National-level International IDEA democracy assessments have been conducted twice in the People's Republic of Bangladesh: in 2002 as part of a pilot study by a Bangladeshi research team from the Department of Peace and Conflict Studies at Dhaka University and in 2008 as part of the region-wide report State of Democracy in South Asia.

In 2002 a team at the Australian National University began a series of democracy assessments to measure Australia's strengths and weaknesses as a democratic society. At the end of the project, called the Democratic Audit of Australia, they published a full assessment report in 2009 called Public Confidence in Australian Democracy and have since published a series of thematic reports.

Our citizen-led democracy assessments generated a variety of intriguing findings in various countries. But even more than that, they have initiated reform processes and spurred internal debate on democratic systems, their flaws and ways to make improvements.

Democracy assessment is not an end in itself, but rather a means to facilitate a democratic reform process by providing the systematic evidence, argument and comparative data on which reforms might be based. Thus, publication of the assessment findings is not necessarily the final step.

Over the years, our democracy assessment frameworks have been used in several countries by different actors. There are indeed different potential audiences for the product of a democracy assessment, which has both long- and short-term effects on the assessments, each of which can be linked to developing strategies for reform. This section provides an overview of previous assessments and their main outcomes.

If you have carried out an assessment in your country using one of our frameworks and you are interested in making the assessment report available here, please email us.

Citizens should be placed at the forefront of any democracy assessment process, as they best understand their countries’ dynamics, culture, history and priorities.

In 2014, the Independent Election Commission (IEC) of Afghanistan conducted two rounds of presidential elections. Abudullah Abdullah won the first round with 45% of the votes. However, as required under Afghan election law, a second round of balloting was conducted between the two candidates with the highest number of votes, Abudullah Abdullah and Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai, since neither received a majority. Ghani won the second round on14 June with 56.44 % of the vote.

Due to deep-seated regional, ethnic and religious cleavages, elections in Nigeria have been bitterly contested ever since their reintroduction in 1999. In a country where politics is widely regarded as the way to access power and resources, the stakes are invariably high, but the context of the 2015 elections was particularly worrying. Goodluck Jonathan’s People’s Democratic Party (PDP) had been in power since the return to multiparty democracy in 1999 and was widely regarded as corrupt and high-handed.

In Kenya, all elections since the reintroduction of multiparty politics in 1992 have resulted in serious violence, with the exception of the 2002 general election. Notably, the controversial 2007 general election led to post-election violence causing over 1,000 deaths and the displacement of over 600,000 people.

In April 2006, Nepal’s major political parties formed an alliance and united with the Maoists in a mass movement and uprising against the monarchy. This led to a reinstated parliament, and the formation of a coalition government that initiated a peace process with the Maoists. The peace process continued to move forward, leading to a Comprehensive Peace Agreement bringing to an end to the war, placed the Nepal Army in barracks and Maoist combatants in cantonments and provided for their supervision by the United Nations.