This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Where is the list? I haven't seen the actual list for a long time.
Ninety percent of this talk page is junk from people who just want to discuss their political views. How is this considered useful for a Wikipedia editor? I tried deleting all the trash, but got warned from a Wikipedia guardian and my changes undone. It's a shame that guidelines are applied blindly like that, it makes Wikipedia more of a pain to deal with. I think this Talk page should be cleaned up in addition to any changes made to the article itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.17.245.4 ( talk) 20:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Just summing up this talk page so people don't have to read it: This page should be deleted because I don't agree with quite a few of the rankings made by the economist and as a result they don't exist, Obama is the antichrist. I'm basing this upon just one select criterion which, if taken by itself, is very different from the overall ranking of the country, and the USA is evil. The USA blah blah blah Obama Cannabis. I also disagree with their definition of the terms "Full" or "Partial" Democracy based upon my need to boil everything down to overstating one single issue, such as Sweden has to be last because it has a monarch, regardless of everything else, everybody has clearly been brainwashed by the liberal media who are trying to kill God (who is a Republican white male.) The fact that this is an article about the economist's index is irrelevant as I'm so commited to freedom and open press that anything I disagree with must not only be slated, but an encyclopedia should not even acnowledge that it exists, and the corporate USA who controls all governments everywhere by CIA mind-control is clearly responsible for anyone who might disagree with me. Blah Blah Blah Republic Blah.
That's essentially it. 87.242.146.18 ( talk) 21:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
One person, 1 Vote is equality but is also mob rule, how can this be fair? Some people can give a large amount to their society while others give nothing, and take a lot, and yet they both have 1 vote ? How can this be just ? Where a multiple votes per person system based on what a person gives to society would be far fairer. The more one gives - tax amount, volunteer work, charity work, national sporting commitments etc, the more votes one gets while the more one takes, the few votes they receive. This system would force citizens to be more productive and not just live off welfare (other people’s money) like in many western nations ATM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.59.150 ( talk) 10:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
This article handles one democracy index as if it were the only one and a generic democracy index. Therefore this article should be moved to a separate article with the name "The Economist Intelligence Unit´s index of democracy".
A Google search will reveal that there are now several different democracy indices, and this article - with this title - should be a general article about all different democracy indices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.10.249.136 ( talk) 14:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Being from the UK, I found it interesting to note that Gordon Brown served as our PM whilst we were (are) at war with Iraq and Afghanistan, and helped implement or control numerous excursions of the law regarding treatment of 'terrorists' and other emergency acts. Yet he himself was never elected to that position by the public and no poll was taken of the public regarding any of the decisions that he put in place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnheritage ( talk • contribs) 14:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Countries above 7.9 are meant to be classified as full democracies but South Africa is 7.91 so surely it is (just) a full democracy rather than a hybrid regime as it is listed as at the moment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.232.196 ( talk) 21:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
...while Iran is the opposite.
Shall I give more examples? I really don't get how Iran is more democratic. The idea that Iranian citizens can choose President is really not true. They can choose a number of candidates that are allowed to reign, but in reality they must share the ideas of the governmet - not the people. The Syrian authority have a bigger heart for the human soul than the Iranian.
Under Bashar al- Assads time as President hundreds of political prisoners were released and a steps were taken towards easing media restrictions. Did this ever happen in Iran after the revolution? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.162.196 ( talk) 00:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
The UK position on the list is incorrect. It should be 8.08. There are probably more errors in the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.47.135.117 ( talk) 12:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
You know what, this entire article is a vandalism if you ask me, The Economist is perhaps worst publication to publish any research or data. They are totally unreliable, totally out of sink with the reality and totally flawed and full of inaccuracies.
That link is the 2007 report - this article is about the 2010 report - so there will be loads of differences —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.242.146.18 ( talk) 21:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Iran has elections, under the watch of U.N. and is probably more democratic than many of the countries currently on the list. Unfortunately, most of the western media have a pro-Israel policy and often misrepresent Iran when it comes to the democracy in Iran today, to name a few, Iran started the first womens games in Mid-Asia/Mid-East, had the first women taxi driver in Mid Asia and also allows biologically homosexuals to have sex change treatments. Iran's constitution is extremely similar to that of Italy including the pope. As far as democracy goes, it concerns nations providing free and fair elections where majority rules, regardless of whether it is secular or not. I will add Iran in couple of days unless someone has a valid and constructive criticism to this.-- 78.86.159.199 ( talk) 00:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
In Iran you are only allowed to run for office if you are first accepted by the council of elders. A person opposed to sharia law would not be allowed to run for president. This makes Iran no more democratic than China. Also, this is a list published by the Economist and is not to be edited.
Homosexuals do not want sex change operations (you are confusing them with transexuals). Homosexuals do, however, want to live - which under the Iranian regime is not an option. Vauxhall1964 ( talk) 19:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
The map needs to be fixed, it is too unclear as to what country is rated what. QZXA2 21:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
When the scale is mentioned in the wikipedia article it says "scale of ten" and then links to another wikipedia article named "scale of one to ten". The scale in the economist article is said to be "of 0 to 10", i.e. the equivalence of a scale from 1 to 11. I don't usually edit articles, should I just go ahead and change the link?
* http://www.economist.com/images/rankings/Democracy.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.16.82.28 ( talk) 14:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
just do it mate, thats obviously a type-o which someone as observant as yourself should correct :)
obviously though, some people lose control and change things which arent even wrong, or just alter things to their opinion/political persuasion! but its fairly obvous that isnt your intention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.48.119 ( talk) 04:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Where is the Vatican?? Helpsloose ( talk) 10:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Probably below North Korea... -- 78.54.179.197 ( talk) 12:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I read the pdf version of the article, in order to describe the methology. I noted en passant, that the authors themselves relate their index to a number of other indices, by somewhat different criteria, and resulting in different rankings. With this as a background, I think the title Democracy Index is inadequate, and more pretentious than the report itself. An alternative article name would be Democracy index (The Economist), opening up for articles on other democracy indicies.- JoergenB ( talk) 01:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I just came to this page to suggest the exact same thing. I agree it does need a name change, as the economist is not an authority in its views regarding democracy, as the article name suggests. Sbw01f ( talk)
There is stalinist-like totalitarian regime in North Korea, not authoritarian regime! -- 86.100.66.70 ( talk) 20:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with our friend that mentionned that a title such as democracy index is very misleading. It should be clearly mentionned that this index (i feel pain calling it that) belongs to the Economist.
The arab world is not the region most reknown for its belief in western democracy. But come to this part of the world and tell them Algeria, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, Pakistan etc.. are more democratic then Kuwait and you will be laughed at. Might as well include include England in the dictatorships, they don't have a bill of rights or civil codes.
I really find it odd that the United States is at the very bottom of free press countries, just above Togo and mauritania, barely making it into the free speech countries MAKING IT NONETHELESS. I also find it odd how american occuppied Iraq is at the bottom of the democratic countries, just above Pakistan the first in the list of authoritarian regime. Let me guess... america, Iraq or Afghanistan rank at the very bottom, yet just inside countries that respect human rights.
Is this a joke ? So is america and american standards, with all due respect to america, the quantitative criteria used by the economist and reporeters without borders and other "expert" sources.
I'm Kuwaiti and we here in great part consider it a democracy. Given "western democracy" as a criteria (although i don't believe that to be necessary) we would classify ourselves as hybrid regime, for the simple fact that the prime minister is appointed by the emir and not elected. On the other hand, the crown prince (2nd in line) can be prevented from being emir, and its up to parliament to then chose the monarch who has very little practical powers other then appointing the prime minister. England (and the "colonies") are not dictatorship because people realise that common laws and precedents govern england's basic functioning. If that is not taken into consideration England would be a dictatorship and the queen a dictator. Other countries reputations should not be tarnished on the account of the economist's incompetence and its incapability to know other countries common law and precedents. A country like singapore ranked 140 something in the freedom of press cannot possibly be democratic whilst countries ranked 60 are considered authoritarian regime.
This is a very complex and debatable issue, and methodology plays an important role i realise that. I'm simplifying my point of view and that is not enough, especially that this index belongs to the economist and not wikipedia.
PLEASE MAKE IT LESS MISLEADING HIGHLIGHT THE ECONOMIST AS THE SOURCE OF THIS INDEX The average joe might think these rankings are universally agreed upon.
What a joke, please upload other sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonassra ( talk • contribs) 07:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I am most baffled that Pakistan has not been classified as a defacto monarchy, because the Bhutto family always rules. Benazir Bhutto made her son the heir/ruler and her widower is only ruling as regent. The Bhuttos are a maharadja family, their rule is simply tradition and should be called a monarchy (with a parliamentary smokescreen). I disagree with other places, too, but that's not as misleading as the Pakistan one. 144.136.177.146 ( talk) 03:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
As a Greek, the people who invented democracy, this index is ridiculous. Athenian Democracy had negative voting and osctracism so in that sense not a single country is democratic. However when you break down the word it means the rule of the people. Now tell me please if the heads of the first five most democratic states belong to a heridetary line of Kings and Queens never elected by the people how are these countries democratic really? That's simply absurd and ridiculous. In a democracy the head of state is directly elected by the majority of people. The Kings and Queens of these countries are not. Therefore the should be as undemocratic as other dictatorships with the difference that people are happy in monarchies but unhappy in most dictatorships. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhiteMagick ( talk • contribs) 23:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you... You have to understand that the people responsible for defining democracy and freedom are running out of ideas. They are turning democracy into an adjective devoid of any of its original meaning, and alienating their definition from common sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonassra ( talk • contribs) 06:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
It's quite obvious that the scoring is rather arbitrary as they are all subjective scores. I have citizenship in two listed countries both with fairly high scores but one is more than a full point higher than the other; however the scores should be reversed as the one listed as "more democratic" is vastly less so. And this score doesn't take into account checks and balances, a country with complete mob (as in mob of people not organized crime) rule should have a pretty high score.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.173.229 ( talk) 03:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I commented previously and the purpose of my comment was to highlight how the title is inappropriate. Unless the economist holds a monopoly or a patent on democracy the title shouldn't read democracy index, but the economists democracy index.
the criterias are: "Whether national elections are free and fair"; "The security of voters"; "The influence of foreign powers on government"; "The capability of the civil servants to implement policies".
Now the last two are a bit controversial. If a government is pressured into submitting to the wills of foreign power does that make it more of an authoritarian regime and less of a democracy ? It probably makes it less democratic (to no fault of its own), but it certainly does not make it more authoritarian.
The index is rubbish, the title is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonassra ( talk • contribs) 06:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I guess this is a rant at the thousands of times I hear the word democracy being thrown around daily, but democratic republicanism (statism) is not as democratic a society can be.
Secondly, The Economist newspaper itself takes a biased viewpoint upon the world from a "pro-free trade" lens. Why is an entire article based upon a single source as if it's absolute writ?-- 76.205.212.142 ( talk) 06:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Where is France on the list? It looks like on the map that it should be somewhere in the same range as the US but its not on the list at all. On Thermonuclear War ( talk) 05:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't have or find a clear definition of a hybrid regime and the word "regime" does not sound very nice. I live in Venezuela and I think this country is a democracy:
I think you should review this. The only reason why we might not be fully democratic is because there is control over how much American dollars we can buy, sell or spend. Thanks. Tony0106 ( talk) 06:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
It says Italy and Slovenia are listed as full democracies. However, the guidelines explain that:
Full democracies—scores of 8-10.
That means Italy and Slovenia should be flawed democracies as their scores are 7.98 and 7.96. Does this need to be changed? Globe-trotter ( talk) 13:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
You're wrong, there was a recent dispute over this (no one violated 3rr), but the result is that they are full democracies. Let me explain, you rightly state that full democracies have scores of 8-10. How ever, flawed democracies have scores of 6 to 7.9. So in the case of Italy and Slovenia their scores are 7.98 and 7.96, if you round that to one decimal place, the result is: 8.0 and 8.0, as 6 and 8 both round up to the nearest ten. Thank you Spitfire Tally-ho! 05:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I changed Slovenia and Italy back to full democracy. this is clear from table (30 full democracy). Moreover, source contains the sentence "Italy upgraded from Flawed to Full Democracy".
The constitution of USA article 4 section 4 clause 1 states that USA is a republic.USA should not be added as it is not a democracy but a republic.Atleast add a note —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.104.235 ( talk) 15:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Sigh... the same old song, presumably submitted by a Republican who opposes the Democratic party in the USA. The USA is a republic whose representatives are chosen by the vote of the people, so it is a democracy. It's true that the Constitution does not specify exactly how the states are supposed to choose their Senators, Representatives, and electors to the Electoral College, but a very large amount of legislation and case law does. Perhaps you've heard of the Voting Rights Act? — EWAdams ( talk) 00:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
The United States is a Democratic Republic in which The People select most of their representation in government, but not the President or his/her appointees. It should not be stated that the US is a "Full Democracy," because it isn't. It has nothing to do with Democrat/Republican, but with facts vs. fiction. In a full democracy, The People choose ALL of their representation by a simple majority, and that is not the way it is done in the United States. The People do not choose the President, and The People's representation in Congress does not depend directly, but only indirectly, on the population of their State. The USA is pretty far from a full democracy. 198.182.12.150 ( talk) 14:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
This definition is from the Wikipedia: Democracy is a form of government in which power is held indirectly by citizens in a free electoral system.
Based on the above definition, the democracy index of Saudi Arabia should be equal to zero. The government there is totally formed of Al-Saud family members (House of Saud), so the army leaders, minsters, governments official, police leaders are from "House of Saud" and all other forms of authority are ruled by Saud family members...
In North Korea there is a Party ruling the country, not a family, so ministers there when they die they will be replaced (not democratically) by another people in the communist party... but in Saudi Arabia, they will be replaced by their brothers, cousins or sons... so there is no way for any citizen (except Saud family members and their relatives) to be a minster (or even a general) in Saudi Arabia, in North Korea there is a way (by being a communist your entire life, then you may be chosen......... or you may not, but there is a chance).
Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world which officially forbid democracy, in North Korea there is no democracy, but the government there did not declare that democracy is evil (even that it believe it is) but the Saudi Arabian government officials [like the head of the religious police (Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice)] declares that democracy is evil and forbidden, also in the Saudi interpretation of their constitution democracy is against god's will and it is the devil way to destroy human society (actually Saudi Arabia have no constitution, it is just a 1400 years old holy book named "Quran" which is their constitution).
Saudi Arabian constitution = Quran = God is the ruler >>> King rules in his name >>> his relatives help him >>> people should obey.
The written paragraph above is all about the above democracy definition, if we extend the definition to include other democracy elements (like freedom of speech and thought), Saudi Arabia democracy index will not improve at all, its democracy index would be -2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.42.225.230 ( talk) 21:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Someone has removed the link to a Swedish blog with a critical review of the EIU rating of Sweden. This was apparently done without arguing why. The link has now been added again. If someone wants to remove it then please present your arguments before doing so. 79.136.76.102 ( talk) 15:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
And it what way exactly does the blog in question not conform? You claim this but you do not argue it in any detail. In what way is it not "authoritative" for its subject? It is neutral since it does not express a particular point of view. It does not present new research, but contains a number of references to authoritative sources and relevant debate. It is of course also highly relevant to the subject. So, how does it not conform? 79.136.76.102 ( talk) 17:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
1. You give only one concrete argument in you reply, and that is the false claim about liberal think tanks. The articles contain a mixture of references, the majority of which are professors at Swedish universties, reports from government inquiries, and the like. Some of their research is also conducted by recognised scholars, and is treated and referenced as such by other scholars. When did recognised Swedish scholarship become propaganda? And when did it become propaganda to include many different points of view in a review?
2. You only mention one article, which suggests you have not read the six articles that comprise the critical review. Maybe reading the review in its entirety may be a good starting point?
I wonder if you perhaps have been contacted by a company that has an interest in that the link disappears? Maybe in exchange for a handfull of cash? Or maybe you are just a run of the mill leftist rabulist, who produces more insults than arguments, and the few arguments you produce are false?
I did check the rules, and I found content criteria. I did not see the term recognised authority, but I probably missed it. Maybe you can show me where it is, and how it is defined by Wikipedia?
79.136.76.102 ( talk) 19:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I have now checked the rules again, and I found the term recognised authority, and I also found that there is no reason why the blog should not pass those criteria. What the rules say is that this restriction is very limited, and the only clarifying information given is a reference to notability. And we pass the criteria for notability.
So, what is left of the arguments from Klassikal? Well, nothing, except slurs and lies.
There is also a need to further discuss the issue of possible corruption:
- Why is this article only about The Economist, instead of one generic article about democracy indices, and one specific about the EIU index?
- How is it that detailed results from the EIU index are published by Wikipedia, when we have shown that they are not authoritative?
- Why was our link in place for at least two months, before it suddenly was deleted, just when our blog was starting to grow with more damning evidence against the EIU:s rating of Sweden?
- Why is it that the person who has removed the link resorts to politicised slurs, instead of facts, and seemingly biased interpretations of rules?
83.233.232.115 ( talk) 16:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I concur with those above who have wondered aloud whether or not this index was a joke. I've concluded that it must be. As far as I'm aware, Bolivia is the most democratic state on the planet today: Morales was selected by the common people from among their own ranks -- which has never and will never happen in any corporate state -- and he was affirmed by 45% of the population in 2005 and 57% in 2008, which will likewise never happen in a corporate state. (That's percentage of the population, not just of voters, which is a distinction that the corporate states are loathe to have pointed out, since it would reveal the fact that only a third or less of the populations of those states actually approve of the corporate stooges that are trotted out for their approval every few years in order to maintain the illusion of legitimacy.) Yet, lo and behold, Bolivia is listed in the middle of the pack as a "flawed" democracy. Why? Because Morales is taking no shit from the US -- that's the "flaw." But, it won't be long before the corporate media has finished branding him a dictator so he can be toppled without undo bleating from the sheeple. This article should be deleted, since it is being linked from other articles as a legitimate reference for which states constitute democracies. An illegitimate propaganda index is thereby being legitimized. How is that encyclopedic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.246.237 ( talk • contribs)
why don't you actually look at the report before commenting on its accuracy. The list does not just measure the right to vote, but also the standard of civil liberties, voter participation, and how the country's political system works. Bolivia was listed as a "hybrid regime" because Morales uses public funds for his political campaigns and the parliament of Bolivia tends to rubber stamp every law he writes. This is all available in the report. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.150.68 ( talk) 03:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Template:Lists of countries has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Cybercobra ( talk) 07:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
In the tabel shown, several countries do have bicameralism (at least as far as I can understand the definition). The Netherlands (Nederland) has the "Tweede kamer" (approx. the House of Representatives in the US) and the "Eerste kamer" (approx. the Senate in the US), so IMHO it should rate as bicameralism. Same for the UK (House of Commons, House of Lords). Rgds, Hens Kolff (Nederland). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.95.194.27 ( talk) 16:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Does the list ever change. Does it update. Many countries change their way of living and/or their government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamid10 ( talk • contribs) 13:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree I think someone should find out if another one was made since the above guy is right I don't know but as someone who travels off this list it would be helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.67.61 ( talk) 17:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Did the Economist group publish a democracy index for 2009? 2010? Ben Gershon - בן גרשון ( Talk) 17:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by בן גרשון ( talk • contribs)
registation is free.plz update it
http://graphics.eiu.com/PDF/Democracy_Index_2010_web.pdf
122.162.113.180 (
talk) 08:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I updated the tables to be in line with the recently published 2010 report. The map is not updated! I also did not touch the "Type of government" column, which may be out of date in the case of some countries. For example Guinea's overall score improved quite a bit so I wonder if it's still a military junta?
