Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 13

Democracy Index

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Democracy Index is an index compiled by the UK-based
Economist Intelligence Unit that measures the state of democracy in
167 countries, of which 166 are sovereign states and 165 are UN
member states. The index was first produced in 2006, with updates for
2008, 2010 and the following years since then. The index is based on 60
indicators grouped in five different categories measuring pluralism,
civil liberties, and political culture. In addition to a numeric score and a
ranking, the index categorizes countries as one of four regime types: full
democracies, flawed democracies, hybrid regimes and authoritarian
regimes.

Contents
1 Method
2 Classification definitions The Economist Intelligence Unit Democracy index map for 2016.[1]
3 Changes from 2010 onwards Bluer colors represent more democratic countries.
4 Democracy Index by regime type
5 Democracy Index by region
6 Democracy Index by country (2016)
7 See also
8 References
9 External links

Method
As described in the report,[2] the democracy index is a weighted average based on the answers of 60 questions, each one with either two or three permitted
alternative answers. Most answers are "experts' assessments"; the report does not indicate what kinds of experts, nor their number, nor whether the experts are
employees of the Economist Intelligence Unit or independent scholars, nor the nationalities of the experts. Some answers are provided by public-opinion surveys
from the respective countries. In the case of countries for which survey results are missing, survey results for similar countries and expert assessments are used in
order to fill in gaps.

The four category indices. These nations commonly have governments that apply pressure on political opponents. In a few cases.5.[5] Classification definitions Full democracies are nations where civil liberties and basic political freedoms are not only respected. "The security of voters". There are a few modifying dependencies. decides the regime type classification of the country. and issues in the functioning of governance. civil liberties.. Nonetheless..g. which are explained much more precisely than the main rule procedures. Each answer is translated to a mark. 3. then the next question. "The capability of the civil servants to implement policies". Finally. the Democracy Index. and media that is diverse and independent. but automatically marked zero. rounded to one decimal. non independent judiciaries. governments that function adequately. there are a few questions considered so important that a low score on them yields a penalty on the total score sum for their respective categories. independent judiciary whose decisions are enforced. the sums are added within each category. a higher emphasis has been put on the public opinion and attitudes. if the elections for the national legislature and head of government are not considered free (question 1). low levels of participation in politics. These nations have only limited problems in democratic functioning. as measured by surveys. either 0 or 1. including underdeveloped political culture. low levels of participation in politics.. fair?" is not considered.[6] Hybrid regimes are nations where consequential irregularities exist in elections regularly preventing them from being fair and free. e. political participation. but on the other hand. are then averaged to find the Democracy Index for a given country. these nations have significant faults in other democratic aspects. and political culture. and argues for some of the choices made by the team from the Economist Intelligence Unit. and have widespread corruption. and issues in the functioning of governance.[3][4] The report is widely cited in the international press as well as in peer reviewed academic journals. and divided by the total number of questions within the category.[6] . 4. which are listed in the report.The questions are distributed in the five categories: electoral process and pluralism. These nations have a valid system of governmental checks and balances.[6] Flawed democracies are nations where elections are fair and free and basic civil liberties are honored but may have issues (e. "Are elections. "The influence of foreign powers on government". as defined e. economic living standard has not been weighted as one criterion of democracy (as seemingly some other investigators have done). namely: 1. The report discusses other indices of democracy. multiplied by ten. an answer yielding zero for one question voids another question.g. by Freedom House. media freedom infringement). With the exceptions mentioned below. In this comparison. 2. and more pronounced faults than flawed democracies in the realms of underdeveloped political culture. anemic rule of law. 0. harassment and pressure placed on the media. or for the three-answer alternative questions. Likewise. functioning of government.g. but also reinforced by a political culture conducive to the thriving of democratic principles. "Whether national elections are free and fair".

