Global Democracy Index

From The League Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The Global Democracy Index is an index complied and published annually by the Global Freedom Network, a Gjorkan based non profit that conducts research, analysis, and advocacy on democracy and human right across the globe. The Index measures the state of democracy in a country based on a variety of factors including civil liberties, political culture, and electoral process among others. Each nation is then categorized in one of four regime types: Full democracies, Flawed democracies, Hybrid regimes, and Authoritarian regimes based on their index score.

Methodology

The Index is based on a weighted average produced by expert analysis on a variety of factors impacting democracy in a country. Based on how experts score each country in each category, a score is produced to give a numerical answer for the state of democracy in the country at the time. The pool of experts the Global Freedom Network draws is reviewed carefully each year to determine fairness in the reporting.

The five general categories expert's score each country on are:

  • electoral process and pluralism
  • civil liberties
  • functioning of government
  • political participation
  • political culture

The Index is widely cited in academic journals and peer-reviewed studies.

Definitions

Full democracies are nations where civil liberties and fundamental political freedoms are not only respected but also reinforced by a political culture conducive to the thriving of democratic principles. These nations have a valid system of governmental checks and balances, an independent judiciary whose decisions are enforced, governments that function adequately, and diverse and independent media. These nations have only limited problems in democratic functioning.

Flawed democracies are nations where elections are fair and free and basic civil liberties are honored but may have issues (e.g. media freedom infringement and minor suppression of political opposition and critics). These nations have significant faults in other democratic aspects, including underdeveloped political culture, low levels of participation in politics, and issues in the functioning of governance.

Hybrid regimes are nations with regular electoral frauds, preventing them from being fair and free democracies. These nations commonly have governments that apply pressure on political opposition, non-independent judiciaries, widespread corruption, harassment and pressure placed on the media, anemic rule of law, and more pronounced faults than flawed democracies in the realms of underdeveloped political culture, low levels of participation in politics, and issues in the functioning of governance.

Authoritarian regimes are nations where the electoral process is nonexistent or severely limited. These nations are often absolute monarchies or dictatorships, may have some conventional institutions of democracy but with meagre significance, infringements and abuses of civil liberties are commonplace, elections (if they take place) are not fair or free (including sham elections), the media is often state-owned or controlled by groups associated with the ruling regime, the judiciary is not independent, and censorship and suppression of governmental criticism are commonplace.

By regime type

Year 2022
Type of regime Score Countries Proportion of
World population (%)
Number (%)
Full democracies
  9.01–10.00
  8.01–9.00
9 ?% ?%
Flawed democracies
  7.01–8.00
  6.01–7.00
8 ?% ?%
Hybrid regimes
  5.01–6.00
  4.01–5.00
6 ?% ?%
Authoritarian regimes
  3.01–4.00
  2.01–3.00
  1.01–2.00
  0.00–1.00
10 ?% ?%

By region

Year 2022
Rank Region Countries Authoritarian Hybrid regime Flawed democracy Full democracy Average score
1 Northern Ecros 10 0 0 4 6 8.39
2 Ostlandet 12 2 3 3 4 6.30
3 Southern Ecros 4 1 1 2 0 4.99
4 Sur 7 5 2 0 0 3.06

By country

Region 2022 rank Country Regime type 2022
Northern Ecros 1  Entropan Full democracy 9.42
Ostlandet 2  Monsilva Full democracy 9.25
Northern Ecros 3  Eleutherios Full democracy 9.08
Northern Ecros 4  Jackson Full democracy 9.00
Northern Ecros 5  Kivu Full democracy 8.92
Ostlandet 6  Hapatmitas Full democracy 8.83
Ostlandet 7  Baltanla Full democracy 8.74
Northern Ecros 8  Majocco Full democracy 8.67
Northern Ecros 9  Tirol Full democracy 8.50
Ostlandet 10  Gjorka Full democracy 8.17
Ostlandet 11  Paleocacher Full democracy 8.08
Ostlandet 12  Uulgadzar Flawed democracy 7.92
Northern Ecros 13  Reykanes Flawed democracy 7.83
Northern Ecros 14  Groffenord Flawed democracy 7.58
Northern Ecros 15  Quebecshire Flawed democracy 7.51
Northern Ecros 16  Montesayette Flawed democracy 7.50
Northern Ecros 17  Abersiania Flawed democracy 7.49
Southern Ecros 18  Sconia Flawed democracy 6.58
Ostlandet 19  Ajakanistan Flawed democracy 6.34
Southern Ecros 20  Tumland Flawed democracy 6.33
Ostlandet 21  New Gandor Flawed democracy 6.17
Ostlandet 22  Akvarelusus Flawed democracy 6.16
Ostlandet 23  Hazbin Hybrid regime 5.92
Sur 24  Sequoyah Hybrid regime 5.00
Ostlandet 25  Tranquillia Hybrid regime 4.83
Sur 26  Lurjize Hybrid regime 4.51
Southern Ecros 27  Pavulturilor Hybrid regime 4.50
Southern Ecros 28  New Illyricum Hybrid regime 4.33
Ostlandet 29  Zloveshchiy Authoritarian regime 3.75
Sur 30  El Salvador Authoritarian regime 3.50
Sur 31  Montcrabe Authoritarian regime 3.01
Sur 32  State of the Church Authoritarian regime 3.00
Ostlandet 33  Rakhman Authoritarian regime 2.83
Southern Ecros 34  Terranihil Authoritarian regime 2.58
Sur 35  Creeperopolis Authoritarian regime 1.83
Sur 36  Rakeo Authoritarian regime 0.58

States with limited recognition

Region Country Regime type 2022
Sur  Noundures Authoritarian regime 2.75
Sur  Deltino Authoritarian regime 0.67

Criticism

The Index is scrutinized heavily in Gjorka by the members of the Gjorkan right who argue the index is biased towards leftists. During the Presidencies of Joe Wallace and Roman Vanderburg, the Index's score for Gjorka went up, while during the presidencies of Joseph Marnell and Carter Morris went down. President Keaton Owens of the Global Freedom Network has defended these moves in the past citing Marnell's "dictatorial tendencies" and Morris's "lack of popular support" as the reasoning for the Index's change.

See also