In general the 2010 report showed that most full democracies had their overall scores drop since 2008, for example due to decreased political participation. On the other hand, many flawed democracies had improved overall scores. The countries with most notable increases in overall scores were Ghana (now in the flawed democracy category), Malawi, Kuwait, Togo and Guinea. On the other hand, Madagasgar for example had a huge drop in the overall score as a result of the political unrest. Fiji, Gambia, Egypt, Afghanistan and Iran also went significantly downhill since the 2008 report.
I wonder if the table should be added a column to show change? If so, would it be better to show the change since the first report (2006) or the previous one (2008)? Antti Salonen ( talk) 18:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Map in this article is misleading cos it showas not accurate data.For example in Europe France, Italy, Greece and few other countries need to be shown on the map as FLAWED DEMOCRACIES.can somebody please change it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.40.48.160 ( talk) 12:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
While obviously this isn't a direct issue for this page, I've looked up at Israel's score for civil liberties and answered the questions for myself as an Israeli. I disagree with the 5.x score the Economist has given under this part.
It might be a really daft question, but; How can the UK be considered a full democracy when it is a constitutional monarchy and the head-of-state is ultimatley unelected?-- Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] ( talk) 12:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
"Whether national elections are free and fair"; "The security of voters"; "The influence of foreign powers on government"; "The capability of the civil servants to implement policies".
Interestingly 4 of the top 5 and 7 of the top 10 are constitutional monarchies. Who'd have thought it? Suggests evolution not revolution makes for better democracies? Anyway, his is not the place to have that debate. Epeeist smudge ( talk) 08:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, i am surprised to see some Latin American countries depicted as flawed democracies. If they were flawed, then there would be much more vote fraud and international watch groups wouldn't be allowed during elections. It seems to me like Latin America, not all, but for the most part has moved from authoritarian regimes to full democracies (with imperfections but that is expected). But the facts show that the people have been able to elect their own governors. In cases such as Venezuela the dictator (that can be discussed) was elected by the Venezuelan people, in Colombia a president wanted to last 3 terms instead of 2 as it is allowed in full democracies, and he was not allowed by the judicial system. In conclusion I have doubts over the neutrality of this kind of index. If the index was fair then it should question the democracy of countries like the United States where two parties have prevailed and are by themselves powerful machinery whose electoral system has failed too (Gore vs Bush for instance). I hope anyone working on this article takes this into consideration as to make the article more neutral. Thanks -- Camilo Sanchez ( talk) 21:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
While I see nothing wrong with an article about this index, I've also seen it used in some articles about regional or national areas as if it really meant something. Maybe if this article were more critical, examining the sources and methodologies or showing explanations or clarifications from peer review, that would make more sense. Without that, I don't think this can be used as a helpful index without some sort of warning. This is an "open content" encyclopedia and the index is based on what some commercial publication cooked up in their private offices for whatever benefits they saw fit, so we can't take it at face value.
While some aspects it brings up may be of some use, this index is mainly a way to try to define democracy to conform with the expectations, points of view and "free market" ideologies of powerful OECD countries. Otherwise democracy means "the leadership or rule of citizens". In our time, citizens are the entire adult population that's considered equal before the law and benefits from a series of essential human rights, so all mechanisms that give these people collective power in different ways are contributing to democracy, from voting, to general economic welfare, access to information, education and health, the role of security forces, the treatment of poorer portions of the population, labor representativeness and initiative, the importance of rallies and demonstrations, protection from commercial exploitation and predation and what the state does to the sovereignty of other countries all contribute. You can't reduce that to "there's lots of voting that analytic market companies consider done as expected" unless you want a form with little substance (which can perhaps be conveniently filled with something).
This index just considers voting and elections, and even narrows that down by asking stuff that avoids certain issues that may make elections less fair to most people, such as powerful lobbies pressuring elections or the elected officials with monetary incentives or other advantages that are hard to track or control. It also gives great value to the foreign influence against "democracy", but apparently it's fine if the country is causing such impairments to other countries. If country A helps destroy the sovereignty, and thus democracy, in country B by manipulating elections, we're supposed to consider it democratic, as long as no one manages to similarly abuse its own citizens from outside. I could probably go on, but I'm simply trying to say that while lists look cool on pages, this index isn't something "objective" that can be used as a measure of democracy in articles, much less if in the article here we can't add more than just an echo of what it presents itself as. Who is like God? ( talk) 06:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Why is Zaire on the list? The first list was made in 2006 and Zaire hasn't existed since 1997. What's the reasoning for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.91.6 ( talk) 16:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I think there is scope for a serious discussion on a change of title for this article. I quite realise that the article points out that it is the Economist IU's index and that there is no conflicting article requiring disambiguation, but the tone of this discussion board, consisting largely of "my country is more domocratic (or less democratic) than yours" or "monarchies can't bae democracies" or just plain "this index is a joke" suggests wide misunderstanding of the purpose of the article (i.e. to report EIU's findngs). Mentioning the Economist in the title would not entirely head this off, but it might help. It might also be worth mentioning the economist's self confessed credo of market driven liberal democracy (shouldn't be hard to find a reference, they are not shy about it). Read properly, this is all made quite clear, but it is being misread sufficiently often that we should do what we can to make it clearer. Can we have a reasoned discussion about this? Epeeist smudge ( talk) 14:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
There are several countries that are colored by the wrong category on the used file, File talk:Democracy Index 2010 green and red.svg. Central African Republic should be the brown instead of red and Afghanistan should be red instead of brown. -- 143.238.91.206 ( talk) 02:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Palestine is not a country, how do I change the table to say "Palestinian Territories" instead? Maybe next year they will have a country and then it will be changed back but currently it isn't a sovereign country-- Someone35 17:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Being occupied by a foreign, oppressive power doesn't magically make you stop being a country. 203.59.103.93 ( talk) 04:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC) Sutter Cane
they have just released the newest one lets get switching — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.67.61 ( talk) 04:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
The article states that rank under 4 is authoritarian, yet Egypt has 3,95 and is labeled as "hybrid". The original article has Egypt as "hybrid" in a list, but later is written the following:
"Eight countries had a change in regime type in 2011. In four there was a regression and four had an upgrade. Portugal deteriorated from a “full democracy” to a “flawed democracy”, a development that had already affected Greece, Italy and France in 2010. Ukraine and Guatemala regressed from flawed democracies to hybrid regimes, and in Russia a long process of regression culminated in a move from a hybrid to an authoritarian regime in light of the cynical decision by Vladimir Putin to return to the presidency and because of deeply flawed parliamentary elections. Tunisia experienced the biggest increase of any country in its democracy score in 2011. It moved from an authoritarian to a hybrid regime. Two Sub-Saharan African countries also moved from authoritarian to hybrid regimes (Mauritania and Niger), and Zambia improved from a hybrid to a flawed democracy."
The eight countries are: Portugal, Ukraine, Guatemala, Russia, Mauritania, Niger, Zambia, Tunisia. As Egypt was authoritarian last year, they should be labeled as "authoritarian" this year. More opinions, please? HeadlessMaster ( talk) 14:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
You guys do realize there hasn't been a 2012 report? The new one was for December 2011. And Camoka's map had tons of errors. 98.209.18.176 ( talk) 19:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
In Sweden we have to wait for four years to be allowed to vote once and then again wait for four years to be allowed to vote once again and so on. Add to that, the referendums in Sweden are not for real only "advisory" to the Swedish political class. In other words you have missed the most important criteria of all: how often can a citizen vote in a correct election or referendum in a democracy! 17:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Heja Sverige —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.248.215 ( talk) 06:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
There is much fail in Sweden nowdays, see the FRA-law -- 81.172.223.220 ( talk) 07:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
We have initiated a critical review of the rating for Sweden. Google sweden democracy index review and look for wordpress grundlag. Note, this is serious, not some spurious ranting! We provide links to Swedish sources and experts.[[[Special:Contributions/79.136.76.102|79.136.76.102]] ( talk) 12:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)]
You did surely not understand the system of the democracy index. Sure, there is FRA in Sweden and other things, but the Swedes are allowed to CRITICISE it and DEMONSTRATE, show their anger toward the POLITICIANS that came up with that idea.
You think that is allowed in some other countries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.162.196 ( talk) 11:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I am not an expert either, but I am from Sweden and I have been living many years in 3 other corners of Europe and I can tell there is a big difference. The FRA-law was just putting a law to a practise used for a few decades, and American interests with a lot of money can of course dictate that PirateBay is a bad thing, but other than this the democracy has very few flaws. The people can vote and start political parties freely, everything is more transparent and visible. That the people were idiots and voted for the wrong party does not mean the democracy is flawed. 92.80.100.109 ( talk) 04:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- i mean come on you find it to be an outrage that sweden is first. I mean i personally think iceland or finland are the most democratic countries but sweden and those other countries I listed are certainly more democratic then the US if you don't think so give me a fucking break you are most certainly not the freest just because your president's say "we are the leaders of the free world" you can cite as many sources as you want but there is nothing that can make me or to be honest a lot of people around this world on the issue of whether the US is the most democratic. My other problems with this list are chad being the second least free bullshit turkmenistan which is number three has a personality cult and the whole nine yards which Chad does not. Having Burkina Faso or the Central African Republic down there are also bull Burkina Faso is definatly not one of the world's least free countries it has a great government which although is not democratic has helped Burkina become a fast growing country. The car is sure not the most perfect democracy but President Francois Bozize overthrew a repressive government in 2003 and later stepped down to run in elections that were considered by every observer there from all over the world to be free and fair. I don't agree Saudi Arabia is less free then the DPRK give me a break. To the kuwait guy totally agree Kuwait is widely considered to be one of the most democratic governments in the Middle East. forgive the rant but to be honest I support the gov'ts of most of the countries low on this list and they state above in how they measure where the countries go they use main statistical evidence
I want to suggest to take a closer look to the changes in Hungary during the last years with a majority of 2/3s of the rightwing party FIDESZ. The change of constitution, the new laws against freedom of press and mass media, the changes to the system of the constitutional court and a lot of other changes show: This country is on a way to being comparable with Belarus and Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.119.6 ( talk) 02:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
it may be little unexpected for lots of turk. Actually ı didnt surprise because of misleading against current party in power. I must say that until mid 2000s we havent even democray.Whenever majorty gain Primeminister,Army or Laws stopped them and send them jail.We couldnt talk about our religion and anything about religion.Basicly If yu say i am muslim yu were treated like second class people.Its little irronic because %95 of Turkey define theirself As Muslim.Today Many thing changed we can say whatever we want freely but still Lots of People insulting us (i meant people who voted leading party)
No I dont believe Turkey is Hybrid regime But I know that some people unhappy because of the losing control.They rulled Turkey 80 years, Eventhoug They arent more than %25 of Turkey.I am sure Yu can read lots of artical about this,but this is truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.14.78.121 ( talk) 10:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
the EIU democracy index doesn't list nominal types of government or contain this as part of its analysis. there are also errors in the types of nominal government listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.122.30.187 ( talk) 03:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
The colours are way too strong and makes the text barely visible. The very dark shades of red is also an eye strain. Consider choosing lighter shades? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Didemo ( talk • contribs) 07:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure how much informative is the mean democracy index for CEE countries. In this group you find such a diverse countires as the Czech Republic and Belarus. It is really an artificial group which is lumped together for some historical reasons enriched by certain level of politically uncorrect and preconceived idea of similarity between these countries. Guys, we 22 years after the fall of Iron Courtain! Have you noticed that? Start with comparing the democracy index of the Czech Republic and Belarus, then you can continue with Human Development index etc etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.113.86.132 ( talk) 13:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I believe that the amount of material in this article taken directly from Democracy Index 2011 has strayed into WP:COPYVIO territory, and I have asked that it be looked at by someone with better knowledge of Wikipedia policies in that regard. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 04:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
.Dear Marc, Thank you for your enquiry. The full list is fine to show. Kind regards, Adriana, Economist Intelligence Unit, www.eiu.com
So is this just in limbo now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.221.196 ( talk) 01:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
So if they already told us the full list was fine to show, what's the problem? This reeks as somewhat authoritarian, and I can't say I appreciate the idea of restricting the flow of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.221.196 ( talk) 05:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I was in cc on 11 september on a mail from permissions@wikimedia.org to London@eiu.com asking for the CC license without any response yet. -- Marc Lacoste ( talk) 13:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I put back a censored list with only the interval of the index (9-10, 8-9, 7-8, etc.). Same information as in
wich was'nt removed, so I consider this information is OK to show. If you think the ranking (1.2.3.4.5.etc.) is too much a copyright violation, you could remove the column but please leave the list, otherwise the countries out of the list section doesn't make sense and you have to respect the work of the editors who put a list with the nature of each regime. I find it bleak to censor a democracy list. -- Marc Lacoste ( talk) 08:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
The full list is on the foreign language Wikipedias! Why is no one cracking down on that? We need to bring the list back! 76.163.252.90 ( talk) 02:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for starting this discussion again. I added a version of the list to the article at 08:34 today and my change was reverted by Beyond My Ken at 11:02 today with an edit summary of "Undid revision 547250197 by W163 (talk) Please see talkpage, this has been deteremined to be a copyright violation". I apologize for not looking at the talk page before, I should have. I've read it now. I haven't gone back to reread the Wikipedia policies or the legal opinion yet, but I will. But in the meantime I have some questions and observations:
I understand this list by the Economist Intelligence Unit is copyrighted. Could we maybe include a link to the official list in the actual article? Johnxsmith ( talk) 22:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to make sense to have the extensive "Countries and territories not included in this list" section when the "this list" referred to is no longer included in the article. I would have just deleted it but since there seems to be some dispute around this article I thought it better to discuss first. - htonl ( talk) 10:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
How come Equador hasn't got a higher rating? I thought it was one of the most free countries in the world, giving asylum to Julian Assange and all that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.100.198.13 ( talk) 11:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
This article and index is just a joke china is guided by communists and has not any elections and chooses its president , russia has election and the putin party even lost some % in the recent election. How can they come and set china and russia at the same level? This democracy index is a joke and probably a political tool.
America is run by two parties since 100 years and they give them the highest ranking too-- Quandapanda ( talk) 14:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- belarus has also the same level like russia i forgot to mention, lukaschenko rules belarus now much longer than putin.-- Quandapanda ( talk) 14:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Population density? Jiawhein ( talk) 01:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC) →no. 83.10.15.48 ( talk) 15:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
are there more obvious errors? 83.10.15.48 ( talk) 15:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I would if I knew how. On my screen no country is a "perfect democracy" (that may be) and yellow doesn't exist. I'm sure this is an error. Pick some different colors instead of extremely similiar greens. 79.136.64.95 ( talk) 20:49, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I expected this article to show the ranking by country, as it has in the past, and as it still does in some other languages. The lack lessens the article. Why has this been removed? Star Lord - 星王 ( talk) 21:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Please somebody update the information according to the 2014 calculations! thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.50.155.72 ( talk) 13:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Is it that there is something wrong with the index? United Kingdom is legally a unitary constitutional monarchy, ie, a monarchy where the powers of the monarch is limited but it IS a monarchy nevertheless. Then why is it listed in this article as a FULL DEMOCRACY? What criteria defines a full democracy and a constitutional monarchy (flawed democracy). I can understand the UK being a free country ( Freedom Map-Wikipedia) but how come democracy? Also many nations which are legally FULL DEMOCRACIES are listed here as FLAWED DEMOCRACY. Why?? How come monarchies like Netherlands, Canada, Japan and UK be listed above democracies like USA(one of the first democracies), France and India (India, the world's biggest democracy being cited as flawed democracy)? Also Bhutan (Monarchy) and Pakistan (fundamentalist quasi-republic) are above Russia (cited as authoritarian) I doubt it. 85.154.87.47 ( talk) 09:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
China has been rated Authoritarian on this Index in the past and should remain so. Why does this 2014 index now say they are a flawed Democracy?
Sorry one of those People's Republic of China versus Republic of China things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.155.131.72 ( talk)
The colors need to be inverted so that they match mainland France and mainland Italy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.218.4.2 ( talk) 12:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Mexico should be listed as hybrid regime, in Mexico the army is on the streets in 31 of the 32 entities, and in the other one (Mexico City), there is secret police on the streets.
References
I am working on a series of lists/infographics, to include the top Muslim countries by percentage of country's total population. I have been able to add a Democracy Index score to all of the countries on the list, except for Western Sahara, Mayotte, Somalia, and the Maldives. All but Somalia have populations so small that I didn't really mind excluding them from the list, but Somalia is a different story for a number of different reasons. I am assuming it wasn't included because the source did not include it, but does the source at least provide some sort of explanation for it? I could certainly make some guesses and, in fact, the reason(s) may be obvious to most, but I'd really rather not make assumptions. If "The Economist" does include a reason for the exclusion, could you add it to this article? Emerald Evergreen 17:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisa Beck ( talk • contribs)
I do not completely agree with the facts pertaining to the DI of the 167 countries in question, so I created my own table, tweaking some of the data, such as which countries were ranked in which slots and the score and category. Although I am no scholar and did not calculate or run trials of any of this information, I feel like my rearranging of this data should give a somewhat clearer statement about the nature of each country's ruling system. For example, some rearrangements I made were bumping countries like Belgium, France, and Italy up to the 'Full Democracy' category, the United States down to 'Flawed Democracy,' and Russia from 'Authoritarian Regime' to the lower end of 'Hybrid Regime,' among others. Again, this may not be completely accurate, but it is what makes sense to me and many others, presumably. I also apologize for the lack of organization of the data presented.
