
Authoritarian
Flawed Democracy
Full Democracy
Hybrid Regime
Country | Type of Government↑ | EIU Democracy Index Overall Score 2024 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| China | Authoritarian | 2.11 | |
| Pakistan | Authoritarian | 2.84 | |
| Russia | Authoritarian | 2.03 | |
| Ethiopia | Authoritarian | 3.24 | |
| Egypt | Authoritarian | 2.79 | |
| DR Congo | Authoritarian | 1.92 | |
| Vietnam | Authoritarian | 2.62 | |
| Iran | Authoritarian | 1.96 | |
| Myanmar | Authoritarian | 0.96 | |
| Sudan | Authoritarian | 1.46 | |
| Algeria | Authoritarian | 3.55 | |
| Iraq | Authoritarian | 2.80 | |
| Afghanistan | Authoritarian | 0.25 | |
| Yemen | Authoritarian | 1.95 | |
| Uzbekistan | Authoritarian | 2.10 | |
| Mozambique | Authoritarian | 3.38 | |
| Saudi Arabia | Authoritarian | 2.08 | |
| Cameroon | Authoritarian | 2.56 | |
| Niger | Authoritarian | 2.26 | |
| Venezuela | Authoritarian | 2.25 | |
| North Korea | Authoritarian | 1.08 | |
| Syria | Authoritarian | 1.32 | |
| Mali | Authoritarian | 2.40 | |
| Burkina Faso | Authoritarian | 2.55 | |
| Chad | Authoritarian | 1.89 | |
| Kazakhstan | Authoritarian | 3.08 | |
| Cambodia | Authoritarian | 2.94 | |
| Zimbabwe | Authoritarian | 2.98 | |
| Guinea | Authoritarian | 2.04 | |
| Rwanda | Authoritarian | 3.34 | |
| Burundi | Authoritarian | 2.13 | |
| Haiti | Authoritarian | 2.74 | |
| Jordan | Authoritarian | 3.28 | |
| United Arab Emirates | Authoritarian | 3.07 | |
| Tajikistan | Authoritarian | 1.83 | |
| Cuba | Authoritarian | 2.58 | |
| Azerbaijan | Authoritarian | 2.80 | |
| Togo | Authoritarian | 2.99 | |
| Belarus | Authoritarian | 1.99 | |
| Laos | Authoritarian | 1.71 | |
| Turkmenistan | Authoritarian | 1.66 | |
| Libya | Authoritarian | 2.31 | |
| Kyrgyzstan | Authoritarian | 3.52 | |
| Nicaragua | Authoritarian | 2.09 | |
| Republic of the Congo | Authoritarian | 2.79 | |
| Lebanon | Authoritarian | 3.56 | |
| Central African Republic | Authoritarian | 1.18 | |
| Palestine | Authoritarian | 3.44 | |
| Oman | Authoritarian | 3.05 | |
| Mauritania | Authoritarian | 3.96 | |
| Kuwait | Authoritarian | 2.78 | |
| Eritrea | Authoritarian | 1.97 | |
| Qatar | Authoritarian | 3.17 | |
| Gabon | Authoritarian | 2.18 | |
| Guinea-Bissau | Authoritarian | 2.03 | |
| Equatorial Guinea | Authoritarian | 1.92 | |
| Bahrain | Authoritarian | 2.45 | |
| Eswatini | Authoritarian | 2.60 | |
| Djibouti | Authoritarian | 2.70 | |
| Comoros | Authoritarian | 2.84 | |
| Nigeria | Hybrid Regime | 4.16 | |
| Bangladesh | Hybrid Regime | 4.44 | |
| Mexico | Hybrid Regime | 5.32 | |
| Turkey | Hybrid Regime | 4.26 | |
| Tanzania | Hybrid Regime | 5.20 | |
| Kenya | Hybrid Regime | 5.05 | |
| Uganda | Hybrid Regime | 4.49 | |
| Angola | Hybrid Regime | 4.05 | |
| Ukraine | Hybrid Regime | 4.90 | |
| Morocco | Hybrid Regime | 4.97 | |
| Peru | Hybrid Regime | 5.69 | |
| Madagascar | Hybrid Regime | 5.33 | |
| Ivory Coast | Hybrid Regime | 4.22 | |
| Nepal | Hybrid Regime | 4.60 | |
| Malawi | Hybrid Regime | 5.85 | |
| Zambia | Hybrid Regime | 5.73 | |
| Senegal | Hybrid Regime | 5.93 | |
| Guatemala | Hybrid Regime | 4.55 | |
| Romania | Hybrid Regime | 5.99 | |
| Ecuador | Hybrid Regime | 5.24 | |
| Benin | Hybrid Regime | 4.44 | |
| Bolivia | Hybrid Regime | 4.26 | |
| Tunisia | Hybrid Regime | 4.71 | |
| Honduras | Hybrid Regime | 4.98 | |
| Papua New Guinea | Hybrid Regime | 5.97 | |
