The Global State of Democracy Indices Codebook

Africa = 1

Americas = 2

Asia and the Pacific = 3

Western Asia = 5

Europe = 6

East Africa = 1

Central Africa = 2

Southern Africa = 3

West Africa = 4

North Africa = 5

Caribbean = 6

Central America = 7

South America = 8

Northern America = 9

Central Asia = 10

East Asia = 11

South Asia = 12

South-East Asia = 13

Oceania = 14

Western Asia = 15

Central Europe = 16

Eastern Europe = 17

North/Western Europe = 18

Southern Europe = 19

representation_l = lower bound for the 68% confidence interval

representation_lu = upper bound for the 68% confidence interval

cred_elect_l = lower bound for the 68% confidence interval

cred_elect_u = upper bound for the 68% confidence interval

free_parties_l = lower bound for the 68% confidence interval

free_parties_u = upper bound for the 68% confidence interval

elected_gov_l = lower bound for the 68% confidence interval

elected_gov_u = upper bound for the 68% confidence interval

effect_parl_l = lower bound for the 68% confidence interval

effect_parl_u = upper bound for the 68% confidence interval

Question: Does the election management body (EMB) have autonomy from government to apply election laws and administrative rules impartially in national elections?

Responses:

0. No. The EMB is controlled by the incumbent government, the military or another de facto ruling body.

1. Somewhat. The EMB has some autonomy on some issues but on critical issues that influence the outcome of elections, the EMB is partial towards the de facto ruling body.

2. Ambiguous. The EMB has some autonomy but is also partial and it is unclear to what extent this influences the outcome of the election.

3. Almost. The EMB has autonomy and acts impartially almost all the time. It may be influenced by the de facto ruling body in some minor ways that do not influence the outcome of elections.

4. Yes. The EMB is autonomous and impartially applies elections law and administrative rules.

Clarification: The EMB refers to whatever body (or bodies) is charged with administering national elections.

Pemstein et al. (2025)

Coppedge et al. (2025)

Recoded into 20 categories, each containing five percentiles, ranging from 1 (the lowest five percentiles) to 20 (the highest five percentiles).

Coded as zero if there are no elections or if the electoral process has been suspended or nullified (e.g. through dismissal or dissolution of the relevant elected bodies or offices), as indicated by values of zero for both executive_elections and legislative_elections from the LIED data set.

1. Representation

1.1. Credible Elections

Question: Does the election management body (EMB) have sufficient staff and resources to administer a well-run national election?

Responses:

0. No. There are glaring deficits in staff, financial, or other resources affecting the organization across the territory.

1. Not really. Deficits are not glaring but they nonetheless seriously compromised the organization of administratively well-run elections in many parts of the country.

2. Ambiguous. There might be serious deficiencies compromising the organization of the election but it could also be a product of human errors and co-incidence or other factors outside the control of the EMB.

3. Mostly. There are partial deficits in resources but these are neither serious nor widespread.

4. Yes. The EMB has adequate staff and other resources to administer a well-run election.

Clarification: The EMB refers to whatever body (or bodies) is charged with administering national elections.

Pemstein et al. (2025)

Coppedge et al. (2025)

Recoded into 20 categories, each containing five percentiles, ranging from 1 (the lowest five percentiles) to 20 (the highest five percentiles).

Coded as zero if there are no elections or if the electoral process has been suspended or nullified (e.g. through dismissal or dissolution of the relevant elected bodies or offices), as indicated by values of zero for both executive_elections and legislative_elections from the LIED data set.

1. Representation

1.1. Credible Elections

Question: In this national election, was there evidence of other intentional irregularities by incumbent and/or opposition parties and/or vote fraud?

Responses:

0. Yes. There were systematic and almost nationwide other irregularities.

1. Yes, some. There were non-systematic, but fairly common other irregularities, even if only in some parts of the country.

2. Sporadic. There were a limited number of sporadic other irregularities and it is not clear whether they were intentional or disadvantaged particular groups.

3. Almost none. There were only a limited number of irregularities and many were probably unintentional or did not disadvantage particular groups’ access to participation.

4. None. There was no evidence of intentional other irregularities. Unintentional irregularities resulting from human error and/or natural conditions may still have occurred.

Clarification: Examples include use of double IDs, intentional lack of voting materials, ballot-stuffing, misreporting of votes and false collation of votes. This question does not refer to lack of access to registration, harassment of opposition parties, manipulations of the voter registry or vote-buying (dealt with in previous questions).

Pemstein et al. (2025)

Coppedge et al. (2025)

Recoded into 20 categories, each containing five percentiles, ranging from 1 (the lowest five percentiles) to 20 (the highest five percentiles).

Coded as zero if there are no elections or if the electoral process has been suspended or nullified (e.g. through dismissal or dissolution of the relevant elected bodies or offices), as indicated by values of zero for both executive_elections and legislative_elections from the LIED data set.

1. Representation

1.1. Credible Elections

Question: In this national election, were opposition candidates/parties/campaign workers subjected to repression, intimidation, violence or harassment by the government, the ruling party or their agents?

Responses:

0. Yes. The repression and intimidation by the government or its agents was so strong that the entire period was quiet.

1. Yes, frequent. There was systematic, frequent and violent harassment and intimidation of the opposition by the government or its agents during the election period.

2. Yes, some. There was periodic, not systematic but possibly centrally coordinated harassment and intimidation of the opposition by the government or its agents.

3. Restrained. There were sporadic instances of violent harassment and intimidation by the government or its agents, in at least one part of the country and directed at only one or two local branches of opposition groups.

4. None. There was no harassment or intimidation of opposition by the government or its agents throughout the election campaign period and polling day.

Clarification: Other types of clearly distinguishable civil violence, even if politically motivated, during the election period should not be factored in when scoring this indicator (it is dealt with separately).

Pemstein et al. (2025)

Coppedge et al. (2025)

Recoded into 20 categories, each containing five percentiles, ranging from 1 (the lowest five percentiles) to 20 (the highest five percentiles).

Coded as zero if there are no elections or if the electoral process has been suspended or nullified (e.g. through dismissal or dissolution of the relevant elected bodies or offices), as indicated by values of zero for both executive_elections and legislative_elections from the LIED data set.

1. Representation

1.1. Credible Elections

Question: Taking all aspects of the pre-election period, election day and the post-election process into account, would you consider this national election to be free and fair?

Responses:

0. No, not at all. The elections were fundamentally flawed and the official results had little if anything to do with the ‘will of the people’ (i.e. who became president or who won the legislative majority).

1. Not really. While the elections allowed for some competition, the irregularities in the end affected the outcome of the election (as defined above).

2. Ambiguous. There was substantial competition and freedom of participation but there were also significant irregularities. It is hard to determine whether the irregularities affected the outcome or not (as defined above).

3. Yes, somewhat. There were deficiencies and some degree of fraud and irregularity but these did not in the end affect the outcome (as defined above).

4. Yes. There was some amount of human error and some logistical restrictions but these were largely unintentional and without significant consequences.

Clarification: The only thing that should not be considered in coding this is the extent of suffrage (by law). Thus, a free and fair election may occur even if the law excludes significant groups (an issue measured separately).