Rank: Country: Score: Category: 1 Norway 9.93 Full democracy 2 Sweden 9.73 Full democracy 3 Iceland 9.58 Full democracy 4 New Zealand 9.35 Full democracy 5 Denmark 9.26 Full democracy 6 Canada 9.11 Full democracy 7 Finland 9.09 Full democracy 8 Switzerland 9.03 Full democracy 9 Australia 9.01 Full democracy 10 Netherlands 8.92 Full democracy 11 Belgium 8.88 Full democracy 12 Ireland 8.80 Full democracy 13 Germany 8.72 Full democracy 14 Austria 8.64 Full democracy 15 United Kingdom 8.55 Full democracy 16 Luxembourg 8.35 Full democracy 17 Malta 8.22 Full democracy 18 Japan 8.17 Full democracy 19 South Korea 8.11 Full democracy 20 Mauritius 8.08 Full democracy 21 France 8.06 Full democracy 22 Italy 8.05 Full democracy 23 Uruguay 8.04 Full democracy 24 Costa Rica 8.03 Full democracy 25 Czech Republic 7.95 Flawed democracy 26 Poland 7.94 Flawed democracy 27 Estonia 7.93 Flawed democracy 28 India 7.87 Flawed democracy 29 Botswana 7.85 Flawed democracy 30 Spain 7.85 Flawed democracy 31 South Africa 7.81 Flawed democracy 32 Chile 7.80 Flawed democracy 33 Portugal 7.79 Flawed democracy 34 Cape Verde 7.74 Flawed democracy 35 United States 7.65 Flawed democracy 36 Taiwan 7.63 Flawed democracy 37 Israel 7.57 Flawed democracy 38 Slovenia 7.55 Flawed democracy 39 Lithuania 7.50 Flawed democracy 40 Latvia 7.48 Flawed democracy 41 Greece 7.45 Flawed democracy 42 Jamaica 7.40 Flawed democracy 43 Slovakia 7.39 Flawed democracy 44 Cyprus 7.38 Flawed democracy 45 Brazil 7.35 Flawed democracy 46 Timor-Leste 7.24 Flawed democracy 47 Panama 7.08 Flawed democracy 48 Trinidad & Tobago 6.99 Flawed democracy 49 Indonesia 6.95 Flawed democracy 50 Croatia 6.93 Flawed democracy 51 Hungary 6.90 Flawed democracy 52 Argentina 6.84 Flawed democracy 53 Suriname 6.77 Flawed democracy 53 Philippines 6.77 Flawed democracy 55 Bulgaria 6.73 Flawed democracy 56 Serbia 6.71 Flawed democracy 57 Romania 6.68 Flawed democracy 57 Mexico 6.68 Flawed democracy 59 Dominican Republic 6.67 Flawed democracy 60 Lesotho 6.66 Flawed democracy 61 Mongolia 6.62 Flawed democracy 62 Colombia 6.55 Flawed democracy 63 Peru 6.54 Flawed democracy 64 El Salvador 6.53 Flawed democracy 65 Malaysia 6.49 Flawed democracy 66 Hong Kong 6.46 Flawed democracy 67 Zambia 6.39 Flawed democracy 68 Ghana 6.33 Flawed democracy 69 Moldova 6.32 Flawed democracy 70 Tunisia 6.31 Flawed democracy 71 Paraguay 6.26 Flawed democracy 72 Macedonia 6.25 Flawed democracy 73 Namibia 6.24 Flawed democracy 74 Senegal 6.15 Flawed democracy 75 Papua New Guinea 6.03 Flawed democracy 76 Singapore 6.03 Flawed democracy 77 Montenegro 5.94 Hybrid regime 78 Guyana 5.91 Hybrid regime 79 Ecuador 5.87 Hybrid regime 80 Honduras 5.84 Hybrid regime 81 Georgia 5.82 Hybrid regime 82 Guatemala 5.81 Hybrid regime 83 Bolivia 5.79 Hybrid regime 83 Mali 5.79 Hybrid regime 85 Bangladesh 5.78 Hybrid regime 86 Tanzania 5.77 Hybrid regime 87 Sri Lanka 5.69 Hybrid regime 88 Albania 5.67 Hybrid regime 89 Malawi 5.66 Hybrid regime 90 Benin 5.65 Hybrid regime 91 Fiji 5.61 Hybrid regime 92 Ukraine 5.42 Hybrid regime 93 Thailand 5.39 Hybrid regime 94 Nicaragua 5.32 Hybrid regime 95 Kyrgyzstan 5.24 Hybrid regime 96 Uganda 5.22 Hybrid regime 97 Kenya 5.13 Hybrid regime 98 Turkey 5.12 Hybrid regime 98 Lebanon 5.12 Hybrid regime 100 Venezuela 5.07 Hybrid regime 101 Liberia 4.95 Hybrid regime 102 Bhutan 4.87 Hybrid regime 103 Bosnia & Herzegovina 4.78 Hybrid regime 103 Cambodia 4.78 Hybrid regime 105 Nepal 4.77 Hybrid regime 106 Palestinian Authority 4.72 Hybrid regime 107 Mozambique 4.66 Hybrid regime 108 Pakistan 4.64 Hybrid regime 109 Sierra Leone 4.56 Hybrid regime 110 Madagascar 4.42 Hybrid regime 111 Iraq 4.23 Hybrid regime 112 Mauritania 4.17 Hybrid regime 113 Armenia 4.13 Hybrid regime 114 Burkina Faso 4.09 Hybrid regime 115 Russia 4.02 Hybrid regime 116 Egypt 4.00 Authoritarian regime 117 Niger 3.83 Authoritarian regime 118 Morocco 3.82 Authoritarian regime 119 Haiti 3.80 Authoritarian regime 120 Libya 3.78 Authoritarian regime 121 Algeria 3.76 Authoritarian regime 121 Jordan 3.76 Authoritarian regime 121 Gabon 3.76 Authoritarian regime 124 Nigeria 3.72 Authoritarian regime 125 Nigeria 3.69 Authoritarian regime 126 Cuba 3.53 Authoritarian regime 127 Côte d'Ivoire 3.52 Authoritarian regime 127 Belarus 3.52 Authoritarian regime 129 Comoros 3.45 Authoritarian regime 130 Togo 3.41 Authoritarian regime 131 Vietnam 3.41 Authoritarian regime 132 Cameroon 3.39 Authoritarian regime 133 Angola 3.35 Authoritarian regime 134 Burundi 3.33 Authoritarian regime 135 Rwanda 3.25 Authoritarian regime 136 Qatar 3.18 Authoritarian regime 137 Kazakhstan 3.17 Authoritarian regime 138 Kuwait 3.16 Authoritarian regime 139 Oman 3.15 Authoritarian regime 140 Swaziland 3.09 Authoritarian regime 141 Burma 3.05 Authoritarian regime 141 The Gambia 3.05 Authoritarian regime 143 Guinea 3.01 Authoritarian regime 144 China 3.00 Authoritarian regime 145 Djibouti 2.99 Authoritarian regime 146 Republic of the Congo 2.89 Authoritarian regime 147 Bahrain 2.87 Authoritarian regime 148 Azerbaijan 2.83 Authoritarian regime 149 Yemen 2.79 Authoritarian regime 150 Zimbabwe 2.78 Authoritarian regime 151 Afghanistan 2.77 Authoritarian regime 152 United Arab Emirates 2.64 Authoritarian regime 153 Sudan 2.54 Authoritarian regime 154 Uzbekistan 2.45 Authoritarian regime 155 Eritrea 2.44 Authoritarian regime 156 Tajikistan 2.37 Authoritarian regime 157 Laos 2.21 Authoritarian regime 158 Iran 1.98 Authoritarian regime 159 Guinea-Bissau 1.93 Authoritarian regime 160 Turkmenistan 1.83 Authoritarian regime 161 Saudi Arabia 1.82 Authoritarian regime 162 Democratic Republic of the Congo 1.75 Authoritarian regime 163 Syria 1.74 Authoritarian regime 164 Equatorial Guinea 1.66 Authoritarian regime 165 Chad 1.50 Authoritarian regime 166 Central African Republic 1.49 Authoritarian regime 167 North Korea 1.08 Authoritarian regime — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.24.244 ( talk) 05:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Can it be that the Index is faulty? According to the current Index Pakistan, a country in which the Sharia is the Base of Law and Politics, is more democratic than Russia. I actually doubt it.-- 95.114.10.42 ( talk) 16:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Rank | Overall score | Electoral process and pluralism | Functioning of government | Political participation | Political culture | Civil liberties |
108 | 4.57 | 5.58 | 5.36 | 2.22 | 4.38 | 5.29 |
Pakistan can be actually classified as an authoritiarian regime with totalitarian tendencies.-- 95.114.36.218 ( talk) 18:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
While the meanings of the various colors used in the maps and tables may seem obvious to most or all, it is still appropriate to include in the body of the text a legend defining each color. PhuDoi1 ( talk) 13:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
It's really silly that Pakistan is well above Russia. I'm not here to defend Russia, but there is an obvious bias in this list made by the Economist, therefor a "criticism" section should be added. Besides: That Israel is ranked so highly - despite all human rights violations - is also very debetable. -- 194.166.192.179 ( talk) 22:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Democracy Index. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
In exactly one paper. Please add other quotes. Xx236 ( talk) 11:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Please put on the prelude section a new democracy index scaled map for 2015 to caught up with the current situation or I might change the title of the current map wherever it applies or not. Please tell me or modify the map if I make a mistake. Economist intelligent unit website: http://www.eiu.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertpda ( talk • contribs) 09:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
According the Wikipedias own article on "North America", it includes certain countries listed under the Caribbean and Latin American umbrellas, in the regional comparison in this article.
I am curious as to the reasoning behind this? Actually clicking on "North America" in the comparison brings forward that aforementioned article, which wholly disputes the exclusions of an aggressively high amount of countries, notably ones such as Mexico and Cuba, who have been listed under the under regions.
While I am not usually one for conjecture, it seems very convenient that this "North America" region is only comprised of two countries, and is such frankly gifted the prize that is being #1 overall in this comparison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.90.151.187 ( talk) 14:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I understand how the number are copied from the EIU, but wouldn't it make sense to at least have the regions standardized? I am assuming the information in the continental pages on Wikipedia is correct, making the ones from EIU incorrect. At the very least there seems to be some kind of inconsistency at play here, given how countries are attributed to different regions. I still maintain, regardless of whether or not EIU is HQ'ed in Europe, that it seems rather deceptive to only include two countries in the "North American" region, when it is an objective fact that there are more countries in that region, as can be seen right here on Wikipedia. 83.90.151.187 ( talk) 19:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The following comment was entered at the top of the article by Hardtruths ( talk, contribs) at 17:18 on 1 August 2014 and quickly reverted. I'm entering it here for the record. - Jeff Ogden (W163) ( talk) 02:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
The democracy index is misleading and needs a new category (Perfect democracy perhaps). It implies a full democracy is the highest level of democracy. For example the United Kingdom and the USA are actually flawed democracies (in my opinion), in that corporations and their individual owners control much of the media who feed the public their views on their particular favourite candidate to win. Additionally to become a senator or president (in the case of the US), you need finance. If individuals are segregated from rising to power then cultural bubbles are created with in the power structures. In the UK, the 2015 election showed how 1 million people (of 65 million) voted for the green party and yet the green party only attained 1 parliamentary seat out of 650. These are very flawed democracies.
(of course the Democracy index is created primarily to service business with information about countries so they know how best to exploit them and protect their assets. Maybe I'm being cynical). Mrgauntlett ( talk) 16:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
You're right. The first line of the article says it's the work of the Economist Intelligence Unit. Their method for compiling this information is also clearly described and seems quite opaque. It is made clear that these are the opinions of unnamed experts etc. When I read the article I missed those vital points. The title gives an illusion of weight, but, as I mentioned above, their appraisal operates within their frame work of what democracy currently is. I suppose I could start a criticism section of the Democracy index. Mrgauntlett ( talk) 14:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
The colors used are green for democracy and red for more authoritarian regimes, which in my view is a biased use of colors in violation of WP:NPOV. It is well known that in most cultures green signals good and red signals bad, yet it is not Wikipedia's purpose to proclaim democracy as preferable to other forms of governance. I appreciate your thoughts; if there are no serious objections, I will change the colors to other, more neutral hues later. WallyWyatt [ contact 14:47, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
It is much easier to read with red and green. Scott Tillinghast, Houston TX ( talk) 21:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Could a section be added detailing who are the ~30 excluded countries/states and why they have been excluded? (especially since they are part of the UN) Seems like a relevant mystery 77.125.22.252 ( talk) 00:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
The text says that the USA was downgraded to "flawed democracy" and it's there under spot #35. But it looks like someone added in an extra line at the top, putting the USA on spot #0, with a perfect 10 for everything which seems unlikely. I don't usually edit wikipedia so I'm not sure what to do about this. 124.149.156.177 ( talk) 06:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Someone has sabotaged this page to make Ethiopia #1 on the list? Looks like it was swapped with Norway — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.171.152 ( talk) 23:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
US is not a "full democracy", but a flawed one: for a presidential Republic, the presidential electoral sistem is indirect, and fewer votes wins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.53.248.165 ( talk) 06:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I just read that the 2016 report rates the United States a flawed democracy. We need updates. Any recommended sources? Scott Tillinghast, Houston TX ( talk) 21:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
The United States is present twice in the list of countries, as rank 0 and as rank 35. Looks very much like an error. It also does not have a top score in all categories, as suggested by its rank 0 entry. 85.191.92.133 ( talk) 18:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
At present, the article does not contain criticisms of the index. The Economist and its associated outlets and businesses have a well known bias in international affairs that is not really a matter of debate. It represents the forces of unadulterated, anti-identity, market, globalized liberalism. That orientation cannot fail to influence the objectivity of the Democracy Index, so the absence of a section containing criticisms of the index makes this article read as if this is the final word in indexes of the level of freedom in countries. That Armenia is less democratic than Cambodia will probably shock both Armenians and Cambodians, but that is just one example/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.203.133 ( talk) 10:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
The criteria they use is bizarre. Canadians have no say in appointing their prime minister, they are never allowed any plebiscites or referenda, and their Senators for their upper house are neither appointed by, nor can be removed by, the public. But Canada is somehow still considered more democratic than America. Go figure. Edward Carson ( talk) 06:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
@Edward Carson: The Canadian prime minister is appointed based on confidence of the parliament, a common feature of parliamentary democracies. And the Canadian Senate is more symbolic and weaker than other legislative chambers like US Senate or Australian Senate. ← As detailed in the reports, the actual substance of democracy is weighed, not just formal structures. The Democracy Index had clear reasons to score and rank Canada that way, even if you may not agree. 2600:1012:B015:FE60:F460:B89D:DB59:8AAA ( talk) 20:41, 9 Disclaimers February 2018 (UTC)
@ he who does not wish to be identified: to talk about an allegation is not to prove it wrong. The Canadian prime minister is appointed based on blah blah... Yes, quite true, yet still the voters have no input. “The Canadian senate is more symbolic…” What does that even mean? “…and weaker than other legislative chambers…” But still strong enough to deny all legislation introduced by the prime minister. “The Democracy Index had clear reasons to score and rank Canada that way…” I have no doubt, but are the reasons based on objective facts, or subjective preferences? Edward Carson ( talk) 23:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
The map was better before. Now Light green > Dark green but Light blue < Dark blue — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.200.183.223 ( talk) 17:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
So I just noticed, the rounded score of South Korea is 8.00, which by the rules below, means it should be in the "full" category. I haven't made any changes im case that was a rounded up score. ZdrytchX ( talk) 17:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
The index values are used to place countries within one of four types of regime: 1. Full democracies: scores greater than 8 2. Flawed democracies: scores greater than 6, and less than or equal to 8 3. Hybrid regimes: scores greater than 4, and less than or equal to 6 4. Authoritarian regimes: scores less than or equal to 4
Can someone list what countries are included in each region (as specified at the bottom of the article)? -- Numberguy6 ( talk) 21:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved ( closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Democracy Index →
The EIU Democracy Index – This article is not a general one about the concept of a "Democracy Index" and a description of various constructions. Instead it is about one specific "Democracy Index" and thus this should be made explicitly clear in the article title (not just the lede). Note that this is how the EIU themselves refer to their index - cf. the page title
on this page: "EIU Democracy Index 2018 - World Democracy Report"
Oska (
talk) 07:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Where is Abkhasia? There is Taiwan but not Abkhazia-- Kaiyr ( talk) 11:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
The accompanying map shows Haida Gwaii as part of American territory. However, Haida Gwaii is under Canadian, not American, annexation and should therefore be shown as part of Canadian territory in order to ensure accuracy. Does anyone know how can this be fixed? Shoutsofvictory ( talk) 19:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Democracy Index has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Country with Rank 165 in table should read as "Democratic Republic of Congo" instead of "Democratic Republic of the Congo" Vij Bheenick ( talk) 11:56, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Has the 2019 democracy index been published yet? If so, could someone post it to the article page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Znelson2 ( talk • contribs) 21:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
