By John A. Tures, Professor of Political Science, LaGrange College

When President Donald Trump announced the Board of Peace, his plan for Gaza, and maybe a replacement for the United Nations, a meme and video circulated showing the inaugural meeting of the group. It featured cartoonish and live action villains, from Darth Vader and Cruella DeVille to The Joker and Hannibal Lecter from Silence of the Lambs.

How fair is that joke? I look at how free the Board of Peace is, not just to join, but how democratic or undemocratic the nations are who have joined, comparing them to those countries which have been disinvited or publicly stated that they will not join.

The list of those joining or not joining, changes nearly every day, so the results of this study are a snapshot of what decisions taken at the end of January. The list may change by the time you read it, but it’s a good idea of how free, or unfree the countries are.

When I worked in Washington, DC, Freedom House was a pretty good standard for measuring republics and democracies, as well as those who aren’t. Many are familiar with their trichotomous “free, partly free, and not free” classification, based upon how a country respects the civil liberties of its citizens, as well as the political rights of its citizens to participate in the country’s political sphere. Higher scores indicate more freedom. Lower scores mean less of it.

Of those joining the Board of Peace, their freedom scores are listed next to the country. These include the USA (84), Argentina (85), Morocco (37), Belarus (7), Hungary (65) Albania (68), Turkey (37), Kazakhstan (23), Pakistan (32), Egypt (18), Saudi Arabia (9), Jordan (34), Vietnam (20), Indonesia (56), Armenia (54), Azerbaijan (7), Uzbekistan (12), Bahrain (12), Bulgaria (77), Israel…after raising objections (73), Kosovo (60), Mongolia (84), Paraguay (63), Qatar (25), and the United Arab Emirates (18). Russia is considering it. Their average freedom score is 41.65385. As you can see, there are some with freedom, and many without it, on the list.

Several countries have said that they won’t join the Board of Peace, or have been disinvited by the chair of the group. These include Norway (99), Sweden (99), Denmark (97), France (89), Italy (89), Slovenia (96), Germany (95), New Zealand (99), the United Kingdom (93), Greece (85), Ukraine (51), Croatia (82), Brazil (72) and Canada (97). That’s an average of 88.714.

With a more than 47-point gap, it’s clear that the members are far less likely to be free than those who opted not to join, or were told not to join. Just in case, I ran a t-test. I know they have their limits with small samples, but with a t-ratio of 6.13, we are able to easily reject the null hypothesis of no relationship. These are very different samples.

From JNS, I learned “According to the Trump administration, the signing ceremony, attended by regional leaders and global financial executives, transitions the focus of the U.S. strategy from the current ceasefire toward “demilitarization, reconstruction and civil administration” of the Gaza Strip. Phase 2 establishes a new governing framework for the enclave, intended to replace Hamas and previous international aid structures with a centralized board of stakeholders. Under the terms of the charter, the Board of Peace is now the self-appointed primary authority responsible for directing reconstruction funds and overseeing the transition to a civilian government.”

JNS adds “This assembly serves as the foundational body for the initiative’s international legitimacy, though the charter explicitly grants the chairman-for-life, U.S. President Donald Trump, sole authority to invite new members and appoint his own successor. Under the terms of the charter, while nations may accept a three-year rotating term at no cost, a $1 billion cash contribution to the Board’s fund secures a permanent seat. Above the General Board is the Executive Committee, the primary strategic and decision-making organ. Chaired by President Trump, who retains absolute veto power, this committee is tasked with “operationalizing” the Board’s vision.”

While replacing Hamas’ authority in the Gaza Strip is an excellent start to the peace process, there are concerns that Prime Minister Netanyahu’s military actions show that peace remains elusive in the region. Moreover, with so much power vested in the hands of the chair concerning membership and non-membership, along with an absolute veto over any Board of Peace action, and his sole power in naming a successor, the Board could resemble the authoritarian characteristics of its members. Given the links between freedom and peace, the Board may wish to make themselves a little more democratic, instead of its more autocratic structure.

John A. Tures is a professor of political science at LaGrange Collegein LaGrange, Georgia. His views are his own. He can be reached at jtures@lagrange.eduor on “X” at @johntures2. His first book “Branded” a thriller novel, has been published by the Huntsville Independent Press (https://www.huntsvilleindependent.com/product-page/branded).