Pemstein et al. (2025)

Coppedge et al. (2025)

Recoded into 20 categories, each containing five percentiles, ranging from 1 (the lowest five percentiles) to 20 (the highest five percentiles).

Coded as zero if there are no elections or if the electoral process has been suspended or nullified (e.g. through dismissal or dissolution of the relevant elected bodies or offices), as indicated by values of zero for both executive_elections and legislative_elections from the LIED data set.

1. Representation

1.1. Credible Elections

1. Representation

1.1. Credible Elections

Question: Are the electoral laws and framework fair, and are they implemented impartially by the relevant election management bodies?

Country scores vary between 0 (worst) and 4 (best).

1. Representation

1.1. Credible Elections

Question: Is there a realistic opportunity for the opposition to increase its support or gain power through elections?

Country scores vary between 0 (worst) and 4 (best).

1. Representation

1.1. Credible Elections

Question: Are the people’s political choices free from domination by forces that are external to the political sphere, or by political forces that employ extrapolitical means?

Country scores vary between 0 (worst) and 4 (best).

1. Representation

1.1. Credible Elections

Countries scored from 1 to 10, following the statements listed below:

1. National elections, if held at all, are entirely unfree and unfair.

2.

3.

4. General elections are held, but serious irregularities during voting process and ballot count occur. The rights to vote, campaign and run for office are restricted, and elections have de facto only limited influence over who governs.

5.

6.

7. General, multiparty elections are held, conducted properly and accepted as the means of filling political posts. However, there are some constraints on the fairness of the elections with regard to registration, campaigning or media access.

8.

9.

10. There are no constraints on free and fair elections.

1. Representation

1.1. Credible Elections

Question: What percentage (%) of adult citizens (as defined by statute) has the legal right to vote in national elections?

Responses: Percentage

Clarification: This question does not take into consideration restrictions based on age, residence, having been convicted for crime, or being legally incompetent. It covers legal (de jure) restrictions, not restrictions that may be operative in practice (de facto). The adult population (as defined by statute) is defined by citizens in the case of independent countries or the people living in the territorial entity in the case of colonies. Universal suffrage is coded as 100. The scores reflect de jure provisions of suffrage extension in percentage of the adult population. If the suffrage law is revised in a way that affects the extension, the scores reflect this change as of the calendar year the law was enacted.

Re-scaled to vary between 0 and 1.

Coded as zero if there are no elections or if the electoral process has been suspended or nullified (e.g. through dismissal or dissolution of the relevant elected bodies or offices), as indicated by values of zero for both executive_elections and legislative_elections from the LIED data set.

1. Representation

1.2. Inclusive Suffrage

Question: In this national election, was there a reasonably accurate voter registry in place and was it used?

Responses:

0. No. There was no registry or the registry was not used.

1. No. There was a registry but it was fundamentally flawed (meaning 20% or more of eligible voters could have been disenfranchised or the outcome could have been affected significantly by double voting and impersonation).

2. Uncertain. There was a registry but it is unclear whether potential flaws in the registry had much impact on electoral outcomes.

3. Yes, somewhat. The registry was imperfect but less than 10% of eligible voters may have been disenfranchised, and double-voting and impersonation could not have affected the results significantly.

4. Yes. The voter registry was reasonably accurate (less than 1% of voters were affected by any flaws) and it was applied in a reasonable fashion.

Pemstein et al. (2025)

Coppedge et al. (2025)

Re-scaled to vary between 0 and 1.

Coded as zero if there are no elections or if the electoral process has been suspended or nullified (e.g. through dismissal or dissolution of the relevant elected bodies or offices), as indicated by values of zero for both executive_elections and legislative_elections from the LIED data set.

1. Representation

1.2. Inclusive Suffrage

Question: Are any political parties banned?

Responses:

0. Yes. All parties except the state-sponsored party (and closely allied parties) are banned.

1. Yes. Elections are non-partisan or there are no officially recognized parties.

2. Yes. Many parties are banned.

3. Yes. But only a few parties are banned.

4. No. No parties are officially banned.

Clarification: This does not apply to parties that are barred from competing for failing to meet registration requirements or support thresholds.

Pemstein et al. (2025)

Coppedge et al. (2025)

1. Representation

1.3. Free Political Parties

Question: How restrictive are the barriers to forming a political party?

Responses:

0. Parties are not allowed.

1. It is impossible, or virtually impossible, for parties not affiliated with the government to form (legally).

2. There are significant obstacles (e.g. party leaders face high levels of regular political harassment by authorities).

3. There are modest barriers (e.g. party leaders face occasional political harassment by authorities).

4. There are no substantial barriers.

Clarification: Barriers include legal requirements such as requirements for membership or financial deposits, as well as harassment.

Pemstein et al. (2025)

Coppedge et al. (2025)

1. Representation

1.3. Free Political Parties

Question: Are opposition parties independent and autonomous of the ruling regime?

Responses:

0. Opposition parties are not allowed.

1. There are no autonomous, independent opposition parties. Opposition parties are either selected or co-opted by the ruling regime.

2. At least some opposition parties are autonomous and independent of the ruling regime.

3. Most significant opposition parties are autonomous and independent of the ruling regime.

4. All opposition parties are autonomous and independent of the ruling regime.

Clarification: An opposition party is any party that is not part of the government—that is, it has no control over the executive.

Pemstein et al. (2025)

Coppedge et al. (2025)

1. Representation

1.3. Free Political Parties

Question: Was this national election multiparty?

Responses:

0. No. No-party or single-party and there is no meaningful competition (includes situations where a few political parties are legal but they are all de facto controlled by the dominant party).

1. Not really. No-party or single-party (defined as above) but multiple candidates from the same party and/or independents contest legislative seats or the presidency.

2. Constrained. At least one real opposition party is allowed to contest but competition is highly constrained, either legally or informally.

3. Almost. Elections are multiparty in principle but either one main opposition party is prevented (de jure or de facto) from contesting, or conditions such as civil unrest (excluding natural disasters) prevent competition in a portion of the territory.

4. Yes. Elections are multiparty, even though a few marginal parties may not be permitted to contest (e.g. far-right/left extremist parties, or anti-democratic religious or ethnic parties).

Pemstein et al. (2025)

Coppedge et al. (2025)

1. Representation

1.3. Free Political Parties

The competitiveness of participation refers to the extent to which alternative preferences for policy and leadership can be pursued in the political arena. Political competition implies a significant degree of civil interaction, so polities that are coded unregulated (1) on regulation of participation (PARREG, variable 2.5) are not coded for competitiveness. Polities in transition between unregulated and any of the regulated forms on variable 2.5 also are not coded on variable 2.6.

Competitiveness is coded on a five-category scale:

0. Not applicable.

1. Repressed.

2. Suppressed.

3. Factional.

4. Transitional.

5. Competitive.

1. Representation

1.3. Free Political Parties

Multiparty legislative elections are defined by the existence of two conditions: legislative elections (LEGSELEC) and opposition (OPPOSITION).

LEGSELEC: A legislative body issues at least some laws and does not perform executive functions. The lower house (or unicameral chamber) of the legislature is at least partly elected. The legislature has not been closed.