The 2019 index is available now see here. It was quite comlicated to extract the table from the pdf. Unfortunately I dont have the time to create a Wikitable out of it. But this is a c&p out of my OpenOfficeCalc-Table. Maybe someone has a use for it. Sprechender Kopf ( talk) 11:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Overall score Rank Electoral process Functioning of goverment politival participation political culture civil liberties Norway 9.87 1 10 9.64 10 10 9.71 Iceland 9.58 2 10 9.29 8.89 10 9.71 Sweden 9.39 3 9.58 9.64 8.33 10 9.41 New Zealand 9.26 4 10 9.29 8.89 8.13 10 Finland 9.25 5 10 8.93 8.89 8.75 9.71 Ireland 9.24 6 10 7.86 8.33 10 10 Denmark 9.22 7= 10 9.29 8.33 9.38 9.12 Canada 9.22 7= 9.58 9.64 7.78 9.38 9.71 Australia 9.09 9 10 8.93 7.78 8.75 10 Switzerland 9.03 10 9.58 9.29 7.78 9.38 9.12 Netherlands 9.01 11 9.58 9.29 8.33 8.75 9.12 Luxembourg 8.81 12 10 8.93 6.67 8.75 9.71 Germany 8.68 13 9.58 8.57 8.33 7.5 9.41 United Kingdom 8.52 14 9.58 7.5 8.89 7.5 9.12 Uruguay 8.38 15 10 8.57 6.11 7.5 9.71 Austria 8.29 16= 9.58 7.86 8.33 6.88 8.82 Spain 8.29 16= 9.58 7.14 7.78 8.13 8.82 Mauritius 8.22 18 9.17 8.21 5.56 8.75 9.41 Costa Rica 8.13 19 9.58 7.5 6.67 7.5 9.41 France 8.12 20 9.58 7.86 7.78 6.88 8.53 Chile 8.08 21 9.58 8.57 5 8.13 9.12 Portugal 8.03 22 9.58 7.86 6.11 7.5 9.12 South Korea 8 23 9.17 7.86 7.22 7.5 8.24 Japan 7.99 24 8.75 8.21 6.67 7.5 8.82 United States of America 7.96 25 9.17 7.14 7.78 7.5 8.24 Malta 7.95 26 9.17 7.5 6.11 8.13 8.82 Estonia 7.9 27 9.58 7.86 6.67 6.88 8.53 Israel 7.86 28 9.17 7.86 8.89 7.5 5.88 Botswana 7.81 29 9.17 7.14 6.11 7.5 9.12 Cabo Verde 7.78 30 9.17 7.36 6.67 6.88 8.82 Taiwan 7.73 31 9.58 8.21 6.11 5.63 9.12 Czech Republic 7.69 32 9.58 6.79 6.67 6.88 8.53 Belgium 7.64 33 9.58 8.21 5 6.88 8.53 Cyprus 7.59 34 9.17 6.43 6.67 6.88 8.82 Italy 7.52 35 9.58 6.07 7.78 6.25 7.94 Slovenia 7.5 36= 9.58 6.79 6.67 6.25 8.24 Lithuania 7.5 36= 9.58 6.43 6.11 6.25 9.12 Latvia 7.49 38 9.58 6.07 6.11 6.88 8.82 Greece 7.43 39 9.58 4.86 6.67 7.5 8.53 South Africa 7.24 40 7.42 7.5 8.33 5 7.94 Timor-Leste 7.19 41 9.58 6.29 5.56 6.88 7.65 Slovakia 7.17 42 9.58 7.14 5.56 5.63 7.94 Malaysia 7.16 43= 9.17 7.86 6.67 6.25 5.88 Trinidad and Tobago 7.16 43= 9.58 7.14 6.11 5.63 7.35 Colombia 7.13 45 9.17 6.79 5.56 5.63 8.53 Panama 7.05 46 9.58 6.07 6.67 5 7.94 Bulgaria 7.03 47 9.17 6.43 7.22 4.38 7.94 Argentina 7.02 48 9.17 5.36 6.11 6.25 8.24 Suriname 6.98 49 9.17 6.43 6.67 5 7.65 Jamaica 6.96 50 8.75 7.14 4.44 6.25 8.24 India 6.9 51 8.67 6.79 6.67 5.63 6.76 Brazil 6.86 52 9.58 5.36 6.11 5 8.24 Tunisia 6.72 53 9.17 5.71 7.22 5.63 5.88 Philippines 6.64 54 9.17 5.36 7.22 4.38 7.06 Ghana 6.63 55= 8.33 5.71 6.67 6.25 6.18 Hungary 6.63 55= 8.75 6.07 5 6.25 7.06 Poland 6.62 57 9.17 6.07 6.11 4.38 7.35 Peru 6.6 58 9.17 5 5.56 5.63 7.65 Croatia 6.57 59 9.17 6.07 5.56 5 7.06 Dominican Republic 6.54 60= 9.17 5.36 6.11 5 7.06 Lesotho 6.54 60= 9.17 4.5 6.67 5.63 6.76 Mongolia 6.5 62 9.17 5.71 5.56 5 7.06 Romania 6.49 63 9.17 5.71 5.56 4.38 7.65 Indonesia 6.48 64 7.92 7.14 6.11 5.63 5.59 Namibia 6.43 65 6.58 5.36 6.67 5.63 7.94 Serbia 6.41 66 8.25 5.36 6.11 5 7.35 Ecuador 6.33 67 8.75 5.36 6.11 4.38 7.06 Thailand 6.32 68 7.42 5.36 6.11 6.25 6.47 Sri Lanka 6.27 69 7 6.07 5.56 6.25 6.47 Paraguay 6.24 70 8.75 5.71 5 4.38 7.35 El Salvador 6.15 71= 9.17 4.64 6.11 3.75 7.06 Guyana 6.15 71= 6.92 5.36 6.11 5 7.35 Mexico 6.09 73 7.83 6.07 7.22 3.13 6.18 Papua New Guinea 6.03 74 6.92 6.07 3.89 5.63 7.65 Hong Kong 6.02 75= 3.58 4.36 6.11 7.5 8.53 Singapore 6.02 75= 3.92 7.86 5 6.25 7.06 North Macedonia 5.97 77 7 5.36 6.67 3.75 7.06 Ukraine 5.9 78 7.42 2.71 6.67 6.25 6.47 Albania 5.89 79 7 5.36 4.44 5 7.65 Bangladesh 5.88 80 7.83 6.07 6.11 4.38 5 Fiji 5.85 81 6.58 5.36 6.11 5.63 5.59 Senegal 5.81 82 6.08 6.07 4.44 6.25 6.18 Moldova 5.75 83 6.58 4.64 6.11 4.38 7.06 Montenegro 5.65 84 5.67 5.36 6.11 4.38 6.76 Madagascar 5.64 85 7.92 3.57 6.11 5.63 5 Armenia 5.54 86 7.5 5.36 6.11 3.13 5.59 Malawi 5.5 87 6.08 4.29 5 6.25 5.88 Liberia 5.45 88 7.42 3.07 5.56 5.63 5.59 Georgia 5.42 89= 7.83 3.21 6.11 4.38 5.59 Honduras 5.42 89= 7.83 4.29 4.44 4.38 6.18 Bhutan 5.3 91 8.75 6.79 2.78 4.38 3.82 Nepal 5.28 92 4.83 5.36 5 5.63 5.59 Guatemala 5.26 93 6.92 4.64 3.89 4.38 6.47 Kenya 5.18 94 3.5 5.71 6.67 5.63 4.41 Tanzania 5.16 95 5.75 5 5 5.63 4.41 Morocco 5.1 96 5.25 4.64 5.56 5.63 4.41 Benin 5.09 97= 4.67 5.71 4.44 5.63 5 Zambia 5.09 97= 4.75 2.93 4.44 6.88 6.47 Uganda 5.02 99 4.33 3.57 4.44 6.88 5.88 Mali 4.92 100 6.42 3.07 3.89 5.63 5.59 Kyrgyz Republic 4.89 101 6.08 2.93 6.67 3.75 5 Bosnia and Hercegovina 4.86 102= 6.17 2.93 5.56 3.75 5.88 Sierra Leone 4.86 102= 6.58 2.86 3.33 6.25 5.29 Bolivia 4.84 104 4.75 3.93 5 3.75 6.76 Haiti 4.57 105 4.75 2.07 3.89 6.25 5.88 Lebanon 4.36 106 3.92 1.5 6.67 5 4.71 Gambia 4.33 107 4 4.29 3.33 5.63 4.41 Pakistan 4.25 108 6.08 5.71 2.22 2.5 4.71 Nigeria 4.12 109 5.17 3.93 3.33 3.75 4.41 Turkey 4.09 110 3.08 5 5 5 2.35 Côte d’Ivoire 4.05 111 4.33 2.86 3.33 5.63 4.12 Burkina Faso 4.04 112 3.92 2.71 4.44 5 4.12 Algeria 4.01 113 3.08 2.86 5 5 4.12 Jordan 3.93 114= 3.58 4.29 3.89 4.38 3.53 Kuwait 3.93 114= 3.58 4.29 3.89 4.38 3.53 Mauritania 3.92 116 3.5 3.57 5 3.13 4.41 Palestine 3.89 117 3.33 0.14 7.78 4.38 3.82 Iraq 3.74 118 5.25 0 6.67 5 1.76 Angola 3.72 119 2.25 2.86 5.56 5 2.94 Mozambique 3.65 120 2.58 2.14 5 5 3.53 Gabon 3.61 121 2.58 2.21 4.44 5 3.82 Myanmar 3.55 122= 3.08 3.93 2.78 5.63 2.35 Nicaragua 3.55 122= 1.25 2.86 3.89 5.63 4.12 Cambodia 3.53 124 0.83 4.64 3.33 5.63 3.24 Ethiopia 3.44 125 0.42 3.57 5.56 5 2.65 Togo 3.3 126 3.17 1.79 3.33 5 3.24 Niger 3.29 127 2.92 1.14 3.33 4.38 4.71 Qatar 3.19 128 0 4.29 2.22 5.63 3.82 Rwanda 3.16 129= 1.42 4.29 2.78 4.38 2.94 Zimbabwe 3.16 129= 0 2.5 4.44 5.63 3.24 Comoros 3.15 131 2.08 2.21 3.89 3.75 3.82 eSwatini 3.14 132= 0.92 2.86 2.78 5.63 3.53 Guinea 3.14 132= 3.5 0.43 4.44 4.38 2.94 Congo (Brazzaville) 3.11 134= 2.17 2.5 3.89 3.75 3.24 Russia 3.11 134= 2.17 1.79 5 2.5 4.12 Vietnam 3.08 136 0 3.21 3.89 5.63 2.65 Egypt 3.06 137= 2.67 3.21 3.33 3.75 2.35 Oman 3.06 137= 0.08 3.93 2.78 4.38 4.12 Kazakhstan 2.94 139 0.5 2.14 4.44 4.38 3.24 Venezuela 2.88 140 0 1.79 5 4.38 3.24 Afghanistan 2.85 141= 3.42 0.64 3.89 2.5 3.82 Cameroon 2.85 141= 1.67 2.5 3.33 4.38 2.35 Cuba 2.84 143 0 3.57 3.33 4.38 2.94 Djibouti 2.77 144 0.42 1.29 3.89 5.63 2.65 United Arab Emirates 2.76 145 0 3.93 2.22 5 2.65 Azerbaijan 2.75 146 0.5 3.21 2.78 3.75 3.53 Sudan 2.7 147 0 1.79 5.56 5 1.18 Guinea-Bissau 2.63 148 4.92 0 2.78 3.13 2.35 Bahrain 2.55 149 0.83 2.71 2.78 4.38 2.06 Belarus 2.48 150 0.92 2 2.78 4.38 2.35 Iran 2.38 151 0 2.86 4.44 3.13 1.47 Eritrea 2.37 152 0 2.14 1.67 6.88 1.18 China 2.26 153 0 4.29 3.33 2.5 1.18 Burundi 2.15 154 0 0.07 3.33 5 2.35 Laos 2.14 155 0 2.86 1.67 5 1.18 Libya 2.02 156 0 0 2.78 4.38 2.94 Uzbekistan 2.01 157 0.08 1.86 2.22 5 0.88 Yemen 1.95 158 0 0 3.89 5 0.88 Saudi Arabia 1.93 159= 0 2.86 2.22 3.13 1.47 Tajikistan 1.93 159= 0.08 0.79 1.67 6.25 0.88 Equatorial Guinea 1.92 161 0 0.43 3.33 4.38 1.47 Turkmenistan 1.72 162 0 0.79 2.22 5 0.59 Chad 1.61 163 0 0 1.67 3.75 2.65 Syria 1.43 164 0 0 2.78 4.38 0 Central African Republic 1.32 165 1.25 0 1.11 1.88 2.35 Democratic Republic of Congo 1.13 166 0 0 1.67 3.13 0.88 North Korea 1.08 167 0 2.5 1.67 1.25 0
please update according to 2020 report — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4061:2189:A91E:0:0:96A:78AC ( talk) 18:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
The index is flawed at its core, I propose that I make (below the original) a "better" version with higher accuracy — Preceding unsigned comment added by BiggieCheese2 ( talk • contribs) 23:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
There should be a big banner stating at the top of this talk page that this is about the EUI report and not editors' opinions and anyone editing this article should be required to read it first. How many times has this useless complaint come up now? It's getting ridiculous. 2606:6000:60CC:C900:3C6A:5721:B278:968A ( talk) 04:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Firejuggler86 ( talk) 13:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I know that this is just data from a specific company, but it still feels weird to make one wikipedia page about this as if it is generally accepted knowledge. Is there a way to create a more objective wikipedia page with a democracy index that is not based on one commercial company? More specifically/to give just one example, I am quite surprised United States still scores relatively high on this list, given the rapid decline in democratic practice (a process already quite visible before the 2019 reference date). Jelle1975 ( talk) 19:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
The citation in the article to an Google webcache archived version of the whitepaper (citation #8, "Democracy Index 2019 A year of democratic setbacks and popular protest", https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:pxkaGlbZ-zEJ:https://www.eiu.com/Handlers/WhitepaperHandler.ashx%3Ffi%3DDemocracy-Index-2019.pdf%26mode%3Dwp%26campaignid%3Ddemocracyindex2019+&cd=1&hl=sv&ct=clnk&gl=se) now leads to a 404 error. I did go and put the original URL into my browser, and came up with this, after removing the "campaignid": http://www.eiu.com/Handlers/WhitepaperHandler.ashx?fi=Democracy-Index-2019.pdf&mode=wp
Would it violate the copyright to link directly to this URL?
Jcb cummings ( talk) 11:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
In any case, that is the URL of the whitepaper (when you log in or create an account with them). I suppose we could still put it in, but how would we let people know that an account is required to access it? Jcb cummings ( talk) 18:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Democracy Index has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the table, there is 2 countries in North America. Mexico is considered in North America. The number should be 3 instead and one less in central america. Cedbomb ( talk) 19:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Democracy Index has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add This Image Showing A Chart Of Full Democracies, Flawed Democracies, Hybrid Regimes, Authoritarian Regimes And Countries Not Rated.
WikiMakersOfOurTime ( talk) 17:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Number Of Countries. WikiMakersOfOurTime ( talk) 19:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Why do they link to the mobile versions of those pages (ie New Zealand)? Wouldn't it make more sense to have them be the default web links? UnstoppablePhoenix ( talk) 22:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Turkey is listed as "Western Europe." Europe at all is rather dubious; Western is impossible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C6:4300:6EE0:DC0B:AF91:910F:D40 ( talk) 01:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Are the countries attributed to their respective continents by the list of the Economist Intelligence Unit? Or was it done by the creator of this article?
Some countries are attributed to the wrong continents:
Turkmenistan is Central Asia not Eastern Europe
Tajikistan is Central Asia not Eastern Europe
Uzbekistan is Central Asia not Eastern Europe
Azerbaijan is Western Asia not Eastern Europe
Kazakhstan is Central Asia not Eastern Europe
Turkey is at best Eastern Europe, though 97% of the landmass is Asian and its political center is in the Asian part. >85% of the population live in the Asian part of Turkey
Kyrgyzstan is Central Asia not Eastern Europe
Georgia is Western Asia not Eastern Europe
Armenia is Western Asia not Eastern Europe
Cyprus is Eastern Europe not Western Europe socially, though geographically it is Asian.
2001:4DD5:89F4:0:A197:9529:9143:119F (
talk) 11:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Democracy Index has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
On the last table titled Democracy Index by Region (Region should be capitalized I think) it states that North America has 2 countries when it actually has many more. It seems this table was put together for convenience than actual facts. Maybe to group people by race or culture? Certainly not by geography. KemicalOca ( talk) 17:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I do think a good idea is to remove boldface from "state of democracy". This isn't the title, so I don't know why it's boldfaced; this increases the perception that this is a general or in-house index and not an article about the EUI like it's supposed to be. 2600:1012:B024:7B87:0:4D:D78A:3801 ( talk) 20:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved ( non-admin closure) Iffy★ Chat -- 19:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Democracy Index →
Democracy Index (Economist Group) – Article name implies that this is an independent Democracy index, but this is subjective one by The Economist Group
139.47.103.167 (
talk) 15:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
I updated this table to show changes in score and rank of the 2019 Democracy Index. Can you all update the changes when the next index (2020) is released? Quang, Bùi Huy ( talk) 09:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
The correct numbers are full democracies = 23 #1 to #22 plus Canada/Denmark tie for #7 Flawed democracies = 58 #23 to #80 plus many ties Hybrid regime = 41 #77 to #113 ties #97, #102, #89, #75 Authoritarian regime = 54 #114 to #167 plus 8 ties
Between the table in Democracy Index by country, Composition of Democracy Index and the infographic by the Economist, the regime type for 2020 is inconsistent. I don't know which are the true value. (See Taiwan, France and USA for example) 72.53.104.28 ( talk) 16:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Just noticed a question at the help desk archives about a reader asking what the total score value was for Iceland.....as they could not see the number because of colour blindness problems.-- Moxy 🍁 01:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
When anyone decides to update this table for the new Democracy Index, can you please leave a quick note here? It may help prevent duplicate work. Thanks. Intralexical ( talk) 01:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Jersey has no political parties and most citizens feel left out of decisions. Elector turnout at elections are around 33%. This could usefully be brought out in this page. Thanks. Bicyclic ( talk) 12:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
You are correct and I have now written to the EIU about this issue. Tax havens such as Jersey commonly have very large scale economic activities which are supported by legislation intended to benefit non-residents rather than their local populations. Bicyclic ( talk) 23:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
I disagree that Canada has a full democracy as there is constitutional monarchy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.242.58.41 ( talk) 14:52, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Why? Nonsense. ReddishClover ( talk) 11:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Where is Seychelles or has the island sunk in the Indian Ocean?🥵🥵🥵 Nlivataye ( talk) 09:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
In line with Freedom in the World, and per MOS:MAJORWORK and MOS:ITALICS, I've italicized the text "Democracy Index" in the body and title of this article. Intralexical ( talk) 00:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Turkey is more like middle east, only a tiny part is in europe, the most of the land is in asia. Also the culture is not european.
2001:16B8:61D:B00:D181:3F17:D49C:7FBD ( talk) 15:06, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
edit: nevermind, the failure was made in the source already it seems. 2001:16B8:61D:B00:D181:3F17:D49C:7FBD ( talk) 15:06, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
The reference used in the Criticism section has a circular reference tag. It is true that the reference mentions Wikipedia, but I think that is not enough to consider it a circular reference. When the author criticises that the Democracy Index is done by unknown experts, he writes: Who are these experts? Nobody knows. Wikipedia dryly notes that the report does not reveal their number, nationality, credentials or even field of expertise. In my opinion, he is just quoting a sentence he liked to make his point, but he does not base it on Wikipedia. And the rest of the article is just the personal opinion (criticism is always an opinion, of course) of the analyst who wrote it. So I think the tag should be removed.-- Gorpik ( talk) 14:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
@ Somedifferentstuff: I'm not sure what you mean with that "the formatting is completely in order with the header changes" – the table content didn't change at all. The current revision of the page says that Canada has a score of 9.07 in 2020 and 9.24 in 2006, but it should be the other way around. The version before your change did have this correct. ― Jochem van Hees ( talk) 23:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
@ Somedifferentstuff: Totally agree on reorganizing the columns from most recent year to the most distant. I have made these edits in case other want to see how it looks and weigh-in Superb Owl ( talk) 03:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
The Economist uses more blue and orange in their 2020 report. Switching to blues for democracies would help most colorblind users who (speaking from experience) struggle with certain red-green distinctions.
Superb Owl (
talk) 19:55, 21 November 2021 (UTC)Superb_Owl
Right now, the Legend for the Economist map mentions Blue etc., but the map itself still uses green. This needs to be consolidated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:C846:133F:DD00:D811:446C:3E5F:4926 ( talk) 22:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Where is the list? I haven't seen the actual list for a long time.