[7] In 2016. in four of these there was regression. elections (if they take place) are not fair and free. improved for 54 countries. and declined for 40. Egypt. its score. the same as in 2010 and 2011.[2] There was no significant improvement or regression in democracy between 2011 and 2012.[6] Changes from 2010 onwards According to the issue of the index for 2012.93 on a scale from zero to ten. These nations are often absolute dictatorships. when it replaced Sweden as the highest-ranked country in the index. Libya experienced the biggest increase of any country in its score in 2012. It was higher in 41 ranked countries.[7] In nine countries there was a change in regime type between 2010 and 2011. attributed to the effects of the global financial crisis. An exception is the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) where the average score increased by more than a tenth of a point. Mauritania. Morocco).62 to 3. Russia was downgraded from a hybrid regime to an authoritarian regime. and Zambia moved up to the flawed democracy category. Average regional scores in 2012 were very similar to scores in 2011. as well as the impact of the global financial crisis in 2007–08 on politics throughout most of Europe. which had been experiencing a persistent downward trend. and Niger were all upgraded to hybrid regimes.[2] The Democracy Index for 2011 highlighted the impact of the Arab Spring and the greater effects it might have. The Democracy Index score was lower in 2011 than in 2010 in 48 countries out of the 167 that are covered. North Korea scored the lowest with 1. The report states that this was not due to the election of Donald Trump. the judiciary is not independent. crossed the threshold from 8. Libya. from 3.Authoritarian regimes are nations where political pluralism has vanished or is extremely limited. may have some conventional institutions of democracy but with meager significance.98 in 2016.73 and three countries moved from authoritarian to hybrid regimes (Egypt. Norway scored a total of 9.[8] Democracy Index by regime type The following table gives the number and percentage of countries and the percentage of the world population for each regime type in 2016:[1] . Tunisia. the media is often state-owned or controlled by groups associated with the ruling regime. Portugal was also downgraded to the flawed democracy category.08. which the report attributes to concerns over the December 4 legislative election and Vladimir Putin's decision to run again in the 2012 presidential election. infringements and abuses of civil liberties are commonplace. keeping the first-place position it has held since 2010. and it stayed the same in 78. but was caused by the same factors that led to his election.05 in 2015 to 7. and the presence of omnipresent censorship and suppression of governmental criticism. In 2012 the index score stayed the same for 73 out of 167 countries. the United States was downgraded from a full democracy to a flawed democracy. remaining at the bottom in 167th place.

70 5.8 Hybrid regimes 4≤s<6 40 24.37 6.59 8.58 5.24 4. Democracy Index by region The following table gives the index average by world region.38 4.40 8.52 5.40 3 Latin America and the Caribbean 24 6.51 5.55 5.4 4.42 8.33 4 Asia and Australasia 28 5.37 6.37 6.68 3.65 3.32 4.51 5.74 5 Central and Eastern Europe 28 5.56 2 Western Europe 21 8.46 5.56 8.43 6 Sub-Saharan Africa 44 4.61 8.33 4.36 6.5 Flawed democracies 6≤s<8 57 34.64 8.56 World 167 5. Since this excludes only micro-states.61 5.59 8.48 3..73 3.49 5. see List of freedom indices.55 5.62 3.52 3.36 4.55 5.23 4. Note that some regional groups (e.64 8. the 'Eastern Europe') are very heterogeneous and composed of full democracies as well as authoritarian regimes: Rank Region Countries 2006[4] 2008[9] 2010[3] 2011[7] 2012[2] 2013[10] 2014[11] 2015[6] 2016[1] 1 Northern America 2 8.28 4. this is nearly equal to the entire estimated world population.58 3.44 5.54 3.g.44 8.41 8.[1] for by-country tables in Wikipedia using similar measures. Number of Percentage Percentage of Type of regime Scores (s) countries of countries world population Full democracies 8 ≤ s ≤ 10 19 11.67 5.38 6.43 6.53 5.35 6.34 4.37 7 Middle East and North Africa 20 3.52 5.50 5.76 5.59 8.55 5.36 6.58 5.53 5.52 Democracy Index by country (2016) Listing by country is available on The Economist website. and the number of covered countries in 2016.41 8.74 5.0 18.1 44.56 5.55 5. .59 8.63 8.60 8.0 Authoritarian regimes 0≤s<4 51 30.7 World population refers to the total population of the 167 countries covered by the Index.45 8.5 32.53 5.