OPPOSITION: The lower house (or unicameral chamber) of the legislature is (at least in part) elected by voters facing more than one choice. Specifically, parties are not banned and either more than one party is allowed to compete or elections are nonpartisan (i.e. all the candidates run without party labels).

1. Representation

1.3. Free Political Parties

Question: Do the people have the right to organize in different political parties or other competitive political groupings of their choice, and is the system free of undue obstacles to the rise and fall of these competing parties or groupings?

Country scores vary between 0 (worst) and 4 (best).

1. Representation

1.3. Free Political Parties

Question: Are the chief executive and legislature appointed through popular elections?

Clarifications: This index attempts to measure whether the chief executive is elected, either directly by popular elections or indirectly by a popularly elected legislature that then appoints the chief executive; and whether, in presidential systems with a directly elected president who is also the chief executive, the legislature is directly elected. Note that a popular election is only minimally defined and also includes sham elections with limited suffrage and no competition. Similarly, ‘appointment’ by legislature only implies selection and/or approval, not the power to dismiss. This index is useful primarily for aggregating higher-order Indices and should not necessarily be interpreted as an important element of democracy in its own right.

Recoded into 0, 0.5, 0.95 and 1.

Coded as zero if there are no elections or if the electoral process has been suspended or nullified (e.g. through dismissal or dissolution of the relevant elected bodies or offices), as indicated by values of zero for both executive_elections and legislative_elections from the LIED data set.

1. Representation

1.4. Elected Government

Competitiveness refers to the extent that prevailing modes of advancement give subordinates equal opportunities to become superordinates. If power transfers are coded unregulated (‘1’) in the Regulation of Executive Recruitment (variable 3.1), or involve a transition to/from unregulated, competitiveness is coded ‘0’. Three categories are used to measure this concept:

1. Selection. Chief executives are determined by hereditary succession, designation or by a combination of both, as in monarchies where the chief minister is chosen by the king or court. Examples of pure designative selection are: rigged, unopposed elections; repeated replacement of presidents before their terms end; recurrent military selection of civilian executives; selection within an institutionalized single party; recurrent incumbent selection of successors; and repeated election boycotts by the major opposition parties.

2. Dual/Transitional. Dual executives occur where one is chosen by hereditary succession, the other by competitive election. Term also used for transitional arrangements between selection (ascription and/or designation) and competitive election.

3. Election. Chief executives are typically chosen in or through competitive elections involving two or more major parties or candidates.

Codes -99 to -66 treated as missing values. Recoded 0 and 1 as 0, 2 as 0.5, and 3 as 1. Values for 2019 and following were coded by International IDEA’s expert consultants following the original code book by Marshall and Gurr (2020).

Coded as zero if there are no elections or if the electoral process has been suspended or nullified (e.g. through dismissal or dissolution of the relevant elected bodies or offices), as indicated by values of zero for both executive_elections and legislative_elections from the LIED data set.

1. Representation

1.4. Elected Government

Recruitment of the chief executive is ‘open’ to the extent that all the politically active population has an opportunity, in principle, to attain the position through a regularized process. If power transfers are coded unregulated (1) in Regulation of Executive Recruitment (variable 3.1) or involve a transition to/from unregulated, openness is coded 0. Four categories are used:

1. Closed. Chief executives are determined by hereditary succession, e.g. kings, emperors, emirs, who assume executive power by right of descent. An executive selected by other means may proclaim himself a monarch but the polity he governs is not coded ‘closed’ unless a relative succeeds him as ruler.

2. Dual Executive–Designation. Hereditary succession plus executive or court selection of an effective chief minister.

3. Dual Executive–Election. Hereditary succession plus electoral selection of an effective chief minister.

4. Open. Chief executives are chosen by elite designation, competitive election or transitional arrangements between designation and election.

Codes -99 to -66 treated as missing values. Recoded 0, 1 and 2 as 0; 3 as 0.5; and 4 as 1. Values for 2019 and following were coded by International IDEA’s expert consultants following the original code book by Marshall and Gurr (2020).

Coded as zero if there are no elections or if the electoral process has been suspended or nullified (e.g. through dismissal or dissolution of the relevant elected bodies or offices), as indicated by values of zero for both executive_elections and legislative_elections from the LIED data set.

1. Representation

1.4. Elected Government

1. Representation

1.4. Elected Government

Question: Was the current head of government or other chief national authority elected through free and fair elections?

Country scores vary between 0 (worst) and 4 (best).

1. Representation

1.4. Elected Government

Question: Were the current national legislative representatives elected through free and fair elections?

Country scores vary between 0 (worst) and 4 (best).

1. Representation

1.4. Elected Government

Question: Do the freely elected head of government and national legislative representatives determine the policies of the government?

Country scores vary between 0 (worst) and 4 (best).

1. Representation

1.4. Elected Government

An index built by combining the values of several other variables measured in the LIED data set:

0. legislative_election=0 & executive_elections=0 (regime type: non-electoral autocracies).

1. legislative_elections=1 or executive_elections=1 & multi-party_legislative_elections=0 (regime type: one-party autocracies, few cases where executive elections are on track but there is no functioning elected parliament).

2. legislative_elections=1 & multi-party_legislative_elections=1 & executive_elections=0 (regime type: multiparty autocracies without elected executive—generally because a monarch influences government appointment and removal or foreign powers dominate political decision making or has significant veto powers).

3. legislative_elections=1 & multi-party_legislative_elections=1 & executive_elections=1 & competitive_elections=0 (regime type: multiparty autocracies).

4. legislative_elections=1 & multi-party_legislative_elections=1 & executive_elections=1 & competitive_elections=1 & male_suffrage=0 (regime type: exclusive democracies).

5. legislative_elections=1 & multi-party_legislative_elections=1 & executive_elections=1 & competitive_elections=1 & male_suffrage=1 & female_suffrage=0 (regime type: male democracies).

6. legislative_elections=1 & multi-party_legislative_elections=1 & executive_elections=1 & competitive_elections=1 & male_suffrage=1 & female_suffrage=1 & political_liberties=0 (regime type: electoral democracies).

7. legislative_elections=1 & multi-party_legislative_elections=1 & executive_elections=1 & competitive_elections=1 & male_suffrage=1 & female_suffrage=1 & political_liberties=1 (regime type: polyarchies).

1. Representation

1.4. Elected Government

Question: In practice, does the legislature routinely question executive branch officials?

Responses:

0. No, never or very rarely.

1. Yes, routinely.

Clarification: ‘Question’ means, for example, the power of summons through which the head of state or head of government could be forced to explain policies or testify.

Pemstein et al. (2025)

Coppedge et al. (2025)

Recoded into 20 categories, each containing five percentiles, ranging from 1 (the lowest five percentiles) to 20 (the highest five percentiles).

Coded as zero if there are no elections or if the electoral process has been suspended or nullified (e.g. through dismissal or dissolution of the relevant elected bodies or offices), as indicated by values of zero for both executive_elections and legislative_elections from the LIED data set.

1. Representation

1.5. Effective Parliament

Question: If executive branch officials were engaged in unconstitutional, illegal or unethical activity, how likely is it that a body other than the legislature, such as a comptroller general, general prosecutor or ombudsman, would question or investigate them and issue an unfavourable decision or report?