Ninety percent of this talk page is junk from people who just want to discuss their political views. How is this considered useful for a Wikipedia editor? I tried deleting all the trash, but got warned from a Wikipedia guardian and my changes undone. It's a shame that guidelines are applied blindly like that, it makes Wikipedia more of a pain to deal with. I think this Talk page should be cleaned up in addition to any changes made to the article itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.17.245.4 ( talk) 20:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Just summing up this talk page so people don't have to read it: This page should be deleted because I don't agree with quite a few of the rankings made by the economist and as a result they don't exist, Obama is the antichrist. I'm basing this upon just one select criterion which, if taken by itself, is very different from the overall ranking of the country, and the USA is evil. The USA blah blah blah Obama Cannabis. I also disagree with their definition of the terms "Full" or "Partial" Democracy based upon my need to boil everything down to overstating one single issue, such as Sweden has to be last because it has a monarch, regardless of everything else, everybody has clearly been brainwashed by the liberal media who are trying to kill God (who is a Republican white male.) The fact that this is an article about the economist's index is irrelevant as I'm so commited to freedom and open press that anything I disagree with must not only be slated, but an encyclopedia should not even acnowledge that it exists, and the corporate USA who controls all governments everywhere by CIA mind-control is clearly responsible for anyone who might disagree with me. Blah Blah Blah Republic Blah.
That's essentially it. 87.242.146.18 ( talk) 21:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
One person, 1 Vote is equality but is also mob rule, how can this be fair? Some people can give a large amount to their society while others give nothing, and take a lot, and yet they both have 1 vote ? How can this be just ? Where a multiple votes per person system based on what a person gives to society would be far fairer. The more one gives - tax amount, volunteer work, charity work, national sporting commitments etc, the more votes one gets while the more one takes, the few votes they receive. This system would force citizens to be more productive and not just live off welfare (other people’s money) like in many western nations ATM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.59.150 ( talk) 10:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
This article handles one democracy index as if it were the only one and a generic democracy index. Therefore this article should be moved to a separate article with the name "The Economist Intelligence Unit´s index of democracy".
A Google search will reveal that there are now several different democracy indices, and this article - with this title - should be a general article about all different democracy indices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.10.249.136 ( talk) 14:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Being from the UK, I found it interesting to note that Gordon Brown served as our PM whilst we were (are) at war with Iraq and Afghanistan, and helped implement or control numerous excursions of the law regarding treatment of 'terrorists' and other emergency acts. Yet he himself was never elected to that position by the public and no poll was taken of the public regarding any of the decisions that he put in place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnheritage ( talk • contribs) 14:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Countries above 7.9 are meant to be classified as full democracies but South Africa is 7.91 so surely it is (just) a full democracy rather than a hybrid regime as it is listed as at the moment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.232.196 ( talk) 21:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
...while Iran is the opposite.
Shall I give more examples? I really don't get how Iran is more democratic. The idea that Iranian citizens can choose President is really not true. They can choose a number of candidates that are allowed to reign, but in reality they must share the ideas of the governmet - not the people. The Syrian authority have a bigger heart for the human soul than the Iranian.
Under Bashar al- Assads time as President hundreds of political prisoners were released and a steps were taken towards easing media restrictions. Did this ever happen in Iran after the revolution? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.162.196 ( talk) 00:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
The UK position on the list is incorrect. It should be 8.08. There are probably more errors in the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.47.135.117 ( talk) 12:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
You know what, this entire article is a vandalism if you ask me, The Economist is perhaps worst publication to publish any research or data. They are totally unreliable, totally out of sink with the reality and totally flawed and full of inaccuracies.
That link is the 2007 report - this article is about the 2010 report - so there will be loads of differences —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.242.146.18 ( talk) 21:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Iran has elections, under the watch of U.N. and is probably more democratic than many of the countries currently on the list. Unfortunately, most of the western media have a pro-Israel policy and often misrepresent Iran when it comes to the democracy in Iran today, to name a few, Iran started the first womens games in Mid-Asia/Mid-East, had the first women taxi driver in Mid Asia and also allows biologically homosexuals to have sex change treatments. Iran's constitution is extremely similar to that of Italy including the pope. As far as democracy goes, it concerns nations providing free and fair elections where majority rules, regardless of whether it is secular or not. I will add Iran in couple of days unless someone has a valid and constructive criticism to this.-- 78.86.159.199 ( talk) 00:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
In Iran you are only allowed to run for office if you are first accepted by the council of elders. A person opposed to sharia law would not be allowed to run for president. This makes Iran no more democratic than China. Also, this is a list published by the Economist and is not to be edited.
Homosexuals do not want sex change operations (you are confusing them with transexuals). Homosexuals do, however, want to live - which under the Iranian regime is not an option. Vauxhall1964 ( talk) 19:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
The map needs to be fixed, it is too unclear as to what country is rated what. QZXA2 21:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
When the scale is mentioned in the wikipedia article it says "scale of ten" and then links to another wikipedia article named "scale of one to ten". The scale in the economist article is said to be "of 0 to 10", i.e. the equivalence of a scale from 1 to 11. I don't usually edit articles, should I just go ahead and change the link?
* http://www.economist.com/images/rankings/Democracy.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.16.82.28 ( talk) 14:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
just do it mate, thats obviously a type-o which someone as observant as yourself should correct :)
obviously though, some people lose control and change things which arent even wrong, or just alter things to their opinion/political persuasion! but its fairly obvous that isnt your intention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.48.119 ( talk) 04:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Where is the Vatican?? Helpsloose ( talk) 10:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Probably below North Korea... -- 78.54.179.197 ( talk) 12:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I read the pdf version of the article, in order to describe the methology. I noted en passant, that the authors themselves relate their index to a number of other indices, by somewhat different criteria, and resulting in different rankings. With this as a background, I think the title Democracy Index is inadequate, and more pretentious than the report itself. An alternative article name would be Democracy index (The Economist), opening up for articles on other democracy indicies.- JoergenB ( talk) 01:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I just came to this page to suggest the exact same thing. I agree it does need a name change, as the economist is not an authority in its views regarding democracy, as the article name suggests. Sbw01f ( talk)
There is stalinist-like totalitarian regime in North Korea, not authoritarian regime! -- 86.100.66.70 ( talk) 20:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with our friend that mentionned that a title such as democracy index is very misleading. It should be clearly mentionned that this index (i feel pain calling it that) belongs to the Economist.
The arab world is not the region most reknown for its belief in western democracy. But come to this part of the world and tell them Algeria, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, Pakistan etc.. are more democratic then Kuwait and you will be laughed at. Might as well include include England in the dictatorships, they don't have a bill of rights or civil codes.
I really find it odd that the United States is at the very bottom of free press countries, just above Togo and mauritania, barely making it into the free speech countries MAKING IT NONETHELESS. I also find it odd how american occuppied Iraq is at the bottom of the democratic countries, just above Pakistan the first in the list of authoritarian regime. Let me guess... america, Iraq or Afghanistan rank at the very bottom, yet just inside countries that respect human rights.
Is this a joke ? So is america and american standards, with all due respect to america, the quantitative criteria used by the economist and reporeters without borders and other "expert" sources.
I'm Kuwaiti and we here in great part consider it a democracy. Given "western democracy" as a criteria (although i don't believe that to be necessary) we would classify ourselves as hybrid regime, for the simple fact that the prime minister is appointed by the emir and not elected. On the other hand, the crown prince (2nd in line) can be prevented from being emir, and its up to parliament to then chose the monarch who has very little practical powers other then appointing the prime minister. England (and the "colonies") are not dictatorship because people realise that common laws and precedents govern england's basic functioning. If that is not taken into consideration England would be a dictatorship and the queen a dictator. Other countries reputations should not be tarnished on the account of the economist's incompetence and its incapability to know other countries common law and precedents. A country like singapore ranked 140 something in the freedom of press cannot possibly be democratic whilst countries ranked 60 are considered authoritarian regime.
This is a very complex and debatable issue, and methodology plays an important role i realise that. I'm simplifying my point of view and that is not enough, especially that this index belongs to the economist and not wikipedia.
PLEASE MAKE IT LESS MISLEADING HIGHLIGHT THE ECONOMIST AS THE SOURCE OF THIS INDEX The average joe might think these rankings are universally agreed upon.
What a joke, please upload other sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonassra ( talk • contribs) 07:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I am most baffled that Pakistan has not been classified as a defacto monarchy, because the Bhutto family always rules. Benazir Bhutto made her son the heir/ruler and her widower is only ruling as regent. The Bhuttos are a maharadja family, their rule is simply tradition and should be called a monarchy (with a parliamentary smokescreen). I disagree with other places, too, but that's not as misleading as the Pakistan one. 144.136.177.146 ( talk) 03:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
As a Greek, the people who invented democracy, this index is ridiculous. Athenian Democracy had negative voting and osctracism so in that sense not a single country is democratic. However when you break down the word it means the rule of the people. Now tell me please if the heads of the first five most democratic states belong to a heridetary line of Kings and Queens never elected by the people how are these countries democratic really? That's simply absurd and ridiculous. In a democracy the head of state is directly elected by the majority of people. The Kings and Queens of these countries are not. Therefore the should be as undemocratic as other dictatorships with the difference that people are happy in monarchies but unhappy in most dictatorships. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhiteMagick ( talk • contribs) 23:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you... You have to understand that the people responsible for defining democracy and freedom are running out of ideas. They are turning democracy into an adjective devoid of any of its original meaning, and alienating their definition from common sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonassra ( talk • contribs) 06:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
It's quite obvious that the scoring is rather arbitrary as they are all subjective scores. I have citizenship in two listed countries both with fairly high scores but one is more than a full point higher than the other; however the scores should be reversed as the one listed as "more democratic" is vastly less so. And this score doesn't take into account checks and balances, a country with complete mob (as in mob of people not organized crime) rule should have a pretty high score.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.173.229 ( talk) 03:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I commented previously and the purpose of my comment was to highlight how the title is inappropriate. Unless the economist holds a monopoly or a patent on democracy the title shouldn't read democracy index, but the economists democracy index.
the criterias are: "Whether national elections are free and fair"; "The security of voters"; "The influence of foreign powers on government"; "The capability of the civil servants to implement policies".
Now the last two are a bit controversial. If a government is pressured into submitting to the wills of foreign power does that make it more of an authoritarian regime and less of a democracy ? It probably makes it less democratic (to no fault of its own), but it certainly does not make it more authoritarian.
The index is rubbish, the title is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonassra ( talk • contribs) 06:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I guess this is a rant at the thousands of times I hear the word democracy being thrown around daily, but democratic republicanism (statism) is not as democratic a society can be.
Secondly, The Economist newspaper itself takes a biased viewpoint upon the world from a "pro-free trade" lens. Why is an entire article based upon a single source as if it's absolute writ?-- 76.205.212.142 ( talk) 06:46, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Where is France on the list? It looks like on the map that it should be somewhere in the same range as the US but its not on the list at all. On Thermonuclear War ( talk) 05:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't have or find a clear definition of a hybrid regime and the word "regime" does not sound very nice. I live in Venezuela and I think this country is a democracy:
I think you should review this. The only reason why we might not be fully democratic is because there is control over how much American dollars we can buy, sell or spend. Thanks. Tony0106 ( talk) 06:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
It says Italy and Slovenia are listed as full democracies. However, the guidelines explain that:
Full democracies—scores of 8-10.
That means Italy and Slovenia should be flawed democracies as their scores are 7.98 and 7.96. Does this need to be changed? Globe-trotter ( talk) 13:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
You're wrong, there was a recent dispute over this (no one violated 3rr), but the result is that they are full democracies. Let me explain, you rightly state that full democracies have scores of 8-10. How ever, flawed democracies have scores of 6 to 7.9. So in the case of Italy and Slovenia their scores are 7.98 and 7.96, if you round that to one decimal place, the result is: 8.0 and 8.0, as 6 and 8 both round up to the nearest ten. Thank you Spitfire Tally-ho! 05:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I changed Slovenia and Italy back to full democracy. this is clear from table (30 full democracy). Moreover, source contains the sentence "Italy upgraded from Flawed to Full Democracy".
The constitution of USA article 4 section 4 clause 1 states that USA is a republic.USA should not be added as it is not a democracy but a republic.Atleast add a note —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.104.235 ( talk) 15:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Sigh... the same old song, presumably submitted by a Republican who opposes the Democratic party in the USA. The USA is a republic whose representatives are chosen by the vote of the people, so it is a democracy. It's true that the Constitution does not specify exactly how the states are supposed to choose their Senators, Representatives, and electors to the Electoral College, but a very large amount of legislation and case law does. Perhaps you've heard of the Voting Rights Act? — EWAdams ( talk) 00:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
The United States is a Democratic Republic in which The People select most of their representation in government, but not the President or his/her appointees. It should not be stated that the US is a "Full Democracy," because it isn't. It has nothing to do with Democrat/Republican, but with facts vs. fiction. In a full democracy, The People choose ALL of their representation by a simple majority, and that is not the way it is done in the United States. The People do not choose the President, and The People's representation in Congress does not depend directly, but only indirectly, on the population of their State. The USA is pretty far from a full democracy. 198.182.12.150 ( talk) 14:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
This definition is from the Wikipedia: Democracy is a form of government in which power is held indirectly by citizens in a free electoral system.
Based on the above definition, the democracy index of Saudi Arabia should be equal to zero. The government there is totally formed of Al-Saud family members (House of Saud), so the army leaders, minsters, governments official, police leaders are from "House of Saud" and all other forms of authority are ruled by Saud family members...
In North Korea there is a Party ruling the country, not a family, so ministers there when they die they will be replaced (not democratically) by another people in the communist party... but in Saudi Arabia, they will be replaced by their brothers, cousins or sons... so there is no way for any citizen (except Saud family members and their relatives) to be a minster (or even a general) in Saudi Arabia, in North Korea there is a way (by being a communist your entire life, then you may be chosen......... or you may not, but there is a chance).
Saudi Arabia is the only country in the world which officially forbid democracy, in North Korea there is no democracy, but the government there did not declare that democracy is evil (even that it believe it is) but the Saudi Arabian government officials [like the head of the religious police (Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice)] declares that democracy is evil and forbidden, also in the Saudi interpretation of their constitution democracy is against god's will and it is the devil way to destroy human society (actually Saudi Arabia have no constitution, it is just a 1400 years old holy book named "Quran" which is their constitution).
Saudi Arabian constitution = Quran = God is the ruler >>> King rules in his name >>> his relatives help him >>> people should obey.
The written paragraph above is all about the above democracy definition, if we extend the definition to include other democracy elements (like freedom of speech and thought), Saudi Arabia democracy index will not improve at all, its democracy index would be -2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.42.225.230 ( talk) 21:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Someone has removed the link to a Swedish blog with a critical review of the EIU rating of Sweden. This was apparently done without arguing why. The link has now been added again. If someone wants to remove it then please present your arguments before doing so. 79.136.76.102 ( talk) 15:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
And it what way exactly does the blog in question not conform? You claim this but you do not argue it in any detail. In what way is it not "authoritative" for its subject? It is neutral since it does not express a particular point of view. It does not present new research, but contains a number of references to authoritative sources and relevant debate. It is of course also highly relevant to the subject. So, how does it not conform? 79.136.76.102 ( talk) 17:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
1. You give only one concrete argument in you reply, and that is the false claim about liberal think tanks. The articles contain a mixture of references, the majority of which are professors at Swedish universties, reports from government inquiries, and the like. Some of their research is also conducted by recognised scholars, and is treated and referenced as such by other scholars. When did recognised Swedish scholarship become propaganda? And when did it become propaganda to include many different points of view in a review?
2. You only mention one article, which suggests you have not read the six articles that comprise the critical review. Maybe reading the review in its entirety may be a good starting point?
I wonder if you perhaps have been contacted by a company that has an interest in that the link disappears? Maybe in exchange for a handfull of cash? Or maybe you are just a run of the mill leftist rabulist, who produces more insults than arguments, and the few arguments you produce are false?
I did check the rules, and I found content criteria. I did not see the term recognised authority, but I probably missed it. Maybe you can show me where it is, and how it is defined by Wikipedia?
79.136.76.102 ( talk) 19:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
I have now checked the rules again, and I found the term recognised authority, and I also found that there is no reason why the blog should not pass those criteria. What the rules say is that this restriction is very limited, and the only clarifying information given is a reference to notability. And we pass the criteria for notability.
So, what is left of the arguments from Klassikal? Well, nothing, except slurs and lies.
There is also a need to further discuss the issue of possible corruption:
- Why is this article only about The Economist, instead of one generic article about democracy indices, and one specific about the EIU index?
- How is it that detailed results from the EIU index are published by Wikipedia, when we have shown that they are not authoritative?
- Why was our link in place for at least two months, before it suddenly was deleted, just when our blog was starting to grow with more damning evidence against the EIU:s rating of Sweden?
- Why is it that the person who has removed the link resorts to politicised slurs, instead of facts, and seemingly biased interpretations of rules?
83.233.232.115 ( talk) 16:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I concur with those above who have wondered aloud whether or not this index was a joke. I've concluded that it must be. As far as I'm aware, Bolivia is the most democratic state on the planet today: Morales was selected by the common people from among their own ranks -- which has never and will never happen in any corporate state -- and he was affirmed by 45% of the population in 2005 and 57% in 2008, which will likewise never happen in a corporate state. (That's percentage of the population, not just of voters, which is a distinction that the corporate states are loathe to have pointed out, since it would reveal the fact that only a third or less of the populations of those states actually approve of the corporate stooges that are trotted out for their approval every few years in order to maintain the illusion of legitimacy.) Yet, lo and behold, Bolivia is listed in the middle of the pack as a "flawed" democracy. Why? Because Morales is taking no shit from the US -- that's the "flaw." But, it won't be long before the corporate media has finished branding him a dictator so he can be toppled without undo bleating from the sheeple. This article should be deleted, since it is being linked from other articles as a legitimate reference for which states constitute democracies. An illegitimate propaganda index is thereby being legitimized. How is that encyclopedic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.246.237 ( talk • contribs)
why don't you actually look at the report before commenting on its accuracy. The list does not just measure the right to vote, but also the standard of civil liberties, voter participation, and how the country's political system works. Bolivia was listed as a "hybrid regime" because Morales uses public funds for his political campaigns and the parliament of Bolivia tends to rubber stamp every law he writes. This is all available in the report. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.150.68 ( talk) 03:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Template:Lists of countries has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Cybercobra ( talk) 07:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
In the tabel shown, several countries do have bicameralism (at least as far as I can understand the definition). The Netherlands (Nederland) has the "Tweede kamer" (approx. the House of Representatives in the US) and the "Eerste kamer" (approx. the Senate in the US), so IMHO it should rate as bicameralism. Same for the UK (House of Commons, House of Lords). Rgds, Hens Kolff (Nederland). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.95.194.27 ( talk) 16:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Does the list ever change. Does it update. Many countries change their way of living and/or their government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamid10 ( talk • contribs) 13:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree I think someone should find out if another one was made since the above guy is right I don't know but as someone who travels off this list it would be helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.67.61 ( talk) 17:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Did the Economist group publish a democracy index for 2009? 2010? Ben Gershon - בן גרשון ( Talk) 17:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by בן גרשון ( talk • contribs)
registation is free.plz update it
http://graphics.eiu.com/PDF/Democracy_Index_2010_web.pdf
122.162.113.180 (
talk) 08:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I updated the tables to be in line with the recently published 2010 report. The map is not updated! I also did not touch the "Type of government" column, which may be out of date in the case of some countries. For example Guinea's overall score improved quite a bit so I wonder if it's still a military junta?