75 9.56 8.28 9.75 9.00 9.41 Full democracy 6 Canada 9.14 7.58 7.71 Full democracy 12 Netherlands 8.43 7.09 9.58 9.13 9.50 10.00 Full democracy 11 Luxembourg 8.00 Full democracy 2 Iceland 9.81 10.75 9.71 Full democracy 19 Uruguay 8.00 Full democracy 5 Denmark 9.57 8.41 Full democracy 15 Malta 8.75 10.22 8.24 Flawed democracy 21 Italy 7.41 Full democracy 18 Mauritius 8.29 7.22 8.00 8.38 9.01 9.11 8.44 7.41 Full democracy 13 Germany 8.00 10.15 9.58 7.17 7.78 8.13 10.98 9.93 10.64 7.41 Full democracy 4 New Zealand 9.78 9.00 8.58 6.58 7.58 9.86 6. Democracy Index 2016 Electoral process Functioning of Political Political Civil Rank Country Score Category and pluralism government participation culture liberties 1 Norway 9.71 Full democracy 14 Austria 8.53 Flawed democracy 23 Cape Verde 7.50 10.33 8.58 7.21 6.30 9.33 10.12 Full democracy 17 Spain 8.00 10.03 10.93 7.21 6.78 8.67 8.20 9.00 9.00 8.15 9.29 8.33 9.00 Full democracy 8 Switzerland 9.36 9.63 9.86 8.50 8.14 7.71 Full democracy 16 United Kingdom 8.71 Full democracy 3 Sweden 9.00 9.58 9.33 6.58 8.41 9.75 9.00 9.22 8.38 9.58 9.26 10.58 8.93 6.86 8.00 Full democracy 7 Ireland 9.71 Full democracy 10 Australia 9.89 10.17 8.94 9.64 8.78 8.00 10.89 8.93 4.13 8.13 9.88 9.41 Full democracy 9 Finland 9.88 9.78 7.39 9.99 8.82 Flawed democracy 21 United States 7.33 10.17 10.98 9.00 Full democracy Electoral process Functioning of Political Political Civil Rank Country Score Category and pluralism government participation culture liberties 20 Japan 7.75 10.22 8.64 10.75 9.21 5.93 8.93 7.58 8.14 7.67 7.00 8.57 7.17 7.13 8.17 8.80 9.29 8.75 8.67 6.39 9.50 9.12 Flawed democracy .

22 4.14 7.58 7.17 7.25 8.11 6.67 7.58 5.53 Flawed democracy 43 Timor-Leste 7.13 9.01 9.17 6.11 6.14 5. Electoral process Functioning of Political Political Civil Rank Country Score and pluralism government participation culture liberties Category 24 France 7.44 6.14 5.12 Flawed democracy 33 Taiwan 7.71 Flawed democracy 27 Botswana 7.88 9.56 5.41 Flawed democracy 35 Belgium 7.63 8.71 6.14 6.88 8.94 Flawed democracy 44 Greece 7.87 9.53 Flawed democracy 38 Lithuania 7.57 5.88 8.00 8.50 7.50 8.41 Flawed democracy 29 Israel 7.88 8.50 6.77 9.00 6.56 6.58 7.43 6.82 Flawed democracy 45 Panama 7.43 6.67 6.88 8.11 7.17 6.88 9.86 8.82 9.57 4.58 8.65 9.11 6.56 6.58 6.67 5.23 9.94 Flawed democracy 40 Jamaica 7.07 7.88 7.89 7.63 8.58 7.92 9.24 Flawed democracy 47 Bulgaria 7.82 Flawed democracy 42 Slovakia 7.58 5.88 9.41 Flawed democracy 28 Portugal 7.79 9.67 6.10 9.41 7.12 Flawed democracy 41 Latvia 7.00 7.58 7.78 9.14 5.67 6.24 Flawed democracy .58 7.50 9.36 6.86 6.11 5.58 7.25 9.21 6.11 5.82 Flawed democracy 32 India 7.81 9.14 6.22 5.88 9.86 9.92 9.58 8.79 6.63 9.82 Flawed democracy 31 Czech Republic 7.58 5.79 5.58 6.82 Flawed democracy 24 South Korea 7.14 6.00 6.50 7.58 8.63 9.82 Flawed democracy 46 Trinidad and Tobago 7.11 6.78 6.58 7.00 8.85 9.85 9.51 9.88 9.47 9.72 7.71 Flawed democracy 39 South Africa 7.24 8.12 Flawed democracy 37 Slovenia 7.41 Flawed democracy 34 Chile 7.33 5.17 6.39 9.29 9.24 Flawed democracy 26 Costa Rica 7.17 7.25 8.18 Flawed democracy 29 Estonia 7.82 Flawed democracy 36 Cyprus 7.92 7.17 7.71 5.56 5.38 8.58 7.88 9.14 6.31 9.50 8.