Responses:

0. Extremely unlikely.

1. Unlikely.

2. Very uncertain.

3. Likely.

4. Certain or nearly certain.

Pemstein et al. (2025)

Coppedge et al. (2025)

Recoded into 20 categories, each containing five percentiles, ranging from 1 (the lowest five percentiles) to 20 (the highest five percentiles).

Coded as zero if there are no elections or if the electoral process has been suspended or nullified (e.g. through dismissal or dissolution of the relevant elected bodies or offices), as indicated by values of zero for both executive_elections and legislative_elections from the LIED data set.

1. Representation

1.5. Effective Parliament

Question: If the executive were engaged in unconstitutional, illegal or unethical activity, how likely is it that a legislative body (perhaps a whole chamber, perhaps a committee, whether aligned with government or opposition) would conduct an investigation that would result in a decision or report that is unfavourable to the executive?

Responses:

0. Extremely unlikely.

1. Unlikely.

2. As likely as not.

3. Likely.

4. Certain or nearly certain.

Pemstein et al. (2025)

Coppedge et al. (2025)

Recoded into 20 categories, each containing five percentiles, ranging from 1 (the lowest five percentiles) to 20 (the highest five percentiles).

Coded as zero if there are no elections or if the electoral process has been suspended or nullified (e.g. through dismissal or dissolution of the relevant elected bodies or offices), as indicated by values of zero for both executive_elections and legislative_elections from the LIED data set.

1. Representation

1.5. Effective Parliament

Question: Are opposition parties (those not in the ruling party or coalition) able to exercise oversight and investigatory functions against the wishes of the governing party or coalition?

Responses:

0. No, not at all.

1. Occasionally.

2. Yes, for the most part.

Pemstein et al. (2025)

Coppedge et al. (2025)

Recoded into 20 categories, each containing five percentiles, ranging from 1 (the lowest five percentiles) to 20 (the highest five percentiles).

Coded as zero if there are no elections or if the electoral process has been suspended or nullified (e.g. through dismissal or dissolution of the relevant elected bodies or offices), as indicated by values of zero for both executive_elections and legislative_elections from the LIED data set.

1. Representation

1.5. Effective Parliament

Operationally, this variable refers to the extent of institutionalized constraints on the decision-making powers of chief executives, whether individuals or collectivities. Such limitations may be imposed by any ‘accountability groups’. In Western democracies these are usually legislatures. Other kinds of accountability groups are the ruling party in a one-party state; councils of nobles or powerful advisers in monarchies; the military in coup-prone polities; and, in many states, a strong, independent judiciary. The concern is therefore with the checks and balances between the various parts of the decision-making process. A seven-category scale is used:

1. Unlimited authority. 
2. Intermediate category. 
3. Slight to moderate limitation on executive authority. 
4. Intermediate category. 
5. Substantial limitations on executive authority. 
6. Intermediate category. 
7. Executive party or subordination.

Codes -99 to -66 treated as missing values. Values for 2019 and following were coded by International IDEA’s expert consultants following the original code book by Marshall and Gurr (2020).

Coded as zero if there are no elections or if the electoral process has been suspended or nullified (e.g. through dismissal or dissolution of the relevant elected bodies or offices), as indicated by values of zero for both executive_elections and legislative_elections from the LIED data set.

1. Representation

1.5. Effective Parliament

Question: Are there elected local governments, and—if so—to what extent can they operate without interference from unelected bodies at the local level?

Clarification: The lowest score would be reserved for a country that has no elected local governments. A medium score would be accorded a country that has elected local governments but where those governments are subordinate to unelected officials at the local level perhaps appointed by a higher-level body. A high score would be accorded to a country in which local governments are elected and able to operate without restrictions from unelected actors at the local level with the exception of judicial bodies. Naturally, local governments remain subordinate to the regional and national governments.

1. Representation

1.6. Local Democracy

Question: Taking all aspects of the pre-election period, election day and the post-election process into account, would you consider subnational elections (regional and local, as previously identified) to be free and fair on average?

Responses:

0. No, not at all. The elections were fundamentally flawed and the official results had little if anything to do with the ‘will of the people’ (who won office).

1. Not really. While the elections allowed for some competition, the irregularities in the end affected the outcome of the elections (who won office).

2. Ambiguous. There was substantial competition and freedom of participation but there were also significant irregularities. It is hard to determine whether the irregularities affected the outcome (who won office).

3. Yes, somewhat. There were deficiencies and some degree of fraud and irregularity but these did not in the end affect the outcome (who won office).

4. Yes. There were a certain amount of human error and logistical restrictions but these were largely unintentional and without significant consequences.

Clarification: This question refers to subnational levels that have elected offices and elections. It does not refer to subnational levels without elected offices and elections. ‘Free and fair’ refers to all aspects of the election process except the extent of suffrage (by law). Thus, a free and fair election may occur even if the law excludes significant groups (which is measured separately).

Pemstein et al. (2025)

Coppedge et al. (2025)

1. Representation

1.6. Local Democracy

Question: At the local level, are government (local government) offices elected in practice?

Responses:

0. Generally, offices at the local level are not elected.

1. Generally, the local executive is elected but not the assembly.

2. Generally, the local assembly is elected but not the executive.

3. Generally, the local executive is elected and there is no assembly.

4. Generally, the local assembly is elected and there is no executive.

5. Generally, the local executive and assembly are elected.

Pemstein et al. (2025)

Coppedge et al. (2025)

1. Representation

1.6. Local Democracy

rights_l = lower bound for the 68% confidence interval

rights_u = upper bound for the 68% confidence interval

access_just_l = lower bound for the 68% confidence interval

access_just_u = upper bound for the 68% confidence interval

civil_lib_l = lower bound for the 68% confidence interval

civil_lib_u = upper bound for the 68% confidence interval

basic_welf_l = lower bound for the 68% confidence interval

basic_welf_u = upper bound for the 68% confidence interval

The Political Equality subattribute denotes the extent to which political and social equality between social and economic groups, and genders is realized. The three Political Equality subcomponents are Social Group Equality, Economic Equality, and Gender Equality, all of which reflect core concepts in the human rights literature.

The three subcomponents were aggregated into the Political Equality subattribute using BFA.

pol_equal_l = lower bound for the 68% confidence interval

pol_equal_u = upper bound for the 68% confidence interval

2. Rights

2.2. Civil Liberties

free_express_l = lower bound for the 68% confidence interval

free_express_u = upper bound for the 68% confidence interval

2. Rights

2.2. Civil Liberties

free_press_l = lower bound for the 68% confidence interval

free_press_u = upper bound for the 68% confidence interval

2. Rights

2.2. Civil Liberties

free_assoc_assem_l = lower bound for the 68% confidence interval

free_assoc_assem_u = upper bound for the 68% confidence interval

2. Rights

2.2. Civil Liberties

free_relig_l = lower bound for the 68% confidence interval

free_relig_u = upper bound for the 68% confidence interval

2. Rights

2.2. Civil Liberties

L_SD22D = lower bound for the 68% confidence interval

U_SD22D = upper bound for the 68% confidence interval

2. Rights

2.4. Political Equality

soc_grp_equal _l = lower bound for the 68% confidence interval

soc_grp_equal_u = upper bound for the 68% confidence interval

2. Rights

2.4. Political Equality

soc_grp_equal _l = lower bound for the 68% confidence interval

soc_grp_equal_u = upper bound for the 68% confidence interval

2. Rights

2.4. Political Equality

gender_equal_l = lower bound for the 68% confidence interval

gender_equal_u = upper bound for the 68% confidence interval

Question: Do men enjoy secure and effective access to justice?

