 18 December 2003. For Wave II, the interviews were conducted between 12 and 15 January 2004. For Wave III, the interviews were conducted between January 26 and February 1. For Wave IV, the interviews were conducted between February 1and 6. For Wave V, the dates of interviews were February 15-19; for Wave VI, February 21-25; for Wave VII, February 27-March 2; for Wave VIII, March 6-10 (the day before the commencement of the election campaign). For Wave IX, face-to-face interviews were conducted between March 21 and 28, 2004. For Wave X, face-to-face interviews were conducted between April 7 and 14, 2004. • In this report, any data from the Wave I, Wave II, Waves III-IV, Waves V through VIII surveys, and Wave IX is specifically cited in the charts and text. All other data points are from the Wave X survey. Regional breakdowns reflect data from the Wave X survey.
April 27, 2004
Publication
Report/Paper
Report of an Electoral Assessment and Planning Mission to Liberia: April 4-25, 2004
With the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) in Accra in August 2003, Liberians committed themselves to political, versus military, competition for the control of Liberia’s reconstruction. This commitment places added importance on the electoral process as the means through which the political competition will be carried out. The signatories to the Comprehensive Peace Agreement agreed to reform Liberia’s electoral system prior to the conduct of the 2005 elections. A major challenge, however, is how this electoral system can serve as a framework for political competition beyond 2005. In April 2004, IFES fielded a technical planning mission to examine the electoral environment and suggest a strategy for international support for the electoral process. Among the key findings were: 1. Liberians must be involved in all aspects of the process for the CPA-mandated October 2005 elections to leverage the maximum opportunity to bring the nation to a state of peaceful transition; 2. The electoral framework – detailing the legal provisions, the type of electoral system, the nature of the elections to be held, and other aspects of the electoral process – must be agreed upon no later than October 2004 to allow sufficient time for election preparations. Such a framework should be endorsed by Liberia’s stakeholders; 3. Timely, coordinated and robust international assistance at all stages and levels of the electoral process is necessary to create an environment for a successful outcome and to ensure that the best practices of transitional political processes are put into place; and 4. The international community will have to cover the majority of the cost of the elections, as well as provide considerable assistance to the resulting elected and appointed institutions responsible for Liberia’s reconstruction. This report contains recommendations for both the National Elections Commission (NEC) and its partners in the international community. Some of the key recommendations include: • To ensure that Liberian stakeholders are supportive of the electoral framework, that it meets Liberia’s needs and that it conforms to international standards, the process that leads to the establishment of the electoral framework must be perceived as inclusive and legitimate, while drawing on international best practices and principles. As such, it is recommended that fora be provided for NEC and Liberian political and civic actors to consider the various major issues. The international community should support the electoral reform process and provide technical assistance to facilitate the drafting of the resultant electoral framework. • International assistance will need to be provided to build the capacity of the National Elections Commission to organize and conduct the elections and to ensure the credibility of the electoral process. • The international community and the National Transitional Government of Liberia will need to provide timely and complete support to the elections budget. Any delays in the provision of financing and material will negatively impact the elections timeline. Once the electoral framework is finalized, the full costs for the elections will be known. However, priority at this point should be given to financing the NEC’s current personnel and operational costs, including the re-establishment of its presence in the counties, and voter education. • International assistance should support: o The administration of the elections: To support the conduct of a credible and efficient process through the provision of: i. A Chief Electoral Advisor and/or international members on the National Elections Commission to support the development of policy and procedures and the overall management of the electoral process; ii. Technical advisors to assist NEC headquarters and county offices in implementing the electoral framework; iii. Financial, material and logistical support. o The resolution of electoral disputes during all phases of the electoral process: To enable the timely arbitration and resolution of electoral disputes through the establishment of an Election Dispute Tribunal; and o Electoral participation: To promote a level political playing field and informed participation in the electoral process by Liberia’s citizens. International assistance should be well-timed and initiatives effectively coordinated to avoid duplication of effort and to maximize impact.