67 5.48 7.94 Flawed democracy 54 Ghana 6.42 3.17 5.78 6.40 6.11 4.44 4.24 Flawed democracy 59 Peru 6.96 9.11 6.53 Flawed democracy 61 Romania 6.14 4.92 7.00 5.64 9.33 7.35 Flawed democracy 56 Hungary 6.67 5.00 8.17 5.17 6.88 Flawed democracy 67 Mexico 6.35 Flawed democracy 71 Namibia 6.82 Flawed democracy 52 Poland 6.25 7.67 4.43 5.36 6.00 5.58 Flawed democracy 70 Singapore 6.25 7.17 6.71 7.36 6.24 Flawed democracy 53 Suriname 6.86 6.62 9.11 6.86 6.25 5.76 Flawed democracy 68 Hong Kong 6.54 6.06 Flawed democracy 65 Malaysia 6.67 9.24 Flawed democracy 60 El Salvador 6.36 6.25 7.17 5.67 5.06 Flawed democracy 57 Dominican Republic 6.00 7.00 8.06 Flawed democracy 49 Argentina 6.79 5.75 8.58 6.00 6.71 5.62 9.79 5.24 Flawed democracy .83 6.92 6.38 6.88 7.77 9.75 9.00 6.25 5.71 6.63 8.11 6.59 Flawed democracy 66 Sri Lanka 6.50 9.75 5.00 5.71 5.67 6.56 3.07 4.75 5.33 5.41 Flawed democracy 69 Tunisia 6.11 6.00 6.00 7.65 Flawed democracy 50 Philippines 6.38 8.17 5.72 9.25 5.22 4.59 8.56 5.56 7.65 Flawed democracy 57 Colombia 6.00 6.17 6.24 Flawed democracy 63 Lesotho 6.24 Flawed democracy 54 Croatia 6.00 8.00 8.24 Flawed democracy 61 Mongolia 6.44 5.67 8.25 7. Electoral process Functioning of Political Political Civil Rank Country Score and pluralism government participation culture liberties Category Electoral process Functioning of Political Political Civil Rank Country Score Category and pluralism government participation culture liberties 48 Indonesia 6.38 8.65 9.47 7.22 4.94 9.14 6.90 9.63 7.88 7.44 6.75 7.38 8.17 5.36 6.57 8.71 5.17 7.67 5.97 7.88 5.83 9.07 7.31 5.07 7.92 5.17 5.38 4.06 Flawed democracy 64 Serbia 6.24 Flawed democracy 51 Brazil 6.07 4.71 5.71 6.38 8.07 5.17 6.75 8.