Responses:

0. Secure and effective access to justice for men is non-existent.

1. Secure and effective access to justice for men is usually not established or widely respected.

2. Secure and effective access to justice for men is inconsistently observed. Minor problems in most cases or occur rather unevenly across different parts of the country.

3. Secure and effective access to justice for men is usually observed.

4. Secure and effective access to justice for men is almost always observed.

Clarification: This question specifies the extent to which men can bring cases before the courts without risk to their personal safety, trials are fair and men have effective ability to seek redress if the public authorities violate their rights, including the rights to counsel, defence and appeal. This question does not ask you to assess the relative access to justice for men and women. Thus, it is correct to assign the lowest possible score to a country if men and women enjoy equal but extremely limited access to justice.

Pemstein et al. (2025)

Coppedge et al. (2025)

2. Rights

2.1. Access to Justice

Question: Do women enjoy equal, secure and effective access to justice?

Responses:

0. Secure and effective access to justice for women is non-existent.

1. Secure and effective access to justice for women is usually not established or widely respected.

2. Secure and effective access to justice for women is inconsistently observed. Minor problems occur in most cases or rather unevenly across different parts of the country.

3. Secure and effective access to justice for women is usually observed.

4. Secure and effective access to justice for women is almost always observed.

Clarification: This question specifies the extent to which women can bring cases before the courts without risk to their personal safety, trials are fair and women have effective ability to seek redress if the public authorities violate their rights, including the rights to counsel, defence and appeal. This question does not ask you to assess the relative access to justice for men and women. Thus, it is correct to assign the lowest possible score to a country if men and women enjoy equal but extremely limited access to justice.

Pemstein et al. (2025)

Coppedge et al. (2025)

2. Rights

2.1. Access to Justice

Question: How often do individuals or businesses make undocumented extra payments or bribes in order to speed up or delay a process or to obtain a favourable judicial decision?

Responses:

0. Always.

1. Usually.

2. About half of the time.

3. Not usually.

4. Never.

Pemstein et al. (2025)

Coppedge et al. (2025)

2. Rights

2.1. Access to Justice

Question: When judges are found responsible for serious misconduct, how often are they removed from their posts or otherwise disciplined?

Responses:

0. Never.

1. Seldom.

2. About half of the time.

3. Usually.

4. Always.

Pemstein et al. (2025)

Coppedge et al. (2025)

2. Rights

2.1. Access to Justice

The indicator specifies the extent to which citizens have the right to a fair trial in practice: they are not subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile; and they have the right to recognition as a person before the law; the right to be under the jurisdiction of and seek redress from competent, independent and impartial tribunals; and the right to be heard and to be tried without undue delay if arrested, detained or charged with a criminal offence.

Indicator scale:

1. Severely restricted. Fair trials are very unlikely. The courts are totally subordinated to the will of government or the justice system is profoundly undermined by arbitrary arrests, incompetence, corruption and intimidation.

2. Substantially restricted. Some elements of fair trials exist but the courts are not fully independent of the government and/or the justice system is characterized by widespread corruption, intimidation and inefficiency.

3. Moderately restricted. The courts are generally independent of the government, but the justice system is characterized by moderate degrees of corruption or inefficiency.

4. Unrestricted. All elements of fair trials are respected. No arbitrary arrests take place; the courts are competent, independent and impartial; and hearings and trials generally follow arrest and charge within a reasonable time.

2. Rights

2.1. Access to Justice

Question: Does due process prevail in civil and criminal matters?

Country scores vary between 0 (worst) and 4 (best).

2. Rights

2.1. Access to Justice

Countries scored from 1 to 10, following the statements listed below.

1. Civil rights are systematically violated. There are no mechanisms and institutions to protect residents against violations of their rights.

2.

3.

4. Civil rights are codified by law, but even the most rights (i.e. to life, liberty and physical integrity) are violated in practice. Mechanisms and institutions to prosecute, punish and redress violations of civil rights are largely ineffective.

5.

6.

7. Civil rights are codified by law, but are not properly respected and protected. Mechanisms and institutions to prosecute, punish and redress violations of civil rights are in place, but are not consistently effective.

8.

9.

10. Civil rights are codified by law and respected by all state institutions, which actively prevent discrimination. Residents are effectively protected by mechanisms and institutions established to prosecute, punish and redress violations of their rights.

2. Rights

2.1. Access to Justice

Question: Are women able to openly discuss political issues in private homes and in public spaces?

Responses:

0. Not respected. Hardly any freedom of expression exists for women. Women are subject to immediate and harsh intervention and harassment for expressing political opinions.

1. Weakly respected. Expressions of political opinions by women are frequently exposed to intervention and harassment.

2. Somewhat respected. Expressions of political opinions by women are occasionally exposed to intervention and harassment.

3. Mostly respected. There are minor restraints on freedom of expression in the private sphere, predominantly limited to a few isolated cases or only linked to soft sanctions. As a rule, however, there is no intervention or harassment if women make political statements.

4. Fully respected. Freedom of speech by women in their homes and in public spaces is unrestricted.

Clarification: This indicator specifies the extent to which women are able to engage in private discussions, particularly on political issues, in private homes and public spaces, such as restaurants, public transport, sports events or at work, without fear of harassment by other members of the polity or the public authorities. Of interest are restrictions by the government and its agents but also cultural restrictions or customary laws that are enforced by other members of the polity, sometimes in informal ways. This question does not ask you to assess the relative freedom of men and women. Thus, it is correct to assign the lowest possible score to a country where men and women enjoy equal but extremely few rights to freedom of discussion.

Pemstein et al. (2025)

Coppedge et al. (2025)

2. Rights

2.2. Civil Liberties

2.2.A. Freedom of Expression

Question: Are men able to openly discuss political issues in private homes and in public spaces?

Responses:

0. Not respected. Hardly any freedom of expression exists for men. Men are subject to immediate and harsh intervention and harassment for expression of political opinions.

1. Weakly respected. Expressions of political opinions by men are frequently exposed to intervention and harassment.

2. Somewhat respected. Expressions of political opinions by men are occasionally exposed to intervention and harassment.

3. Mostly respected. There are minor restraints on freedom of expression in the private sphere, predominantly limited to a few isolated cases or only linked to soft sanctions. As a rule, however, there is no intervention or harassment if men make political statements.

4. Fully respected. Freedom of speech for men in their homes and in public spaces is unrestricted.

Clarification: This indicator specifies the extent to which men are able to engage in private discussions, particularly on political issues, in private homes and public spaces, such as restaurants, public transport, sports events or at work, without fear of harassment by other members of the polity or the public authorities. Of interest are restrictions by the government and its agents but also cultural restrictions or customary laws that are enforced by other members of the polity, sometimes in informal ways. This question does not ask you to assess the relative freedom of men and women. Thus, it is correct to assign the lowest possible score to a country where men and women enjoy equal but extremely few rights to freedom of discussion.

