The Human Rights Foundation has launched an index that classifies countries and territories as democratic, hybrid authoritarian, or fully authoritarian. HRF describes the new “Tyranny Tracker” as a tool to understand where the world’s governments and regimes “are located across the spectrum of tyrannical rule.”
In an essay for the Journal of Democracy, HRF researchers argue that existing democracy indices “can struggle to capture the moment when democracies break down.” Based on “qualitative thresholds” instead of “aggregated numerical scores”, the Tyranny Tracker seeks to “distinguish more clearly between democracies under pressure and those that have devolved into hybrid authoritarian regimes,” the authors write. They note that special attention needs to be paid to “executive-led erosion” and “the judiciary’s capacity to function as an effective check on abuses of power.”
The Tyranny Tracker at this time covers 179 countries and territories of which 74 are classified as democracies, 25 as hybrid authoritarian regimes, and 80 as fully authoritarian regimes. The tracker currently includes 162 of the UN’s 193 member states. Those not covered are mostly small island nations which are usually democratic. HRF says that classifications will be reassessed annually and adjusted earlier when major events warrant changes.
HRF notes that according to the tracker’s current assessments, 75 percent of the world’s population lives under authoritarianism. Some of the world’s largest populations are located in countries the index classifies as authoritarian, such as the hybrid authoritarian regimes of India, Indonesia, Pakistan, and the Philippines, as well as the fully authoritarian regimes of China, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Russia, and Vietnam.
The Tracker’s classification framework is built on 45 indicators grouped under three pillars: electoral competition, freedom of dissent, and institutional accountability. HRF says researchers assess whether these core features are largely present, weak, or absent, and use those judgments to determine the regime type.
In the case of hybrid authoritarian governments, “an opposition victory and peaceful transfer of power” because of elections “are highly unlikely” according to HRF. In the case of fully authoritarian states, “a nonviolent transition to democracy as a result of elections” is “little more than a theoretical possibility.”
To illustrate how this approach leads to different assessments, the Journal of Democracy essay points to specific cases. Thailand and Singapore, the authors argue, are often treated as “flawed democracies” in other indices, but are better understood as hybrid authoritarian regimes because courts and legal tools repeatedly tilt the playing field against genuine political competition, even as elections continue.
By contrast, the authors describe Mexico and Ukraine as democracies under pressure. With regard to Mexico, they point to continued judicial capacity to constrain executive initiatives as a decisive factor why the country cannot be classified as nondemocratic. With regard to Ukraine, the experts warn against confusing wartime emergency governance with authoritarian consolidation, emphasizing that contestation and oversight persist and judicial outcomes are not simply predetermined by the executive.