36 5.67 4.07 5.93 6.75 6.00 Hybrid regime 93 Liberia 5.65 Hybrid regime 82 Ecuador 5.25 8.93 4.01 7.00 4.38 6.67 5.26 5.67 6.38 6.89 5.36 5.00 4.42 3.00 Hybrid regime 84 Bangladesh 5.65 Flawed democracy 76 Moldova 6.00 6.38 6.25 6.91 7.76 Hybrid regime 85 Montenegro 5.25 5.58 4.00 3.38 7.36 5.07 3.03 6.88 6.44 6.59 Hybrid regime 94 Uganda 5.71 6.33 5.00 4.29 6.64 4.11 3.63 5.89 4.25 6.67 5.25 7.18 Hybrid regime 92 Kenya 5.06 Flawed democracy 75 Papua New Guinea 6.59 Hybrid regime 90 Bolivia 5.33 4.75 7.00 5.35 Flawed democracy Electoral process Functioning of Political Political Civil Rank Country Score Category and pluralism government participation culture liberties 77 Zambia 5.08 5.21 7.00 4.71 3.31 7.25 4.07 3.92 4.25 3.00 5.00 7.67 5.06 Hybrid regime 91 Malawi 5.63 7.57 5.38 7.38 6.35 Hybrid regime 81 Albania 5.56 6.42 5.47 Hybrid regime 88 Benin 5.89 6.63 5.44 6.18 Hybrid regime 95 Macedonia 5.33 5.89 4.56 5.92 5.18 Hybrid regime .76 7.23 6.11 5.94 Flawed democracy 73 Guyana 6.47 Hybrid regime 79 Guatemala 5.38 7.92 3.81 8.36 3.33 5.06 Flawed democracy 74 Senegal 6.00 5.06 Hybrid regime 86 Mali 5.83 2.11 4.11 4.64 5.76 Hybrid regime 78 Georgia 5.38 7.21 6.70 5.00 5.17 5.55 6.73 7.92 6.63 7.56 5.92 6.36 4.29 6.70 7.00 7.08 5.59 Hybrid regime 79 Honduras 5.44 6.00 5.27 8.92 9.93 8.00 5.88 Hybrid regime 89 Fiji 5.76 Hybrid regime 83 Tanzania 5.72 7.44 6.83 3.76 Hybrid regime 86 Ukraine 5.92 7.29 4.88 6.00 4.99 7.57 4.63 5.58 5. Electoral process Functioning of Political Political Civil Rank Country Score Category and pluralism government participation culture liberties 72 Paraguay 6.71 5.36 5.36 6.50 5.

57 5.75 6.07 7.00 Hybrid regime 112 Cambodia 4.75 4.78 2.58 1.88 2.17 3.29 Hybrid regime 109 Nigeria 4.22 4.56 4.42 2.71 Hybrid regime 97 Turkey 5.29 3.41 Authoritarian .02 5.00 5.33 5.55 6.94 Hybrid regime 114 Iraq 4.86 2.71 3.18 Hybrid regime 102 Lebanon 4.81 4.17 5.75 5.63 4.33 6.59 Hybrid regime 104 Nicaragua 4.63 4.70 4.65 Hybrid regime Electoral process Functioning of Political Political Civil Rank Country Score Category and pluralism government participation culture liberties 98 Kyrgyzstan 4.87 6.38 4.64 4.75 6.04 5.18 Hybrid regime 101 Bosnia and Herzegovina 4.44 5.50 5.38 5.17 2.33 4.44 5.29 Hybrid regime 108 Sierra Leone 4.92 4.00 4.33 5.76 Hybrid regime 105 Morocco 4.22 3.42 2.33 4.77 4.76 Hybrid regime Electoral process Functioning of Political Political Civil Rank Country Score Category and pluralism government participation culture liberties 117 Mauritania 3.83 6.50 6.29 5.00 Hybrid regime 98 Bhutan 4.08 4.42 4.27 3.59 Hybrid regime 102 Nepal 4.63 6.50 5.78 4.21 2.93 7.33 0.68 5.41 Hybrid regime 115 Mozambique 4.50 2.50 3.67 2.78 4.38 4.14 5.12 Hybrid regime 113 Myanmar 4.53 Hybrid regime 115 Haiti 4.38 3.41 Hybrid regime 110 Palestine 4.93 5.08 4.42 2.78 4.44 6.29 4.25 5.00 3.00 3.36 2.89 5.78 6.41 Hybrid regime 106 Burkina Faso 4.92 3.82 Hybrid regime 100 Thailand 4.93 5.38 5.56 3.14 7.13 4.57 4.00 3.38 3.86 4.29 4.00 4.00 6.49 4.96 3.20 3.07 5.56 5.00 5.93 5.63 2.02 4.63 5.50 3.29 3.63 4.82 Hybrid regime 111 Pakistan 4.00 5.07 5. Electoral process Functioning of Political Political Civil Rank Country Score and pluralism government participation culture liberties Category 96 Madagascar 5.93 8.44 5.00 5.33 2.86 4.71 Hybrid regime 107 Venezuela 4.36 2.14 7.