Pemstein et al. (2025)

Coppedge et al. (2025)

2. Rights

2.2. Civil Liberties

2.2.A. Freedom of Expression

Question: Is there academic freedom and freedom of cultural expression related to political issues?

Responses:

0. Not respected by the public authorities. Censorship and intimidation are frequent. Academic activities and cultural expression are severely restricted or controlled by the government.

1. Weakly respected by the public authorities. Academic freedom and freedom of cultural expression are practised occasionally, but direct criticism of the government is mostly met with repression.

2. Somewhat respected by the public authorities. Academic freedom and freedom of cultural expression are practised routinely, but strong criticism of the government is sometimes met with repression.

3. Mostly respected by the public authorities. There are few limitations on academic freedom and freedom of cultural expression and resulting sanctions tend to be infrequent and soft.

4. Fully respected by the public authorities. There are no restrictions on academic freedom or cultural expression.

Pemstein et al. (2025)

Coppedge et al. (2025)

2. Rights

2.2. Civil Liberties

2.2.A. Freedom of Expression

The extent to which individual citizens, groups and the media have freedom of opinion and expression, that is, the right of citizens, groups and the press to hold views freely and to seek, obtain and pass on information on political issues as broadly understood without being subject to limitations or restrictions.

Component scale:

1. Severely restricted. Hardly any freedom of opinion or expression exists. As a rule, political statements and press coverage independent and/or critical of the government do not exist or are harshly suppressed.

2. Fairly restricted. Some elements of expression of political opinions and press coverage independent and critical of the government exist but are exposed to numerous interventions and prohibitions.

3. Modestly restricted. There are minor restraints on the freedom of opinion and expression, predominantly limited to a few isolated cases, but as a rule there are no interventions and prohibitions on political statements and/or press coverage.

4. Unrestricted. Unhampered freedom of opinion and expression exists.

2. Rights

2.2. Civil Liberties

2.2.A. Freedom of Expression

This composite measure ‘details infrastructural, economic, and political barriers to access; government decisions to shut off connectivity or block specific applications or technologies; legal, regulatory, and ownership control over internet service providers; and the independence of regulatory bodies’.

Scores vary between 0 and 25.

2. Rights

2.2. Civil Liberties

2.2.A. Freedom of Expression

This composite measure ‘analyzes legal regulations on content; technical filtering and blocking of websites; other forms of censorship and self-censorship; the vibrancy and diversity of online information space; and the use of digital tools for civic mobilization’.

Scores vary between 0 and 35.

2. Rights

2.2. Civil Liberties

2.2.A. Freedom of Expression

This composite measure ‘tackles legal protections and restrictions on free expression; surveillance and privacy; and legal and extralegal repercussions for online speech and activities, such as imprisonment, cyberattacks, or extralegal harassment and physical violence’.

Scores vary between 0 and 40.

2. Rights

2.2. Civil Liberties

2.2.A. Freedom of Expression

Question: Is there academic freedom, and is the educational system free from extensive political indoctrination?

Country scores vary between 0 (worst) and 4 (best).

2. Rights

2.2. Civil Liberties

2.2.A. Freedom of Expression

Question: Are individuals free to express their personal views on political or other sensitive topics without fear of surveillance or retribution?

Country scores vary between 0 (worst) and 4 (best).

2. Rights

2.2. Civil Liberties

2.2.A. Freedom of Expression

Countries scored from 1 to 10, following the statements listed below.

1. Freedom of expression is denied. Independent media do not exist or are prohibited.

2.

3.

4. Freedom of expression is often subject to interference or government restrictions. Distortion and manipulation shape matters of public debate.

5.

6.

7. Freedom of expression is occasionally subject to interference or government restrictions, but there are generally no incidents of blatant intrusions like outright state censorship or media shutdowns.

8.

9.

10. Freedom of expression is guaranteed against interference or government restrictions. Individuals, groups and the press can fully exercise these rights.

2. Rights

2.2. Civil Liberties

2.2.A. Freedom of Expression

Question: Does the government directly or indirectly attempt to censor the print or broadcast media?

Responses:

0. Attempts to censor are direct and routine.

1. Attempts to censor are indirect but nonetheless routine.

2. Attempts to censor are direct but limited to especially sensitive issues.

3. Attempts to censor are indirect and limited to especially sensitive issues.

4. The government rarely attempts to censor major media in any way and when such exceptional attempts are discovered, the responsible officials are usually punished.

Clarification: Indirect forms of censorship might include politically motivated awarding of broadcast frequencies, withdrawal of financial support, influence over printing facilities and distribution networks, selected distribution of advertising, onerous registration requirements, prohibitive tariffs and bribery. Censorship of non-political topics such as child pornography, statements offensive to a particular religion or defamatory speech are not relevant unless used as a pretext for censoring political speech.

Pemstein et al. (2025)

Coppedge et al. (2025)

2. Rights

2.2. Civil Liberties

2.2.B. Freedom of the Press

Question: Are individual journalists harassed; that is, threatened with libel, arrested, imprisoned, beaten or killed, by governmental or powerful non-governmental actors while engaged in legitimate journalistic activities?

Responses:

0. Journalists do not dare to engage in journalistic activities that would offend powerful actors because harassment or worse would be certain to occur.

1. Some journalists occasionally offend powerful actors but they are almost always harassed or worse and eventually forced to stop.

2. Some journalists who offend powerful actors are forced to stop but others manage to continue practising journalism freely for long periods of time.

3. It is rare for any journalist to be harassed for offending powerful actors and if this were to happen, those responsible for the harassment would be identified and punished.

4. Journalists are never harassed by governmental or powerful non-governmental actors while engaged in legitimate journalistic activities.

Pemstein et al. (2025)

Coppedge et al. (2025)

2. Rights

2.2. Civil Liberties

2.2.B. Freedom of the Press

Question: Is there self-censorship among journalists when reporting on issues that the government considers politically sensitive?

Responses:

0. Self-censorship is complete and thorough.

1. Self-censorship is common but incomplete.

2. There is self-censorship on a few highly sensitive political issues but not on moderately sensitive issues.

3. There is little or no self-censorship among journalists.

Pemstein et al. (2025)

Coppedge et al. (2025)

2. Rights

2.2. Civil Liberties

2.2.B. Freedom of the Press

Question: Of the major print and broadcast outlets, how many routinely criticize the government?

Responses:

0. None.

1. Only a few marginal outlets.

2. Some important outlets routinely criticize the government but there are other important outlets that never do.

3. All major media outlets criticize the government, at least occasionally.

Pemstein et al. (2025)

Coppedge et al. (2025)

2. Rights

2.2. Civil Liberties

2.2.B. Freedom of the Press

Question: Do the major print and broadcast media represent a wide range of political perspectives?

Responses:

0. The major media represent only the government’s perspective.

1. The major media represent only the perspectives of the government and a government-approved, semi-official opposition party.

2. The major media represent a variety of political perspectives but they systematically ignore at least one political perspective that is important in this society.

3. All perspectives that are important in this society are represented in at least one of the major media.

Pemstein et al. (2025)

Coppedge et al. (2025)

2. Rights

2.2. Civil Liberties

2.2.B. Freedom of the Press

Question: Is there media bias against opposition parties or candidates?