| Sierra Leone | Hybrid Regime | 4.32 | |
| Hong Kong | Hybrid Regime | 5.09 | |
| Paraguay | Hybrid Regime | 5.92 | |
| El Salvador | Hybrid Regime | 4.61 | |
| Liberia | Hybrid Regime | 5.57 | |
| Georgia | Hybrid Regime | 4.70 | |
| Bosnia and Herzegovina | Hybrid Regime | 5.06 | |
| Armenia | Hybrid Regime | 5.35 | |
| Gambia | Hybrid Regime | 4.47 | |
| Fiji | Hybrid Regime | 5.39 | |
| Bhutan | Hybrid Regime | 5.65 | |
| India | Flawed Democracy | 7.29 | |
| United States | Flawed Democracy | 7.85 | |
| Indonesia | Flawed Democracy | 6.44 | |
| Brazil | Flawed Democracy | 6.49 | |
| Philippines | Flawed Democracy | 6.63 | |
| Thailand | Flawed Democracy | 6.27 | |
| France | Flawed Democracy | 7.99 | |
| South Africa | Flawed Democracy | 7.16 | |
| Italy | Flawed Democracy | 7.58 | |
| Colombia | Flawed Democracy | 6.35 | |
| South Korea | Flawed Democracy | 7.75 | |
| Argentina | Flawed Democracy | 6.51 | |
| Poland | Flawed Democracy | 7.40 | |
| Malaysia | Flawed Democracy | 7.11 | |
| Ghana | Flawed Democracy | 6.24 | |
| Sri Lanka | Flawed Democracy | 6.19 | |
| Chile | Flawed Democracy | 7.83 | |
| Belgium | Flawed Democracy | 7.64 | |
| Dominican Republic | Flawed Democracy | 6.62 | |
| Israel | Flawed Democracy | 7.80 | |
| Hungary | Flawed Democracy | 6.51 | |
| Bulgaria | Flawed Democracy | 6.34 | |
| Serbia | Flawed Democracy | 6.26 | |
| Singapore | Flawed Democracy | 6.18 | |
| Slovakia | Flawed Democracy | 7.21 | |
| Panama | Flawed Democracy | 6.84 | |
| Croatia | Flawed Democracy | 6.50 | |
| Mongolia | Flawed Democracy | 6.53 | |
| Namibia | Flawed Democracy | 6.48 | |
| Moldova | Flawed Democracy | 6.04 | |
| Jamaica | Flawed Democracy | 6.74 | |
| Lithuania | Flawed Democracy | 7.59 | |
| Albania | Flawed Democracy | 6.20 | |
| Botswana | Flawed Democracy | 7.63 | |
| Lesotho | Flawed Democracy | 6.06 | |
| Slovenia | Flawed Democracy | 7.82 | |
| Latvia | Flawed Democracy | 7.66 | |
| North Macedonia | Flawed Democracy | 6.28 | |
| Trinidad and Tobago | Flawed Democracy | 7.09 | |
| Timor-Leste | Flawed Democracy | 7.03 | |
| Cyprus | Flawed Democracy | 7.38 | |
| Guyana | Flawed Democracy | 6.11 | |
| Suriname | Flawed Democracy | 6.79 | |
| Montenegro | Flawed Democracy | 6.73 | |
| Malta | Flawed Democracy | 7.93 | |
| Cape Verde | Flawed Democracy | 7.58 | |
| Japan | Full Democracy | 8.48 | |
| Germany | Full Democracy | 8.73 | |
| United Kingdom | Full Democracy | 8.34 | |
| Spain | Full Democracy | 8.13 | |
| Canada | Full Democracy | 8.69 | |
| Australia | Full Democracy | 8.85 | |
| Taiwan | Full Democracy | 8.78 | |
| Netherlands | Full Democracy | 9.00 | |
| Sweden | Full Democracy | 9.39 | |
| Czechia | Full Democracy | 8.08 | |
| Portugal | Full Democracy | 8.08 | |
| Greece | Full Democracy | 8.07 | |
| Austria | Full Democracy | 8.28 | |
| Switzerland | Full Democracy | 9.32 | |
| Denmark | Full Democracy | 9.28 | |
| Norway | Full Democracy | 9.81 | |
| Finland | Full Democracy | 9.30 | |
| Ireland | Full Democracy | 9.19 | |
| New Zealand | Full Democracy | 9.61 | |
| Costa Rica | Full Democracy | 8.29 | |
| Uruguay | Full Democracy | 8.67 | |
| Estonia | Full Democracy | 8.13 | |
| Mauritius | Full Democracy | 8.23 | |
| Luxembourg | Full Democracy | 8.88 | |
| Iceland | Full Democracy | 9.38 |
Countries classified as authoritarian in the EIU Democracy Index 2024 generally score below 4.00 out of 10 overall.