44 5.00 3.38 0.83 5.21 4.00 4.65 Authoritarian 128 Cameroon 3.03 0.74 2.00 4.46 2.22 4.50 2.53 Authoritarian 122 Ivory Coast 3.88 5.33 2.21 5.78 4.50 3.25 1.38 2.33 6.58 2.38 3.53 Authoritarian .89 6.88 4.21 3.50 2.82 Authoritarian 128 Cuba 3.33 5.14 3.94 Authoritarian 132 Togo 3.24 2.56 5.94 Authoritarian 138 Rwanda 3.00 4.88 2.58 2.89 5.82 Authoritarian 125 Ethiopia 3.21 2.94 Authoritarian 139 Kazakhstan 3.38 2.42 2.53 Authoritarian 135 Qatar 3.38 3.29 3.86 4.24 Authoritarian 141 Oman 3.12 Authoritarian 142 Swaziland 3.00 2.65 Authoritarian 130 Angola 3.38 4.63 3.25 2.38 3.63 3.76 Authoritarian 120 Armenia 3.14 2.56 4.63 4.82 Authoritarian 123 Gabon 3.89 5.89 4.05 0.04 0.46 1.67 2.24 Authoritarian 126 Algeria 3.96 4.96 4.64 3.14 4.50 0.00 4.81 3.75 4.07 0.33 3.22 5.78 5.85 3.22 5.00 3.38 3.58 3.63 3.00 3.63 3.89 4.06 0.82 Authoritarian 124 Comoros 3.32 3.57 3.75 3.63 3.89 6.24 Authoritarian 117 Niger 3.44 3.38 2.43 4.50 5.33 2.44 4.29 3.00 3.12 Authoritarian 136 China 3.21 3.71 4.88 Authoritarian 121 Kuwait 3.12 Authoritarian 133 Egypt 3.82 Authoritarian 140 Zimbabwe 3.54 1.18 0.75 2.94 Authoritarian 134 Russia 3.93 2.22 3.17 4.92 2.12 Authoritarian 127 Belarus 3.93 3.47 Authoritarian 136 Guinea 3.58 1.57 5.75 6.75 2. Electoral process Functioning of Political Political Civil Rank Country Score and pluralism government participation culture liberties Category 117 Jordan 3.89 4.33 3.44 4.86 3.00 3.21 4.60 0.38 2.00 2.92 3.00 3.14 0.64 3.93 2.21 3.40 0.86 2.31 2.56 2.89 4.44 1.94 Authoritarian 131 Vietnam 3.

43 0.22 5.00 0.13 2.00 0.22 5.22 3.00 2.00 0.63 2.33 5.75 2.22 5.50 1.00 2.00 2.61 1.50 2.78 4.82 Authoritarian 150 Burundi 2.89 5.00 4.86 3.71 2.59 Authoritarian 159 Democratic Republic of the Congo 1.88 Authoritarian 162 Turkmenistan 1.37 0.93 0.00 Authoritarian .58 0.00 3.00 0.53 Authoritarian 149 Afghanistan 2.37 0.21 2.79 2.38 1.00 1.67 6.47 Authoritarian 154 Iran 2.44 5.67 0.00 1.59 Authoritarian 163 Equatorial Guinea 1.00 2.75 3.21 3.42 2.89 0.50 3.47 Authoritarian 164 Central African Republic 1.00 0.78 4.13 1.95 0.98 1.63 2.78 5.00 1.94 Authoritarian 143 Gambia 2.88 1.33 0.11 3.00 0.14 2.00 2.11 2. Electoral process Functioning of Political Political Civil Rank Country Score and pluralism government participation culture liberties Category 143 Republic of the Congo 2.40 0.70 0.00 0.43 2.35 Authoritarian 158 Uzbekistan 1.89 5.33 3.75 2.47 Authoritarian 161 Tajikistan 1.86 2.00 0.34 0.83 0.79 1.00 3.50 2.00 0.25 3.38 0.65 Authoritarian 166 Syria 1.35 Authoritarian 147 United Arab Emirates 2.78 3.79 3.13 1.92 0.83 0.91 1.00 1.14 3.50 0.25 0.07 0.33 3.65 Authoritarian 151 Sudan 2.91 1.57 2.75 0.88 Authoritarian 159 Saudi Arabia 1.93 0.55 2.35 Authoritarian 145 Djibouti 2.78 4.07 1.83 2.00 2.18 Authoritarian 151 Eritrea 2.67 2.22 4.65 Authoritarian 146 Bahrain 2.94 Authoritarian 148 Azerbaijan 2.00 1.21 2.79 3.38 0.25 1.08 1.18 Authoritarian 151 Laos 2.89 3.67 5.78 2.38 2.67 5.36 1.47 Authoritarian Electoral process Functioning of Political Political Civil Rank Country Score Category and pluralism government participation culture liberties 155 Libya 2.37 0.75 3.65 0.67 6.14 3.94 Authoritarian 156 Yemen 2.75 0.88 Authoritarian 157 Guinea-Bissau 1.35 Authoritarian 165 Chad 1.86 1.86 2.00 2.14 1.