Responses:

0. The print and broadcast media cover only the official party or candidates, or have no political coverage; or there are no opposition parties or candidates to cover.

1. The print and broadcast media cover more than just the official party or candidates but all the opposition parties or candidates receive only negative coverage.

2. The print and broadcast media cover some opposition parties or candidates more or less impartially, but they give only negative or no coverage to at least one newsworthy party or candidate.

3. The print and broadcast media cover opposition parties or candidates more or less impartially, but they give an exaggerated amount of coverage to the governing party or candidates.

4. The print and broadcast media cover all newsworthy parties and candidates more or less impartially and in proportion to their newsworthiness.

Clarification: Take particular care in rating the year-to-year variation on this question if media bias tends to increase or decrease in election years. Coverage can be considered ‘more or less impartial’ when the media as a whole presents a mix of positive and negative coverage of each party or candidate.

Pemstein et al. (2025)

Coppedge et al. (2025)

2. Rights

2.2. Civil Liberties

2.2.B. Freedom of the Press

Question: Do journalists, publishers or broadcasters accept payments in exchange for altering news coverage?

Responses:

0. The media are so closely directed by the government that any such payments would be either unnecessary to ensure pro-government coverage or ineffective in producing anti-government coverage.

1. Journalists, publishers and broadcasters routinely alter news coverage in exchange for payments.

2. It is common, but not routine, for journalists, publishers and broadcasters to alter news coverage in exchange for payments.

3. It is not normal for journalists, publishers and broadcasters to alter news coverage in exchange for payments, but it happens occasionally without anyone being punished.

4. Journalists, publishers and broadcasters rarely alter news coverage in exchange for payments and if it becomes known, someone is punished for it.

Pemstein et al. (2025)

Coppedge et al. (2025)

2. Rights

2.2. Civil Liberties

2.2.B. Freedom of the Press

The media environments around the world are sorted into three basic categories:

1. Free. Countries where criticism of the government and government officials is a common and normal part of the political dialogue in the mediated public sphere.

2. Imperfectly free. Countries where the social, legal or economic costs related to criticism of the government or government officials limit public criticism, but investigative journalism and criticism of major policy failings can and do occur.

3. Not free. Countries where it is not possible to safely criticize government or government officials.

Clarification: In the original data set (Van Belle 2000), there were four categories. Category 4 meant that the government directly controlled all news media, whereas category 3 meant that the government exerted indirect control. Since the end of the Cold War and with the massive growth in information technology, distinguishing between state-operated news media and media controlled by other means became something of a pointless exercise.

2. Rights

2.2. Civil Liberties

2.2.B. Freedom of the Press

Question: Are there free and independent media?

Country scores vary between 0 (worst) and 4 (best).

2. Rights

2.2. Civil Liberties

2.2.B. Freedom of the Press

Question: To what extent does the government achieve control over entry and exit by civil society organizations (CSOs) into public life?

Responses:

0. Monopolistic control. The government exercises an explicit monopoly over CSOs. The only organizations allowed to engage in political activity, such as endorsing parties or politicians, sponsoring public issue forums, organizing rallies or demonstrations, engaging in strikes or publicly commenting on public officials and policies, are government-sponsored organizations. The government actively represses those who attempt to defy its monopoly on political activity.

1. Substantial control. The government licenses all CSOs and uses political criteria to bar organizations that are likely to oppose the government. There are at least some citizen-based organizations that play a limited role in politics independent of the government. The government actively represses those who attempt to flout its political criteria and bars them from any political activity.

2. Moderate control. Whether the government ban on independent CSOs is partial or full, some prohibited organizations manage to play an active political role. Despite its ban on organizations of this sort, the government does not or cannot repress them, due to either its weakness or political expediency.

3. Minimal control. Regardless of whether the government licenses CSOs, constitutional provisions exist that allow the government to ban organizations or movements that have a history of anti-democratic action (e.g. the banning of neo-fascist or communist organizations in the Federal Republic of Germany). Such bans take place within the rule of law and conditions of judicial independence.

4. Unconstrained. Regardless of whether the government licenses CSOs, the government does not impede their formation and operation unless they are engaged in activities that seek to violently overthrow the government.

Pemstein et al. (2025)

Coppedge et al. (2025)

Question: Does the government attempt to repress civil society organizations?

Responses:

0. Severely. The government violently and actively pursues all real and some imagined members of CSOs, seeking not just to deter the activity of such groups but effectively to liquidate them. Examples include Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany and Maoist China.

1. Substantially. In addition to the kinds of harassment outlined in responses 2 and 3 below, the government also arrests, tries and imprisons leaders of and participants in opposition CSOs that are not acting unlawfully. Other sanctions include disruption of public gatherings and violent sanctions of activists such as beatings, threats to family members and destruction of valuable property. Examples include Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, Poland under Martial Law and Serbia under Milosevic.

2. Moderately. In addition to the material sanctions outlined in response 3, the government also engages in minor legal harassment such as detentions or short-term incarceration to dissuade CSOs from acting or expressing themselves. The government may also restrict the scope of CSOs’ actions through measures that restrict the association of such organizations with each other or political parties, bar CSOs from taking certain actions or block international contacts. Examples include post-Martial Law Poland, Brazil in the early 1980s and the late Franco period in Spain.

3. Weakly. The government uses material sanctions such as fines, firings and denial of social services, to deter oppositional CSOs from acting or expressing themselves. They may also use burdensome registration or incorporation procedures to slow the formation of new CSOs and sidetrack them from engagement. The government may also organize government organized movements or NGOs (GONGOs) to crowd out independent organizations. Examples include Singapore in the post-Yew phase or Putin’s Russia.

4. No. Civil society organizations are free to organize, associate, strike, express themselves and criticize the government without fear of government sanction or harassment.

Pemstein et al. (2025)

Coppedge et al. (2025)

2. Rights

2.2. Civil Liberties

2.2.C. Freedom of Association and Assembly

Question: To what extent do state authorities respect and protect the right of peaceful assembly?

Responses:

0. Never. State authorities do not allow peaceful assemblies and are willing to use lethal force to prevent them.

1. Rarely. State authorities rarely allow peaceful assemblies, but generally avoid using lethal force to prevent them.

2. Sometimes. State authorities sometimes allow peaceful assemblies, but often arbitrarily deny citizens the right to assemble peacefully.

3. Mostly. State authorities generally allow peaceful assemblies, but in rare cases arbitrarily deny citizens the right to assemble peacefully.

4. Almost always. State authorities almost always allow and actively protect peaceful assemblies except in rare cases of lawful, necessary, and proportionate limitations.

Clarification: This question focuses on the ability to assemble publicly in practice. An assembly is ‘an intentional and temporary presence of a number of individuals in a public place, for a common expressive purpose’ (Belyaeva et al. 2010). Authorities may limit the right to assembly only if limitations are necessary in the interests of national security or public safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, and are lawful, necessary and proportionate to the aim pursued. Such reasonable and legal restrictions should not be considered when answering. However, if there is evidence that restrictions are used as a pretext for political reasons, this evidence should be considered.