In general the 2010 report showed that most full democracies had their overall scores drop since 2008, for example due to decreased political participation. On the other hand, many flawed democracies had improved overall scores. The countries with most notable increases in overall scores were Ghana (now in the flawed democracy category), Malawi, Kuwait, Togo and Guinea. On the other hand, Madagasgar for example had a huge drop in the overall score as a result of the political unrest. Fiji, Gambia, Egypt, Afghanistan and Iran also went significantly downhill since the 2008 report.
I wonder if the table should be added a column to show change? If so, would it be better to show the change since the first report (2006) or the previous one (2008)? Antti Salonen ( talk) 18:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Map in this article is misleading cos it showas not accurate data.For example in Europe France, Italy, Greece and few other countries need to be shown on the map as FLAWED DEMOCRACIES.can somebody please change it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.40.48.160 ( talk) 12:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
While obviously this isn't a direct issue for this page, I've looked up at Israel's score for civil liberties and answered the questions for myself as an Israeli. I disagree with the 5.x score the Economist has given under this part.
It might be a really daft question, but; How can the UK be considered a full democracy when it is a constitutional monarchy and the head-of-state is ultimatley unelected?-- Connelly90[AlbaGuBràth] ( talk) 12:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
"Whether national elections are free and fair"; "The security of voters"; "The influence of foreign powers on government"; "The capability of the civil servants to implement policies".
Interestingly 4 of the top 5 and 7 of the top 10 are constitutional monarchies. Who'd have thought it? Suggests evolution not revolution makes for better democracies? Anyway, his is not the place to have that debate. Epeeist smudge ( talk) 08:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, i am surprised to see some Latin American countries depicted as flawed democracies. If they were flawed, then there would be much more vote fraud and international watch groups wouldn't be allowed during elections. It seems to me like Latin America, not all, but for the most part has moved from authoritarian regimes to full democracies (with imperfections but that is expected). But the facts show that the people have been able to elect their own governors. In cases such as Venezuela the dictator (that can be discussed) was elected by the Venezuelan people, in Colombia a president wanted to last 3 terms instead of 2 as it is allowed in full democracies, and he was not allowed by the judicial system. In conclusion I have doubts over the neutrality of this kind of index. If the index was fair then it should question the democracy of countries like the United States where two parties have prevailed and are by themselves powerful machinery whose electoral system has failed too (Gore vs Bush for instance). I hope anyone working on this article takes this into consideration as to make the article more neutral. Thanks -- Camilo Sanchez ( talk) 21:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
While I see nothing wrong with an article about this index, I've also seen it used in some articles about regional or national areas as if it really meant something. Maybe if this article were more critical, examining the sources and methodologies or showing explanations or clarifications from peer review, that would make more sense. Without that, I don't think this can be used as a helpful index without some sort of warning. This is an "open content" encyclopedia and the index is based on what some commercial publication cooked up in their private offices for whatever benefits they saw fit, so we can't take it at face value.
While some aspects it brings up may be of some use, this index is mainly a way to try to define democracy to conform with the expectations, points of view and "free market" ideologies of powerful OECD countries. Otherwise democracy means "the leadership or rule of citizens". In our time, citizens are the entire adult population that's considered equal before the law and benefits from a series of essential human rights, so all mechanisms that give these people collective power in different ways are contributing to democracy, from voting, to general economic welfare, access to information, education and health, the role of security forces, the treatment of poorer portions of the population, labor representativeness and initiative, the importance of rallies and demonstrations, protection from commercial exploitation and predation and what the state does to the sovereignty of other countries all contribute. You can't reduce that to "there's lots of voting that analytic market companies consider done as expected" unless you want a form with little substance (which can perhaps be conveniently filled with something).
This index just considers voting and elections, and even narrows that down by asking stuff that avoids certain issues that may make elections less fair to most people, such as powerful lobbies pressuring elections or the elected officials with monetary incentives or other advantages that are hard to track or control. It also gives great value to the foreign influence against "democracy", but apparently it's fine if the country is causing such impairments to other countries. If country A helps destroy the sovereignty, and thus democracy, in country B by manipulating elections, we're supposed to consider it democratic, as long as no one manages to similarly abuse its own citizens from outside. I could probably go on, but I'm simply trying to say that while lists look cool on pages, this index isn't something "objective" that can be used as a measure of democracy in articles, much less if in the article here we can't add more than just an echo of what it presents itself as. Who is like God? ( talk) 06:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Why is Zaire on the list? The first list was made in 2006 and Zaire hasn't existed since 1997. What's the reasoning for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.91.6 ( talk) 16:08, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
I think there is scope for a serious discussion on a change of title for this article. I quite realise that the article points out that it is the Economist IU's index and that there is no conflicting article requiring disambiguation, but the tone of this discussion board, consisting largely of "my country is more domocratic (or less democratic) than yours" or "monarchies can't bae democracies" or just plain "this index is a joke" suggests wide misunderstanding of the purpose of the article (i.e. to report EIU's findngs). Mentioning the Economist in the title would not entirely head this off, but it might help. It might also be worth mentioning the economist's self confessed credo of market driven liberal democracy (shouldn't be hard to find a reference, they are not shy about it). Read properly, this is all made quite clear, but it is being misread sufficiently often that we should do what we can to make it clearer. Can we have a reasoned discussion about this? Epeeist smudge ( talk) 14:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
There are several countries that are colored by the wrong category on the used file, File talk:Democracy Index 2010 green and red.svg. Central African Republic should be the brown instead of red and Afghanistan should be red instead of brown. -- 143.238.91.206 ( talk) 02:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Palestine is not a country, how do I change the table to say "Palestinian Territories" instead? Maybe next year they will have a country and then it will be changed back but currently it isn't a sovereign country-- Someone35 17:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Being occupied by a foreign, oppressive power doesn't magically make you stop being a country. 203.59.103.93 ( talk) 04:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC) Sutter Cane
they have just released the newest one lets get switching — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.67.61 ( talk) 04:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
The article states that rank under 4 is authoritarian, yet Egypt has 3,95 and is labeled as "hybrid". The original article has Egypt as "hybrid" in a list, but later is written the following:
"Eight countries had a change in regime type in 2011. In four there was a regression and four had an upgrade. Portugal deteriorated from a “full democracy” to a “flawed democracy”, a development that had already affected Greece, Italy and France in 2010. Ukraine and Guatemala regressed from flawed democracies to hybrid regimes, and in Russia a long process of regression culminated in a move from a hybrid to an authoritarian regime in light of the cynical decision by Vladimir Putin to return to the presidency and because of deeply flawed parliamentary elections. Tunisia experienced the biggest increase of any country in its democracy score in 2011. It moved from an authoritarian to a hybrid regime. Two Sub-Saharan African countries also moved from authoritarian to hybrid regimes (Mauritania and Niger), and Zambia improved from a hybrid to a flawed democracy."
The eight countries are: Portugal, Ukraine, Guatemala, Russia, Mauritania, Niger, Zambia, Tunisia. As Egypt was authoritarian last year, they should be labeled as "authoritarian" this year. More opinions, please? HeadlessMaster ( talk) 14:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
You guys do realize there hasn't been a 2012 report? The new one was for December 2011. And Camoka's map had tons of errors. 98.209.18.176 ( talk) 19:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
In Sweden we have to wait for four years to be allowed to vote once and then again wait for four years to be allowed to vote once again and so on. Add to that, the referendums in Sweden are not for real only "advisory" to the Swedish political class. In other words you have missed the most important criteria of all: how often can a citizen vote in a correct election or referendum in a democracy! 17:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Heja Sverige —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.248.215 ( talk) 06:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
There is much fail in Sweden nowdays, see the FRA-law -- 81.172.223.220 ( talk) 07:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
We have initiated a critical review of the rating for Sweden. Google sweden democracy index review and look for wordpress grundlag. Note, this is serious, not some spurious ranting! We provide links to Swedish sources and experts.[[[Special:Contributions/79.136.76.102|79.136.76.102]] ( talk) 12:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)]
You did surely not understand the system of the democracy index. Sure, there is FRA in Sweden and other things, but the Swedes are allowed to CRITICISE it and DEMONSTRATE, show their anger toward the POLITICIANS that came up with that idea.
You think that is allowed in some other countries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.162.196 ( talk) 11:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
I am not an expert either, but I am from Sweden and I have been living many years in 3 other corners of Europe and I can tell there is a big difference. The FRA-law was just putting a law to a practise used for a few decades, and American interests with a lot of money can of course dictate that PirateBay is a bad thing, but other than this the democracy has very few flaws. The people can vote and start political parties freely, everything is more transparent and visible. That the people were idiots and voted for the wrong party does not mean the democracy is flawed. 92.80.100.109 ( talk) 04:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
- i mean come on you find it to be an outrage that sweden is first. I mean i personally think iceland or finland are the most democratic countries but sweden and those other countries I listed are certainly more democratic then the US if you don't think so give me a fucking break you are most certainly not the freest just because your president's say "we are the leaders of the free world" you can cite as many sources as you want but there is nothing that can make me or to be honest a lot of people around this world on the issue of whether the US is the most democratic. My other problems with this list are chad being the second least free bullshit turkmenistan which is number three has a personality cult and the whole nine yards which Chad does not. Having Burkina Faso or the Central African Republic down there are also bull Burkina Faso is definatly not one of the world's least free countries it has a great government which although is not democratic has helped Burkina become a fast growing country. The car is sure not the most perfect democracy but President Francois Bozize overthrew a repressive government in 2003 and later stepped down to run in elections that were considered by every observer there from all over the world to be free and fair. I don't agree Saudi Arabia is less free then the DPRK give me a break. To the kuwait guy totally agree Kuwait is widely considered to be one of the most democratic governments in the Middle East. forgive the rant but to be honest I support the gov'ts of most of the countries low on this list and they state above in how they measure where the countries go they use main statistical evidence
I want to suggest to take a closer look to the changes in Hungary during the last years with a majority of 2/3s of the rightwing party FIDESZ. The change of constitution, the new laws against freedom of press and mass media, the changes to the system of the constitutional court and a lot of other changes show: This country is on a way to being comparable with Belarus and Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.119.6 ( talk) 02:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
it may be little unexpected for lots of turk. Actually ı didnt surprise because of misleading against current party in power. I must say that until mid 2000s we havent even democray.Whenever majorty gain Primeminister,Army or Laws stopped them and send them jail.We couldnt talk about our religion and anything about religion.Basicly If yu say i am muslim yu were treated like second class people.Its little irronic because %95 of Turkey define theirself As Muslim.Today Many thing changed we can say whatever we want freely but still Lots of People insulting us (i meant people who voted leading party)
No I dont believe Turkey is Hybrid regime But I know that some people unhappy because of the losing control.They rulled Turkey 80 years, Eventhoug They arent more than %25 of Turkey.I am sure Yu can read lots of artical about this,but this is truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.14.78.121 ( talk) 10:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
the EIU democracy index doesn't list nominal types of government or contain this as part of its analysis. there are also errors in the types of nominal government listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.122.30.187 ( talk) 03:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
The colours are way too strong and makes the text barely visible. The very dark shades of red is also an eye strain. Consider choosing lighter shades? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Didemo ( talk • contribs) 07:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure how much informative is the mean democracy index for CEE countries. In this group you find such a diverse countires as the Czech Republic and Belarus. It is really an artificial group which is lumped together for some historical reasons enriched by certain level of politically uncorrect and preconceived idea of similarity between these countries. Guys, we 22 years after the fall of Iron Courtain! Have you noticed that? Start with comparing the democracy index of the Czech Republic and Belarus, then you can continue with Human Development index etc etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.113.86.132 ( talk) 13:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I believe that the amount of material in this article taken directly from Democracy Index 2011 has strayed into WP:COPYVIO territory, and I have asked that it be looked at by someone with better knowledge of Wikipedia policies in that regard. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 04:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
.Dear Marc, Thank you for your enquiry. The full list is fine to show. Kind regards, Adriana, Economist Intelligence Unit, www.eiu.com
So is this just in limbo now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.221.196 ( talk) 01:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
So if they already told us the full list was fine to show, what's the problem? This reeks as somewhat authoritarian, and I can't say I appreciate the idea of restricting the flow of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.221.196 ( talk) 05:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I was in cc on 11 september on a mail from permissions@wikimedia.org to London@eiu.com asking for the CC license without any response yet. -- Marc Lacoste ( talk) 13:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I put back a censored list with only the interval of the index (9-10, 8-9, 7-8, etc.). Same information as in
wich was'nt removed, so I consider this information is OK to show. If you think the ranking (1.2.3.4.5.etc.) is too much a copyright violation, you could remove the column but please leave the list, otherwise the countries out of the list section doesn't make sense and you have to respect the work of the editors who put a list with the nature of each regime. I find it bleak to censor a democracy list. -- Marc Lacoste ( talk) 08:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
The full list is on the foreign language Wikipedias! Why is no one cracking down on that? We need to bring the list back! 76.163.252.90 ( talk) 02:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for starting this discussion again. I added a version of the list to the article at 08:34 today and my change was reverted by Beyond My Ken at 11:02 today with an edit summary of "Undid revision 547250197 by W163 (talk) Please see talkpage, this has been deteremined to be a copyright violation". I apologize for not looking at the talk page before, I should have. I've read it now. I haven't gone back to reread the Wikipedia policies or the legal opinion yet, but I will. But in the meantime I have some questions and observations:
I understand this list by the Economist Intelligence Unit is copyrighted. Could we maybe include a link to the official list in the actual article? Johnxsmith ( talk) 22:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to make sense to have the extensive "Countries and territories not included in this list" section when the "this list" referred to is no longer included in the article. I would have just deleted it but since there seems to be some dispute around this article I thought it better to discuss first. - htonl ( talk) 10:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
How come Equador hasn't got a higher rating? I thought it was one of the most free countries in the world, giving asylum to Julian Assange and all that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.100.198.13 ( talk) 11:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
This article and index is just a joke china is guided by communists and has not any elections and chooses its president , russia has election and the putin party even lost some % in the recent election. How can they come and set china and russia at the same level? This democracy index is a joke and probably a political tool.
America is run by two parties since 100 years and they give them the highest ranking too-- Quandapanda ( talk) 14:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
- belarus has also the same level like russia i forgot to mention, lukaschenko rules belarus now much longer than putin.-- Quandapanda ( talk) 14:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Population density? Jiawhein ( talk) 01:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC) →no. 83.10.15.48 ( talk) 15:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
are there more obvious errors? 83.10.15.48 ( talk) 15:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I would if I knew how. On my screen no country is a "perfect democracy" (that may be) and yellow doesn't exist. I'm sure this is an error. Pick some different colors instead of extremely similiar greens. 79.136.64.95 ( talk) 20:49, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I expected this article to show the ranking by country, as it has in the past, and as it still does in some other languages. The lack lessens the article. Why has this been removed? Star Lord - 星王 ( talk) 21:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Please somebody update the information according to the 2014 calculations! thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.50.155.72 ( talk) 13:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Is it that there is something wrong with the index? United Kingdom is legally a unitary constitutional monarchy, ie, a monarchy where the powers of the monarch is limited but it IS a monarchy nevertheless. Then why is it listed in this article as a FULL DEMOCRACY? What criteria defines a full democracy and a constitutional monarchy (flawed democracy). I can understand the UK being a free country ( Freedom Map-Wikipedia) but how come democracy? Also many nations which are legally FULL DEMOCRACIES are listed here as FLAWED DEMOCRACY. Why?? How come monarchies like Netherlands, Canada, Japan and UK be listed above democracies like USA(one of the first democracies), France and India (India, the world's biggest democracy being cited as flawed democracy)? Also Bhutan (Monarchy) and Pakistan (fundamentalist quasi-republic) are above Russia (cited as authoritarian) I doubt it. 85.154.87.47 ( talk) 09:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
China has been rated Authoritarian on this Index in the past and should remain so. Why does this 2014 index now say they are a flawed Democracy?
Sorry one of those People's Republic of China versus Republic of China things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.155.131.72 ( talk)
The colors need to be inverted so that they match mainland France and mainland Italy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.218.4.2 ( talk) 12:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Mexico should be listed as hybrid regime, in Mexico the army is on the streets in 31 of the 32 entities, and in the other one (Mexico City), there is secret police on the streets.
References
I am working on a series of lists/infographics, to include the top Muslim countries by percentage of country's total population. I have been able to add a Democracy Index score to all of the countries on the list, except for Western Sahara, Mayotte, Somalia, and the Maldives. All but Somalia have populations so small that I didn't really mind excluding them from the list, but Somalia is a different story for a number of different reasons. I am assuming it wasn't included because the source did not include it, but does the source at least provide some sort of explanation for it? I could certainly make some guesses and, in fact, the reason(s) may be obvious to most, but I'd really rather not make assumptions. If "The Economist" does include a reason for the exclusion, could you add it to this article? Emerald Evergreen 17:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisa Beck ( talk • contribs)
I do not completely agree with the facts pertaining to the DI of the 167 countries in question, so I created my own table, tweaking some of the data, such as which countries were ranked in which slots and the score and category. Although I am no scholar and did not calculate or run trials of any of this information, I feel like my rearranging of this data should give a somewhat clearer statement about the nature of each country's ruling system. For example, some rearrangements I made were bumping countries like Belgium, France, and Italy up to the 'Full Democracy' category, the United States down to 'Flawed Democracy,' and Russia from 'Authoritarian Regime' to the lower end of 'Hybrid Regime,' among others. Again, this may not be completely accurate, but it is what makes sense to me and many others, presumably. I also apologize for the lack of organization of the data presented.