Authoritarian regimes tend to record especially low scores in electoral process, civil liberties, and political participation.
Several regions show clusters of authoritarian systems, particularly in parts of Sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia.
An authoritarian government is a political system in which power is concentrated in the hands of a single leader, ruling party, or small elite group, with limited accountability to the public. In these systems, citizens typically have restricted influence over national leadership, and elections—if they are held—often lack meaningful competition, transparency, or fairness. Political opposition may face legal barriers, harassment, or outright bans.
Civil liberties such as freedom of speech, press, assembly, and political participation are usually constrained under authoritarian rule. Independent institutions—courts, legislatures, and media—tend to have reduced ability to check executive power. While authoritarian governments can differ in structure and ideology, they share a common feature: political authority is maintained through centralized control rather than broad democratic participation.
According to the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index, countries classified as “authoritarian” receive the lowest overall scores across measures such as electoral process, functioning of government, political participation, political culture, and civil liberties. In these systems, elections—if held at all—lack meaningful competition, opposition parties face significant barriers, and power is concentrated in the hands of a single leader, ruling party, or military authority.
Countries currently categorized as authoritarian span multiple regions, including parts of East Asia, the Middle East, Sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia, and Latin America. Examples include China, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Myanmar, and Venezuela, among many others. While political structures differ—ranging from single-party states to military regimes or absolute monarchies—these governments share common traits: limited civil liberties, constrained media environments, and restricted political pluralism.
Authoritarian governments come to power through several common pathways. Some emerge from military coups, where armed forces seize control and suspend democratic institutions. Others consolidate authority gradually, as elected leaders weaken courts, restrict media, and sideline opposition until meaningful competition no longer exists. In still other cases—such as absolute monarchies or one-party states—power is inherited or maintained through tightly controlled political systems that never allowed open electoral competition to begin with.
Once in place, authoritarian systems tend to persist by limiting political opposition and controlling key institutions. Independent media outlets may be restricted or state-controlled, civil society organizations may face legal pressure, and electoral rules can be structured to ensure predictable outcomes. Over time, these mechanisms reduce the likelihood of leadership turnover and concentrate decision-making authority within a narrow circle of elites. While some regimes rely heavily on coercion, others maintain stability through patronage networks, economic management, or appeals to national identity and security.
Authoritarian governments take several structural forms, though they share a common feature: the concentration of power in the hands of a small group or a single leader. Political scientists typically classify authoritarian regimes into personalist systems, dominant party regimes, military governments, and monarchies.
In absolute monarchies such as Saudi Arabia, political authority is held by a hereditary ruler. Power is centralized within a royal family, and key decisions are made without electoral accountability or broad public participation.
In military regimes, senior officers or the armed forces directly control the government. Countries such as Myanmar have experienced periods where military leadership dominates lawmaking, executive decisions, and national policy.
In dominant party systems like China or Iran, a single political party maintains long-term control over state institutions. Elections may exist, but meaningful competition is limited. Media, civil society, and political participation are structured in ways that reinforce the ruling party’s authority.