April 03, 2004
Publication
Report/Paper
Rapport sur l état du pouvoir judiciaire: Haïti, 2002-2003
Ce Rapport unique, réalise fin 2003, dépeint de manière claire et méthodique la situation de faiblesse et de pauvreté d'un pouvoir judiciaire lui n'est ni indépendant ni responsable vis-à-vis du peuple haïtien.
March 31, 2004
Publication
Report/Paper
Committing to Change: Declarations from the IFES Judicial Independence Conferences - Peru, Honduras, Malawi, Egypt and Benin (English, Spanish, Portuguese, French, Arabic)
Since 1987, IFES has provided technical assistance in the promotion of democracy in over 100 countries worldwide. IFES seeks to bolster democracy by providing expert technical assistance to support the four pillars of democracy: elections, the Rule of Law, good governance and civil society. An international non-profit NGO with central offices in Washington, DC and London, IFES is dedicated to the success of democracy worldwide and citizen participation in democratic processes. In these pages, we feature one element of one division of IFES: a series of conferences on judicial independence and the Rule of Law organized or co-organized by the Global IFES Rule of Law (ROL) Judicial Independence Project. We present an overview of each conference, and more importantly, priority-setting, action-oriented declarations developed by the participants at each event. The declarations vary depending on the region, but all were drafted to present to the world the participants’ visions for the consolidation of judicial independence and the Rule of Law. Each conference was also a venue for presenting a key IFES/USAID publication, Guidance for Promoting Judicial Independence and Impartiality (the Guide). The Guide is the result of a first-(the Guide). The Guide is the result of a first-of-its-kind, multi-year global research project focused on judicial independence and accountability issues. These events and the discussions they facilitated between reform-minded officials, IFES experts, and international and local specialists have already yielded the foundation for concrete steps towards reform in many countries.
March 31, 2004
Publication
Report/Paper
State of the Judiciary: Egypt 2003
The author of this State of the Judiciary Report for Egypt chose to remain anonymous. This State of the Judiciary report was commissioned by the Arab Center for the Rule of Law and Integrity (ACRLI), a Lebanese non-governmental organization founded to strengthen the Rule of Law, fight societal and governmental corruption and build the foundations of fair, efficient and independent justice systems within the Arab world. This State of the Judiciary Report for Egypt was edited by Professor Keith Henderson, IFES Senior Rule of Law Advisor, and Violaine Autheman, IFES Rule of Law Advisor, who are also the sole authors of the Executive Summary and of Chapter 1 of this Report. They are also entirely responsible for the analytical conclusions in the Judicial Integrity Principles Index (JIP), which attempts to evaluate the level of compliance with the Judicial Integrity Principles, included in the Executive Summary and in Annex 2. It should be noted they are also solely responsible for edits made to the English version and thus accept full responsibility for any inadvertent errors or misinterpretations of the Report from Arabic to English.
March 31, 2004
Publication
Report/Paper
State of the Judiciary: Haiti 2002-2003
This State of the Judiciary Report for Haiti was written by Léon Saint-Louis, J.D., a Haitian human rights lawyer and professor of public and contract law. Léon Saint-Louis has participated as a panelist in numerous seminars and debates on human rights and public law issues in the Haitian context. He has worked as a Legal Advisor for a number of Haitian State agencies and has been a legal consultant for the international community, including the MICIVIH and UNDP. This State of the Judiciary Report for Haiti was edited by Keith Henderson, IFES Senior Rule of Law Advisor, and Violaine Autheman, IFES Rule of Law Advisor, who are the authors of the Executive Summary and of Chapter 1 of this Report. They are also responsible for the analytical conclusions in the tables which attempt to evaluate the level of compliance with the Judicial Integrity Principles, included in the Executive Summary and in Annex 3.
March 31, 2004