Rank: Country: Score: Category: 1 Norway 9.93 Full democracy 2 Sweden 9.73 Full democracy 3 Iceland 9.58 Full democracy 4 New Zealand 9.35 Full democracy 5 Denmark 9.26 Full democracy 6 Canada 9.11 Full democracy 7 Finland 9.09 Full democracy 8 Switzerland 9.03 Full democracy 9 Australia 9.01 Full democracy 10 Netherlands 8.92 Full democracy 11 Belgium 8.88 Full democracy 12 Ireland 8.80 Full democracy 13 Germany 8.72 Full democracy 14 Austria 8.64 Full democracy 15 United Kingdom 8.55 Full democracy 16 Luxembourg 8.35 Full democracy 17 Malta 8.22 Full democracy 18 Japan 8.17 Full democracy 19 South Korea 8.11 Full democracy 20 Mauritius 8.08 Full democracy 21 France 8.06 Full democracy 22 Italy 8.05 Full democracy 23 Uruguay 8.04 Full democracy 24 Costa Rica 8.03 Full democracy 25 Czech Republic 7.95 Flawed democracy 26 Poland 7.94 Flawed democracy 27 Estonia 7.93 Flawed democracy 28 India 7.87 Flawed democracy 29 Botswana 7.85 Flawed democracy 30 Spain 7.85 Flawed democracy 31 South Africa 7.81 Flawed democracy 32 Chile 7.80 Flawed democracy 33 Portugal 7.79 Flawed democracy 34 Cape Verde 7.74 Flawed democracy 35 United States 7.65 Flawed democracy 36 Taiwan 7.63 Flawed democracy 37 Israel 7.57 Flawed democracy 38 Slovenia 7.55 Flawed democracy 39 Lithuania 7.50 Flawed democracy 40 Latvia 7.48 Flawed democracy 41 Greece 7.45 Flawed democracy 42 Jamaica 7.40 Flawed democracy 43 Slovakia 7.39 Flawed democracy 44 Cyprus 7.38 Flawed democracy 45 Brazil 7.35 Flawed democracy 46 Timor-Leste 7.24 Flawed democracy 47 Panama 7.08 Flawed democracy 48 Trinidad & Tobago 6.99 Flawed democracy 49 Indonesia 6.95 Flawed democracy 50 Croatia 6.93 Flawed democracy 51 Hungary 6.90 Flawed democracy 52 Argentina 6.84 Flawed democracy 53 Suriname 6.77 Flawed democracy 53 Philippines 6.77 Flawed democracy 55 Bulgaria 6.73 Flawed democracy 56 Serbia 6.71 Flawed democracy 57 Romania 6.68 Flawed democracy 57 Mexico 6.68 Flawed democracy 59 Dominican Republic 6.67 Flawed democracy 60 Lesotho 6.66 Flawed democracy 61 Mongolia 6.62 Flawed democracy 62 Colombia 6.55 Flawed democracy 63 Peru 6.54 Flawed democracy 64 El Salvador 6.53 Flawed democracy 65 Malaysia 6.49 Flawed democracy 66 Hong Kong 6.46 Flawed democracy 67 Zambia 6.39 Flawed democracy 68 Ghana 6.33 Flawed democracy 69 Moldova 6.32 Flawed democracy 70 Tunisia 6.31 Flawed democracy 71 Paraguay 6.26 Flawed democracy 72 Macedonia 6.25 Flawed democracy 73 Namibia 6.24 Flawed democracy 74 Senegal 6.15 Flawed democracy 75 Papua New Guinea 6.03 Flawed democracy 76 Singapore 6.03 Flawed democracy 77 Montenegro 5.94 Hybrid regime 78 Guyana 5.91 Hybrid regime 79 Ecuador 5.87 Hybrid regime 80 Honduras 5.84 Hybrid regime 81 Georgia 5.82 Hybrid regime 82 Guatemala 5.81 Hybrid regime 83 Bolivia 5.79 Hybrid regime 83 Mali 5.79 Hybrid regime 85 Bangladesh 5.78 Hybrid regime 86 Tanzania 5.77 Hybrid regime 87 Sri Lanka 5.69 Hybrid regime 88 Albania 5.67 Hybrid regime 89 Malawi 5.66 Hybrid regime 90 Benin 5.65 Hybrid regime 91 Fiji 5.61 Hybrid regime 92 Ukraine 5.42 Hybrid regime 93 Thailand 5.39 Hybrid regime 94 Nicaragua 5.32 Hybrid regime 95 Kyrgyzstan 5.24 Hybrid regime 96 Uganda 5.22 Hybrid regime 97 Kenya 5.13 Hybrid regime 98 Turkey 5.12 Hybrid regime 98 Lebanon 5.12 Hybrid regime 100 Venezuela 5.07 Hybrid regime 101 Liberia 4.95 Hybrid regime 102 Bhutan 4.87 Hybrid regime 103 Bosnia & Herzegovina 4.78 Hybrid regime 103 Cambodia 4.78 Hybrid regime 105 Nepal 4.77 Hybrid regime 106 Palestinian Authority 4.72 Hybrid regime 107 Mozambique 4.66 Hybrid regime 108 Pakistan 4.64 Hybrid regime 109 Sierra Leone 4.56 Hybrid regime 110 Madagascar 4.42 Hybrid regime 111 Iraq 4.23 Hybrid regime 112 Mauritania 4.17 Hybrid regime 113 Armenia 4.13 Hybrid regime 114 Burkina Faso 4.09 Hybrid regime 115 Russia 4.02 Hybrid regime 116 Egypt 4.00 Authoritarian regime 117 Niger 3.83 Authoritarian regime 118 Morocco 3.82 Authoritarian regime 119 Haiti 3.80 Authoritarian regime 120 Libya 3.78 Authoritarian regime 121 Algeria 3.76 Authoritarian regime 121 Jordan 3.76 Authoritarian regime 121 Gabon 3.76 Authoritarian regime 124 Nigeria 3.72 Authoritarian regime 125 Nigeria 3.69 Authoritarian regime 126 Cuba 3.53 Authoritarian regime 127 Côte d'Ivoire 3.52 Authoritarian regime 127 Belarus 3.52 Authoritarian regime 129 Comoros 3.45 Authoritarian regime 130 Togo 3.41 Authoritarian regime 131 Vietnam 3.41 Authoritarian regime 132 Cameroon 3.39 Authoritarian regime 133 Angola 3.35 Authoritarian regime 134 Burundi 3.33 Authoritarian regime 135 Rwanda 3.25 Authoritarian regime 136 Qatar 3.18 Authoritarian regime 137 Kazakhstan 3.17 Authoritarian regime 138 Kuwait 3.16 Authoritarian regime 139 Oman 3.15 Authoritarian regime 140 Swaziland 3.09 Authoritarian regime 141 Burma 3.05 Authoritarian regime 141 The Gambia 3.05 Authoritarian regime 143 Guinea 3.01 Authoritarian regime 144 China 3.00 Authoritarian regime 145 Djibouti 2.99 Authoritarian regime 146 Republic of the Congo 2.89 Authoritarian regime 147 Bahrain 2.87 Authoritarian regime 148 Azerbaijan 2.83 Authoritarian regime 149 Yemen 2.79 Authoritarian regime 150 Zimbabwe 2.78 Authoritarian regime 151 Afghanistan 2.77 Authoritarian regime 152 United Arab Emirates 2.64 Authoritarian regime 153 Sudan 2.54 Authoritarian regime 154 Uzbekistan 2.45 Authoritarian regime 155 Eritrea 2.44 Authoritarian regime 156 Tajikistan 2.37 Authoritarian regime 157 Laos 2.21 Authoritarian regime 158 Iran 1.98 Authoritarian regime 159 Guinea-Bissau 1.93 Authoritarian regime 160 Turkmenistan 1.83 Authoritarian regime 161 Saudi Arabia 1.82 Authoritarian regime 162 Democratic Republic of the Congo 1.75 Authoritarian regime 163 Syria 1.74 Authoritarian regime 164 Equatorial Guinea 1.66 Authoritarian regime 165 Chad 1.50 Authoritarian regime 166 Central African Republic 1.49 Authoritarian regime 167 North Korea 1.08 Authoritarian regime — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.24.244 ( talk) 05:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Can it be that the Index is faulty? According to the current Index Pakistan, a country in which the Sharia is the Base of Law and Politics, is more democratic than Russia. I actually doubt it.-- 95.114.10.42 ( talk) 16:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Rank | Overall score | Electoral process and pluralism | Functioning of government | Political participation | Political culture | Civil liberties |
108 | 4.57 | 5.58 | 5.36 | 2.22 | 4.38 | 5.29 |
Pakistan can be actually classified as an authoritiarian regime with totalitarian tendencies.-- 95.114.36.218 ( talk) 18:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
While the meanings of the various colors used in the maps and tables may seem obvious to most or all, it is still appropriate to include in the body of the text a legend defining each color. PhuDoi1 ( talk) 13:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
It's really silly that Pakistan is well above Russia. I'm not here to defend Russia, but there is an obvious bias in this list made by the Economist, therefor a "criticism" section should be added. Besides: That Israel is ranked so highly - despite all human rights violations - is also very debetable. -- 194.166.192.179 ( talk) 22:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Democracy Index. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
In exactly one paper. Please add other quotes. Xx236 ( talk) 11:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Please put on the prelude section a new democracy index scaled map for 2015 to caught up with the current situation or I might change the title of the current map wherever it applies or not. Please tell me or modify the map if I make a mistake. Economist intelligent unit website: http://www.eiu.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertpda ( talk • contribs) 09:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
According the Wikipedias own article on "North America", it includes certain countries listed under the Caribbean and Latin American umbrellas, in the regional comparison in this article.
I am curious as to the reasoning behind this? Actually clicking on "North America" in the comparison brings forward that aforementioned article, which wholly disputes the exclusions of an aggressively high amount of countries, notably ones such as Mexico and Cuba, who have been listed under the under regions.
While I am not usually one for conjecture, it seems very convenient that this "North America" region is only comprised of two countries, and is such frankly gifted the prize that is being #1 overall in this comparison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.90.151.187 ( talk) 14:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I understand how the number are copied from the EIU, but wouldn't it make sense to at least have the regions standardized? I am assuming the information in the continental pages on Wikipedia is correct, making the ones from EIU incorrect. At the very least there seems to be some kind of inconsistency at play here, given how countries are attributed to different regions. I still maintain, regardless of whether or not EIU is HQ'ed in Europe, that it seems rather deceptive to only include two countries in the "North American" region, when it is an objective fact that there are more countries in that region, as can be seen right here on Wikipedia. 83.90.151.187 ( talk) 19:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The following comment was entered at the top of the article by Hardtruths ( talk, contribs) at 17:18 on 1 August 2014 and quickly reverted. I'm entering it here for the record. - Jeff Ogden (W163) ( talk) 02:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
The democracy index is misleading and needs a new category (Perfect democracy perhaps). It implies a full democracy is the highest level of democracy. For example the United Kingdom and the USA are actually flawed democracies (in my opinion), in that corporations and their individual owners control much of the media who feed the public their views on their particular favourite candidate to win. Additionally to become a senator or president (in the case of the US), you need finance. If individuals are segregated from rising to power then cultural bubbles are created with in the power structures. In the UK, the 2015 election showed how 1 million people (of 65 million) voted for the green party and yet the green party only attained 1 parliamentary seat out of 650. These are very flawed democracies.
(of course the Democracy index is created primarily to service business with information about countries so they know how best to exploit them and protect their assets. Maybe I'm being cynical). Mrgauntlett ( talk) 16:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
You're right. The first line of the article says it's the work of the Economist Intelligence Unit. Their method for compiling this information is also clearly described and seems quite opaque. It is made clear that these are the opinions of unnamed experts etc. When I read the article I missed those vital points. The title gives an illusion of weight, but, as I mentioned above, their appraisal operates within their frame work of what democracy currently is. I suppose I could start a criticism section of the Democracy index. Mrgauntlett ( talk) 14:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
The colors used are green for democracy and red for more authoritarian regimes, which in my view is a biased use of colors in violation of WP:NPOV. It is well known that in most cultures green signals good and red signals bad, yet it is not Wikipedia's purpose to proclaim democracy as preferable to other forms of governance. I appreciate your thoughts; if there are no serious objections, I will change the colors to other, more neutral hues later. WallyWyatt [ contact 14:47, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
It is much easier to read with red and green. Scott Tillinghast, Houston TX ( talk) 21:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Could a section be added detailing who are the ~30 excluded countries/states and why they have been excluded? (especially since they are part of the UN) Seems like a relevant mystery 77.125.22.252 ( talk) 00:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
The text says that the USA was downgraded to "flawed democracy" and it's there under spot #35. But it looks like someone added in an extra line at the top, putting the USA on spot #0, with a perfect 10 for everything which seems unlikely. I don't usually edit wikipedia so I'm not sure what to do about this. 124.149.156.177 ( talk) 06:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Someone has sabotaged this page to make Ethiopia #1 on the list? Looks like it was swapped with Norway — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.171.152 ( talk) 23:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
US is not a "full democracy", but a flawed one: for a presidential Republic, the presidential electoral sistem is indirect, and fewer votes wins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.53.248.165 ( talk) 06:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I just read that the 2016 report rates the United States a flawed democracy. We need updates. Any recommended sources? Scott Tillinghast, Houston TX ( talk) 21:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
The United States is present twice in the list of countries, as rank 0 and as rank 35. Looks very much like an error. It also does not have a top score in all categories, as suggested by its rank 0 entry. 85.191.92.133 ( talk) 18:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
At present, the article does not contain criticisms of the index. The Economist and its associated outlets and businesses have a well known bias in international affairs that is not really a matter of debate. It represents the forces of unadulterated, anti-identity, market, globalized liberalism. That orientation cannot fail to influence the objectivity of the Democracy Index, so the absence of a section containing criticisms of the index makes this article read as if this is the final word in indexes of the level of freedom in countries. That Armenia is less democratic than Cambodia will probably shock both Armenians and Cambodians, but that is just one example/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.12.203.133 ( talk) 10:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
The criteria they use is bizarre. Canadians have no say in appointing their prime minister, they are never allowed any plebiscites or referenda, and their Senators for their upper house are neither appointed by, nor can be removed by, the public. But Canada is somehow still considered more democratic than America. Go figure. Edward Carson ( talk) 06:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
@Edward Carson: The Canadian prime minister is appointed based on confidence of the parliament, a common feature of parliamentary democracies. And the Canadian Senate is more symbolic and weaker than other legislative chambers like US Senate or Australian Senate. ← As detailed in the reports, the actual substance of democracy is weighed, not just formal structures. The Democracy Index had clear reasons to score and rank Canada that way, even if you may not agree. 2600:1012:B015:FE60:F460:B89D:DB59:8AAA ( talk) 20:41, 9 Disclaimers February 2018 (UTC)
@ he who does not wish to be identified: to talk about an allegation is not to prove it wrong. The Canadian prime minister is appointed based on blah blah... Yes, quite true, yet still the voters have no input. “The Canadian senate is more symbolic…” What does that even mean? “…and weaker than other legislative chambers…” But still strong enough to deny all legislation introduced by the prime minister. “The Democracy Index had clear reasons to score and rank Canada that way…” I have no doubt, but are the reasons based on objective facts, or subjective preferences? Edward Carson ( talk) 23:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
The map was better before. Now Light green > Dark green but Light blue < Dark blue — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.200.183.223 ( talk) 17:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
So I just noticed, the rounded score of South Korea is 8.00, which by the rules below, means it should be in the "full" category. I haven't made any changes im case that was a rounded up score. ZdrytchX ( talk) 17:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
The index values are used to place countries within one of four types of regime: 1. Full democracies: scores greater than 8 2. Flawed democracies: scores greater than 6, and less than or equal to 8 3. Hybrid regimes: scores greater than 4, and less than or equal to 6 4. Authoritarian regimes: scores less than or equal to 4
Can someone list what countries are included in each region (as specified at the bottom of the article)? -- Numberguy6 ( talk) 21:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved ( closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Democracy Index →
The EIU Democracy Index – This article is not a general one about the concept of a "Democracy Index" and a description of various constructions. Instead it is about one specific "Democracy Index" and thus this should be made explicitly clear in the article title (not just the lede). Note that this is how the EIU themselves refer to their index - cf. the page title
on this page: "EIU Democracy Index 2018 - World Democracy Report"
Oska (
talk) 07:31, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Where is Abkhasia? There is Taiwan but not Abkhazia-- Kaiyr ( talk) 11:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
The accompanying map shows Haida Gwaii as part of American territory. However, Haida Gwaii is under Canadian, not American, annexation and should therefore be shown as part of Canadian territory in order to ensure accuracy. Does anyone know how can this be fixed? Shoutsofvictory ( talk) 19:23, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Democracy Index has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Country with Rank 165 in table should read as "Democratic Republic of Congo" instead of "Democratic Republic of the Congo" Vij Bheenick ( talk) 11:56, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Has the 2019 democracy index been published yet? If so, could someone post it to the article page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Znelson2 ( talk • contribs) 21:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