pdf) (PDF). "More State than Nation: Lukashenko's Belarus | JIA SIPA" (https://jia. The Economist Economist Intelligence Unit. Intelligence Unit. 6 December m/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/01/daily-chart-20). Economist Intelligence Unit. om.com//publi images/Democracy-Index-2012. media/pdf/DEMOCRACY_INDEX_2007_v3.eiu.com/PDF/De 8. Retrieved 26 January 2017. The World in 2007.aspx?campaignid=DemocracyIndex2011).67 1. The Economist Intelligence Unit. 2.pdf) (PDF). Electoral process Functioning of Political Political Civil Rank Country Score Category and pluralism government participation culture liberties 167 North Korea 1.pdf) (PDF).pdf) (PDF).com/PDF/Democracy%20Inde 4.aspx?campaignid=DemocracyIndex2016). "Democracy Index 2015: Democracy in an age of anxiety" (http://www. 2010.08 0. Economist Intelligence Unit. Laza Kekic. Retrieved 26 January 2017. "Democracy Index 2016: Revenge of the “deplorables”" (https://www. 21 October 2008. "Democracy Index 2015: Democracy in an age of anxiety" (http://www. 6. The Economist Intelligence Unit.eiu.sudestada. Retrieved Economist Intelligence Unit’s index of democracy" (https://www. Retrieved 26 January 2017. "Democracy Index 2010: Democracy in retreat" (https://graphics. Retrieved 20 July 2017. Economist Intelligence Unit.pdf) (PDF). "Democracy Index 2014:Democracy and its discontents" (http://www. 1 December 2011. "Index of Democracy 2008" (https://graphics.eiu.co mocracy_Index_2010_web.colum Retrieved 26 January 2017.eiu.pdf) (PDF). 3.com.org/w/index.eiu. Retrieved 26 January 2017.economist. "Democracy index 2012: Democracy at a standstill" (http://pages. "Declining trust in government is denting democracy" (https://www.com/public/top Economist Intelligence Unit. Retrieved 26 January 2017. 14 December 2011.00 2.50 1. Retrieved 26 January 2017.eiu. director.00 Authoritarian See also Democracy promotion Democracy Ranking Freedom in the World List of freedom indices References 1. Retrieved 26 January 2017. 25 January 2017. Unit.c 65 (1): 93–113. 9.aspx?campaignid=Democracy0814).sipa.edu/more-state-nation-lukashenkos-belarus).com/ 26 January 2017. Economist Intelligence March 2013.yabiladi. "Democracy Index 2013: Democracy in limbo" (https://www. bia. ical_report.com/rs/eiu2/ 7. country forecasting services (15 November 2006). "The x%202008. 5.uy/Content/Articles/421a313a-d58f-462e-9b24-2504a37f6b56/Democracy-ind ex-2014.25 0. 14 c/topical_report. . Journal of International Affairs.c External links The Economist Intelligence Unit's website (https://www. The om/img/content/EIU-Democracy-Index-2015. 10. 25 January 2017. eiu.wikipedia. 11.economist.eiu.com) Wikimedia Commons has media related to Democracy Retrieved from "https://en.com/pu 6.php?title=Democracy_Index&oldid=791434683" Index. The Economist. "Democracy index 2011: Democracy under stress" (https://www.c blic/topical_report.yabiladi.

. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Inc. a non-profit organization. additional terms may apply. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation. By using this site.. you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.Categories: Democracy Research International rankings Economist Intelligence Unit This page was last edited on 20 July 2017. at 07:21.