The 2019 index is available now see here. It was quite comlicated to extract the table from the pdf. Unfortunately I dont have the time to create a Wikitable out of it. But this is a c&p out of my OpenOfficeCalc-Table. Maybe someone has a use for it. Sprechender Kopf ( talk) 11:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Overall score Rank Electoral process Functioning of goverment politival participation political culture civil liberties Norway 9.87 1 10 9.64 10 10 9.71 Iceland 9.58 2 10 9.29 8.89 10 9.71 Sweden 9.39 3 9.58 9.64 8.33 10 9.41 New Zealand 9.26 4 10 9.29 8.89 8.13 10 Finland 9.25 5 10 8.93 8.89 8.75 9.71 Ireland 9.24 6 10 7.86 8.33 10 10 Denmark 9.22 7= 10 9.29 8.33 9.38 9.12 Canada 9.22 7= 9.58 9.64 7.78 9.38 9.71 Australia 9.09 9 10 8.93 7.78 8.75 10 Switzerland 9.03 10 9.58 9.29 7.78 9.38 9.12 Netherlands 9.01 11 9.58 9.29 8.33 8.75 9.12 Luxembourg 8.81 12 10 8.93 6.67 8.75 9.71 Germany 8.68 13 9.58 8.57 8.33 7.5 9.41 United Kingdom 8.52 14 9.58 7.5 8.89 7.5 9.12 Uruguay 8.38 15 10 8.57 6.11 7.5 9.71 Austria 8.29 16= 9.58 7.86 8.33 6.88 8.82 Spain 8.29 16= 9.58 7.14 7.78 8.13 8.82 Mauritius 8.22 18 9.17 8.21 5.56 8.75 9.41 Costa Rica 8.13 19 9.58 7.5 6.67 7.5 9.41 France 8.12 20 9.58 7.86 7.78 6.88 8.53 Chile 8.08 21 9.58 8.57 5 8.13 9.12 Portugal 8.03 22 9.58 7.86 6.11 7.5 9.12 South Korea 8 23 9.17 7.86 7.22 7.5 8.24 Japan 7.99 24 8.75 8.21 6.67 7.5 8.82 United States of America 7.96 25 9.17 7.14 7.78 7.5 8.24 Malta 7.95 26 9.17 7.5 6.11 8.13 8.82 Estonia 7.9 27 9.58 7.86 6.67 6.88 8.53 Israel 7.86 28 9.17 7.86 8.89 7.5 5.88 Botswana 7.81 29 9.17 7.14 6.11 7.5 9.12 Cabo Verde 7.78 30 9.17 7.36 6.67 6.88 8.82 Taiwan 7.73 31 9.58 8.21 6.11 5.63 9.12 Czech Republic 7.69 32 9.58 6.79 6.67 6.88 8.53 Belgium 7.64 33 9.58 8.21 5 6.88 8.53 Cyprus 7.59 34 9.17 6.43 6.67 6.88 8.82 Italy 7.52 35 9.58 6.07 7.78 6.25 7.94 Slovenia 7.5 36= 9.58 6.79 6.67 6.25 8.24 Lithuania 7.5 36= 9.58 6.43 6.11 6.25 9.12 Latvia 7.49 38 9.58 6.07 6.11 6.88 8.82 Greece 7.43 39 9.58 4.86 6.67 7.5 8.53 South Africa 7.24 40 7.42 7.5 8.33 5 7.94 Timor-Leste 7.19 41 9.58 6.29 5.56 6.88 7.65 Slovakia 7.17 42 9.58 7.14 5.56 5.63 7.94 Malaysia 7.16 43= 9.17 7.86 6.67 6.25 5.88 Trinidad and Tobago 7.16 43= 9.58 7.14 6.11 5.63 7.35 Colombia 7.13 45 9.17 6.79 5.56 5.63 8.53 Panama 7.05 46 9.58 6.07 6.67 5 7.94 Bulgaria 7.03 47 9.17 6.43 7.22 4.38 7.94 Argentina 7.02 48 9.17 5.36 6.11 6.25 8.24 Suriname 6.98 49 9.17 6.43 6.67 5 7.65 Jamaica 6.96 50 8.75 7.14 4.44 6.25 8.24 India 6.9 51 8.67 6.79 6.67 5.63 6.76 Brazil 6.86 52 9.58 5.36 6.11 5 8.24 Tunisia 6.72 53 9.17 5.71 7.22 5.63 5.88 Philippines 6.64 54 9.17 5.36 7.22 4.38 7.06 Ghana 6.63 55= 8.33 5.71 6.67 6.25 6.18 Hungary 6.63 55= 8.75 6.07 5 6.25 7.06 Poland 6.62 57 9.17 6.07 6.11 4.38 7.35 Peru 6.6 58 9.17 5 5.56 5.63 7.65 Croatia 6.57 59 9.17 6.07 5.56 5 7.06 Dominican Republic 6.54 60= 9.17 5.36 6.11 5 7.06 Lesotho 6.54 60= 9.17 4.5 6.67 5.63 6.76 Mongolia 6.5 62 9.17 5.71 5.56 5 7.06 Romania 6.49 63 9.17 5.71 5.56 4.38 7.65 Indonesia 6.48 64 7.92 7.14 6.11 5.63 5.59 Namibia 6.43 65 6.58 5.36 6.67 5.63 7.94 Serbia 6.41 66 8.25 5.36 6.11 5 7.35 Ecuador 6.33 67 8.75 5.36 6.11 4.38 7.06 Thailand 6.32 68 7.42 5.36 6.11 6.25 6.47 Sri Lanka 6.27 69 7 6.07 5.56 6.25 6.47 Paraguay 6.24 70 8.75 5.71 5 4.38 7.35 El Salvador 6.15 71= 9.17 4.64 6.11 3.75 7.06 Guyana 6.15 71= 6.92 5.36 6.11 5 7.35 Mexico 6.09 73 7.83 6.07 7.22 3.13 6.18 Papua New Guinea 6.03 74 6.92 6.07 3.89 5.63 7.65 Hong Kong 6.02 75= 3.58 4.36 6.11 7.5 8.53 Singapore 6.02 75= 3.92 7.86 5 6.25 7.06 North Macedonia 5.97 77 7 5.36 6.67 3.75 7.06 Ukraine 5.9 78 7.42 2.71 6.67 6.25 6.47 Albania 5.89 79 7 5.36 4.44 5 7.65 Bangladesh 5.88 80 7.83 6.07 6.11 4.38 5 Fiji 5.85 81 6.58 5.36 6.11 5.63 5.59 Senegal 5.81 82 6.08 6.07 4.44 6.25 6.18 Moldova 5.75 83 6.58 4.64 6.11 4.38 7.06 Montenegro 5.65 84 5.67 5.36 6.11 4.38 6.76 Madagascar 5.64 85 7.92 3.57 6.11 5.63 5 Armenia 5.54 86 7.5 5.36 6.11 3.13 5.59 Malawi 5.5 87 6.08 4.29 5 6.25 5.88 Liberia 5.45 88 7.42 3.07 5.56 5.63 5.59 Georgia 5.42 89= 7.83 3.21 6.11 4.38 5.59 Honduras 5.42 89= 7.83 4.29 4.44 4.38 6.18 Bhutan 5.3 91 8.75 6.79 2.78 4.38 3.82 Nepal 5.28 92 4.83 5.36 5 5.63 5.59 Guatemala 5.26 93 6.92 4.64 3.89 4.38 6.47 Kenya 5.18 94 3.5 5.71 6.67 5.63 4.41 Tanzania 5.16 95 5.75 5 5 5.63 4.41 Morocco 5.1 96 5.25 4.64 5.56 5.63 4.41 Benin 5.09 97= 4.67 5.71 4.44 5.63 5 Zambia 5.09 97= 4.75 2.93 4.44 6.88 6.47 Uganda 5.02 99 4.33 3.57 4.44 6.88 5.88 Mali 4.92 100 6.42 3.07 3.89 5.63 5.59 Kyrgyz Republic 4.89 101 6.08 2.93 6.67 3.75 5 Bosnia and Hercegovina 4.86 102= 6.17 2.93 5.56 3.75 5.88 Sierra Leone 4.86 102= 6.58 2.86 3.33 6.25 5.29 Bolivia 4.84 104 4.75 3.93 5 3.75 6.76 Haiti 4.57 105 4.75 2.07 3.89 6.25 5.88 Lebanon 4.36 106 3.92 1.5 6.67 5 4.71 Gambia 4.33 107 4 4.29 3.33 5.63 4.41 Pakistan 4.25 108 6.08 5.71 2.22 2.5 4.71 Nigeria 4.12 109 5.17 3.93 3.33 3.75 4.41 Turkey 4.09 110 3.08 5 5 5 2.35 Côte d’Ivoire 4.05 111 4.33 2.86 3.33 5.63 4.12 Burkina Faso 4.04 112 3.92 2.71 4.44 5 4.12 Algeria 4.01 113 3.08 2.86 5 5 4.12 Jordan 3.93 114= 3.58 4.29 3.89 4.38 3.53 Kuwait 3.93 114= 3.58 4.29 3.89 4.38 3.53 Mauritania 3.92 116 3.5 3.57 5 3.13 4.41 Palestine 3.89 117 3.33 0.14 7.78 4.38 3.82 Iraq 3.74 118 5.25 0 6.67 5 1.76 Angola 3.72 119 2.25 2.86 5.56 5 2.94 Mozambique 3.65 120 2.58 2.14 5 5 3.53 Gabon 3.61 121 2.58 2.21 4.44 5 3.82 Myanmar 3.55 122= 3.08 3.93 2.78 5.63 2.35 Nicaragua 3.55 122= 1.25 2.86 3.89 5.63 4.12 Cambodia 3.53 124 0.83 4.64 3.33 5.63 3.24 Ethiopia 3.44 125 0.42 3.57 5.56 5 2.65 Togo 3.3 126 3.17 1.79 3.33 5 3.24 Niger 3.29 127 2.92 1.14 3.33 4.38 4.71 Qatar 3.19 128 0 4.29 2.22 5.63 3.82 Rwanda 3.16 129= 1.42 4.29 2.78 4.38 2.94 Zimbabwe 3.16 129= 0 2.5 4.44 5.63 3.24 Comoros 3.15 131 2.08 2.21 3.89 3.75 3.82 eSwatini 3.14 132= 0.92 2.86 2.78 5.63 3.53 Guinea 3.14 132= 3.5 0.43 4.44 4.38 2.94 Congo (Brazzaville) 3.11 134= 2.17 2.5 3.89 3.75 3.24 Russia 3.11 134= 2.17 1.79 5 2.5 4.12 Vietnam 3.08 136 0 3.21 3.89 5.63 2.65 Egypt 3.06 137= 2.67 3.21 3.33 3.75 2.35 Oman 3.06 137= 0.08 3.93 2.78 4.38 4.12 Kazakhstan 2.94 139 0.5 2.14 4.44 4.38 3.24 Venezuela 2.88 140 0 1.79 5 4.38 3.24 Afghanistan 2.85 141= 3.42 0.64 3.89 2.5 3.82 Cameroon 2.85 141= 1.67 2.5 3.33 4.38 2.35 Cuba 2.84 143 0 3.57 3.33 4.38 2.94 Djibouti 2.77 144 0.42 1.29 3.89 5.63 2.65 United Arab Emirates 2.76 145 0 3.93 2.22 5 2.65 Azerbaijan 2.75 146 0.5 3.21 2.78 3.75 3.53 Sudan 2.7 147 0 1.79 5.56 5 1.18 Guinea-Bissau 2.63 148 4.92 0 2.78 3.13 2.35 Bahrain 2.55 149 0.83 2.71 2.78 4.38 2.06 Belarus 2.48 150 0.92 2 2.78 4.38 2.35 Iran 2.38 151 0 2.86 4.44 3.13 1.47 Eritrea 2.37 152 0 2.14 1.67 6.88 1.18 China 2.26 153 0 4.29 3.33 2.5 1.18 Burundi 2.15 154 0 0.07 3.33 5 2.35 Laos 2.14 155 0 2.86 1.67 5 1.18 Libya 2.02 156 0 0 2.78 4.38 2.94 Uzbekistan 2.01 157 0.08 1.86 2.22 5 0.88 Yemen 1.95 158 0 0 3.89 5 0.88 Saudi Arabia 1.93 159= 0 2.86 2.22 3.13 1.47 Tajikistan 1.93 159= 0.08 0.79 1.67 6.25 0.88 Equatorial Guinea 1.92 161 0 0.43 3.33 4.38 1.47 Turkmenistan 1.72 162 0 0.79 2.22 5 0.59 Chad 1.61 163 0 0 1.67 3.75 2.65 Syria 1.43 164 0 0 2.78 4.38 0 Central African Republic 1.32 165 1.25 0 1.11 1.88 2.35 Democratic Republic of Congo 1.13 166 0 0 1.67 3.13 0.88 North Korea 1.08 167 0 2.5 1.67 1.25 0
please update according to 2020 report — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4061:2189:A91E:0:0:96A:78AC ( talk) 18:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
The index is flawed at its core, I propose that I make (below the original) a "better" version with higher accuracy — Preceding unsigned comment added by BiggieCheese2 ( talk • contribs) 23:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
There should be a big banner stating at the top of this talk page that this is about the EUI report and not editors' opinions and anyone editing this article should be required to read it first. How many times has this useless complaint come up now? It's getting ridiculous. 2606:6000:60CC:C900:3C6A:5721:B278:968A ( talk) 04:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Firejuggler86 ( talk) 13:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I know that this is just data from a specific company, but it still feels weird to make one wikipedia page about this as if it is generally accepted knowledge. Is there a way to create a more objective wikipedia page with a democracy index that is not based on one commercial company? More specifically/to give just one example, I am quite surprised United States still scores relatively high on this list, given the rapid decline in democratic practice (a process already quite visible before the 2019 reference date). Jelle1975 ( talk) 19:26, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
The citation in the article to an Google webcache archived version of the whitepaper (citation #8, "Democracy Index 2019 A year of democratic setbacks and popular protest", https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:pxkaGlbZ-zEJ:https://www.eiu.com/Handlers/WhitepaperHandler.ashx%3Ffi%3DDemocracy-Index-2019.pdf%26mode%3Dwp%26campaignid%3Ddemocracyindex2019+&cd=1&hl=sv&ct=clnk&gl=se) now leads to a 404 error. I did go and put the original URL into my browser, and came up with this, after removing the "campaignid": http://www.eiu.com/Handlers/WhitepaperHandler.ashx?fi=Democracy-Index-2019.pdf&mode=wp
Would it violate the copyright to link directly to this URL?
Jcb cummings ( talk) 11:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
In any case, that is the URL of the whitepaper (when you log in or create an account with them). I suppose we could still put it in, but how would we let people know that an account is required to access it? Jcb cummings ( talk) 18:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Democracy Index has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the table, there is 2 countries in North America. Mexico is considered in North America. The number should be 3 instead and one less in central america. Cedbomb ( talk) 19:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Democracy Index has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add This Image Showing A Chart Of Full Democracies, Flawed Democracies, Hybrid Regimes, Authoritarian Regimes And Countries Not Rated.
WikiMakersOfOurTime ( talk) 17:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Number Of Countries. WikiMakersOfOurTime ( talk) 19:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Why do they link to the mobile versions of those pages (ie New Zealand)? Wouldn't it make more sense to have them be the default web links? UnstoppablePhoenix ( talk) 22:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Turkey is listed as "Western Europe." Europe at all is rather dubious; Western is impossible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C6:4300:6EE0:DC0B:AF91:910F:D40 ( talk) 01:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Are the countries attributed to their respective continents by the list of the Economist Intelligence Unit? Or was it done by the creator of this article?
Some countries are attributed to the wrong continents:
Turkmenistan is Central Asia not Eastern Europe
Tajikistan is Central Asia not Eastern Europe
Uzbekistan is Central Asia not Eastern Europe
Azerbaijan is Western Asia not Eastern Europe
Kazakhstan is Central Asia not Eastern Europe
Turkey is at best Eastern Europe, though 97% of the landmass is Asian and its political center is in the Asian part. >85% of the population live in the Asian part of Turkey
Kyrgyzstan is Central Asia not Eastern Europe
Georgia is Western Asia not Eastern Europe
Armenia is Western Asia not Eastern Europe
Cyprus is Eastern Europe not Western Europe socially, though geographically it is Asian.
2001:4DD5:89F4:0:A197:9529:9143:119F (
talk) 11:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Democracy Index has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
On the last table titled Democracy Index by Region (Region should be capitalized I think) it states that North America has 2 countries when it actually has many more. It seems this table was put together for convenience than actual facts. Maybe to group people by race or culture? Certainly not by geography. KemicalOca ( talk) 17:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I do think a good idea is to remove boldface from "state of democracy". This isn't the title, so I don't know why it's boldfaced; this increases the perception that this is a general or in-house index and not an article about the EUI like it's supposed to be. 2600:1012:B024:7B87:0:4D:D78A:3801 ( talk) 20:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved ( non-admin closure) Iffy★ Chat -- 19:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Democracy Index →
Democracy Index (Economist Group) – Article name implies that this is an independent Democracy index, but this is subjective one by The Economist Group
139.47.103.167 (
talk) 15:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
I updated this table to show changes in score and rank of the 2019 Democracy Index. Can you all update the changes when the next index (2020) is released? Quang, Bùi Huy ( talk) 09:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
The correct numbers are full democracies = 23 #1 to #22 plus Canada/Denmark tie for #7 Flawed democracies = 58 #23 to #80 plus many ties Hybrid regime = 41 #77 to #113 ties #97, #102, #89, #75 Authoritarian regime = 54 #114 to #167 plus 8 ties
Between the table in Democracy Index by country, Composition of Democracy Index and the infographic by the Economist, the regime type for 2020 is inconsistent. I don't know which are the true value. (See Taiwan, France and USA for example) 72.53.104.28 ( talk) 16:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Just noticed a question at the help desk archives about a reader asking what the total score value was for Iceland.....as they could not see the number because of colour blindness problems.-- Moxy 🍁 01:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
When anyone decides to update this table for the new Democracy Index, can you please leave a quick note here? It may help prevent duplicate work. Thanks. Intralexical ( talk) 01:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Jersey has no political parties and most citizens feel left out of decisions. Elector turnout at elections are around 33%. This could usefully be brought out in this page. Thanks. Bicyclic ( talk) 12:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
You are correct and I have now written to the EIU about this issue. Tax havens such as Jersey commonly have very large scale economic activities which are supported by legislation intended to benefit non-residents rather than their local populations. Bicyclic ( talk) 23:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
I disagree that Canada has a full democracy as there is constitutional monarchy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.242.58.41 ( talk) 14:52, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Why? Nonsense. ReddishClover ( talk) 11:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Where is Seychelles or has the island sunk in the Indian Ocean?🥵🥵🥵 Nlivataye ( talk) 09:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
In line with Freedom in the World, and per MOS:MAJORWORK and MOS:ITALICS, I've italicized the text "Democracy Index" in the body and title of this article. Intralexical ( talk) 00:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Turkey is more like middle east, only a tiny part is in europe, the most of the land is in asia. Also the culture is not european.
2001:16B8:61D:B00:D181:3F17:D49C:7FBD ( talk) 15:06, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
edit: nevermind, the failure was made in the source already it seems. 2001:16B8:61D:B00:D181:3F17:D49C:7FBD ( talk) 15:06, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
The reference used in the Criticism section has a circular reference tag. It is true that the reference mentions Wikipedia, but I think that is not enough to consider it a circular reference. When the author criticises that the Democracy Index is done by unknown experts, he writes: Who are these experts? Nobody knows. Wikipedia dryly notes that the report does not reveal their number, nationality, credentials or even field of expertise. In my opinion, he is just quoting a sentence he liked to make his point, but he does not base it on Wikipedia. And the rest of the article is just the personal opinion (criticism is always an opinion, of course) of the analyst who wrote it. So I think the tag should be removed.-- Gorpik ( talk) 14:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
@ Somedifferentstuff: I'm not sure what you mean with that "the formatting is completely in order with the header changes" – the table content didn't change at all. The current revision of the page says that Canada has a score of 9.07 in 2020 and 9.24 in 2006, but it should be the other way around. The version before your change did have this correct. ― Jochem van Hees ( talk) 23:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
@ Somedifferentstuff: Totally agree on reorganizing the columns from most recent year to the most distant. I have made these edits in case other want to see how it looks and weigh-in Superb Owl ( talk) 03:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
The Economist uses more blue and orange in their 2020 report. Switching to blues for democracies would help most colorblind users who (speaking from experience) struggle with certain red-green distinctions.
Superb Owl (
talk) 19:55, 21 November 2021 (UTC)Superb_Owl
Right now, the Legend for the Economist map mentions Blue etc., but the map itself still uses green. This needs to be consolidated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:C846:133F:DD00:D811:446C:3E5F:4926 ( talk) 22:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)