Pemstein et al. (2025)

Coppedge et al. (2025)

2. Rights

2.2. Civil Liberties

2.2.C. Freedom of Association and Assembly

The extent to which individuals and groups have freedom of assembly and association, that is, the right of citizens to gather freely and carry out peaceful demonstrations as well as to join, form and participate with other persons in political parties, cultural organizations, trade unions or the like of their own volition without being subject to limitations or restrictions.

Component scale:

1. Severely restricted. Hardly any freedom of association and assembly exists. As a rule, politically relevant civic organizations and attempts at assembly do not exist or are harshly suppressed.

2. Fairly restricted. Some elements of civic organizations exist, but oppositional organizations of relevance to governance are prohibited, disabled or systematically repressed, and demonstrations critical of the government exposed to numerous interventions and prohibitions.

3. Modestly restricted. There are minor restraints on the freedom of association and/or assembly, predominantly limited to a few isolated cases, but as a rule there are no interventions or prohibitions on parties, social organizations or public meetings.

4. Unrestricted. There is unrestricted freedom of association and assembly.

2. Rights

2.2. Civil Liberties

2.2.C. Freedom of Association and Assembly

Question: Is there freedom of assembly?

Country scores vary between 0 (worst) and 4 (best).

2. Rights

2.2. Civil Liberties

2.2.C. Freedom of Association and Assembly

Question: Is there freedom for non-governmental organizations, particularly those that are engaged in human rights- and governance-related work?

Country scores vary between 0 (worst) and 4 (best).

2. Rights

2.2. Civil Liberties

2.2.C. Freedom of Association and Assembly

Question: Is there freedom for trade unions and similar professional or labour organizations?

Country scores vary between 0 (worst) and 4 (best).

2. Rights

2.2. Civil Liberties

2.2.C. Freedom of Association and Assembly

Countries scored from 1 to 10, following the statements listed below:

1. Association and assembly rights are denied. Independent civic groups do not exist or are prohibited.

2.

3.

4. Association and assembly rights are often subject to interference or government restrictions. Residents and civic groups that do not support the government often cannot exercise these rights.

5.

6.

7. Association and assembly rights are occasionally subject to interference or government restrictions, but generally there are no outright prohibitions of independent political or civic groups.

8.

9.

10. Association and assembly rights are guaranteed against interference or government restrictions. Residents and civic groups can fully exercise these rights.

2. Rights

2.2. Civil Liberties

2.2.C. Freedom of Association and Assembly

Question: Is there freedom of religion?

Responses:

0. Not respected by the public authorities. Hardly any freedom of religion exists. Any kind of religious practice is outlawed or at least controlled by the government to the extent that religious leaders are appointed by and subjected to the public authorities, which control the activities of religious communities in some detail.

1. Weakly respected by the public authorities. Some elements of autonomous organized religious practices exist and are officially recognized but significant religious communities are repressed, prohibited or systematically disabled; voluntary conversions are restricted; and instances of discrimination or intimidation of individuals or groups due to their religion are common.

2. Somewhat respected by the public authorities. Autonomous organized religious practices exist and are officially recognized. Minor religious communities are repressed, prohibited or systematically disabled, however, and/or there are occasional instances of discrimination or intimidation of individuals or groups based on their religion.

3. Mostly respected by the public authorities. There are minor restrictions on the freedom of religion, predominantly limited to a few isolated cases. Minority religions face denial of registration, hindrance of foreign missionaries from entering the country, restrictions on proselytizing or hindrances to accessing the construction of places of worship.

4. Fully respected by the public authorities. The population enjoys the right to practice any religious belief they choose. Religious groups may organize, select and train personnel; solicit and receive contributions; publish; and engage in consultations without undue interference. If religious communities have to register, the public authorities do not abuse the process to discriminate against a religion and do not constrain the right to worship before registration.

Clarification: This indicator specifies the extent to which individuals and groups have the right to choose a religion, change their religion and practice that religion in private or in public as well as to proselytize peacefully without being subject to restrictions by the public authorities.

Pemstein et al. (2025)

Coppedge et al. (2025)

2. Rights

2.2. Civil Liberties

2.2.D. Freedom of Religion

Question: Does the government attempt to repress religious organizations?

Responses:

0. Severely. The government violently and actively pursues all real and some imagined members of religious organizations. It seeks not just to deter the activity of such groups but effectively to liquidate them. Examples include Stalinist Russia and Maoist China.

1. Substantially. In addition to the kinds of harassment outlined in 2 and 3 below, the government also arrests, tries and imprisons leaders of and participants in oppositional religious organizations that have not acted unlawfully. Other sanctions include disruption of public gatherings and violent sanctions of activists, such as beatings, threats to families and destruction of valuable property.

2. Moderately. In addition to the material sanctions outlined in 3 below, the government also engages in minor legal harassment such as detentions or short-term incarceration to dissuade religious organizations from acting or their members from expressing themselves. The government may also restrict the scope of their actions through measures that restrict the association of religious CSOs with each other or political parties, bar religious CSOs from taking certain actions or block international contacts.

3. Weakly. The government uses material sanctions such as fines, firings or the denial of social services to deter oppositional religious organizations from acting or their members from expressing themselves. They may also use burdensome registration or incorporation procedures to slow the formation of new religious CSOs and sidetrack them from engagement. The government may also organize parallel religious organizations to crowd out independent religious organizations.

4. No. Religious CSOs are free to organize, associate, strike or express themselves and to criticize the government without fear of government sanctions or harassment.

Pemstein et al. (2025)

Coppedge et al. (2025)

2. Rights

2.2. Civil Liberties

2.2.D. Freedom of Religion

The extent to which individuals and groups have freedom of thought, conscience and religion, that is, the right of citizens to have a religion or change their religion or belief of their own volition; and alone or in community manifest their religion or belief in practice, through worship, observance and teaching in private or public, as well as to proselytize peacefully without being subject to limitations or restrictions.

Component scale:

1. Severely restricted. Hardly any freedom of religion exists. As a rule, any kind of religious practice is controlled by the government and harshly suppressed.

2. Fairly restricted. Some elements of autonomous organized religious practice exist and are officially recognized, but major religious movements are repressed, prohibited or systematically disabled.

3. Modestly restricted. There are minor restraints on the freedom of religion, predominantly limited to a few isolated cases, but as a rule there are no interventions or prohibitions on communities or individual worshippers.

4. Unrestricted. Unhampered freedom of religion exists.

2. Rights

2.2. Civil Liberties

2.2.D. Freedom of Religion

Question: Are individuals free to practise and express their religious faith or nonbelief in public and private?

Country scores vary between 0 (worst) and 4 (best).

2. Rights

2.2. Civil Liberties

2.2.D. Freedom of Religion

Question: Is there freedom of foreign travel and emigration?

Responses:

0. Not respected by the public authorities. Citizens are rarely allowed to emigrate or travel out of the country. Transgressors (or their families) are severely punished. People discredited by the public authorities are routinely exiled or prohibited from travelling.

1. Weakly respected by the public authorities. The public authorities systematically restrict the right to travel, especially for political opponents or particular social groups. This can take the form of general restrictions on the duration of stays abroad or delays/refusals of visas.

2. Somewhat respected by the public authorities. The right to travel for leading political opponents or particular social groups is occasionally restricted but ordinary citizens only face minor restrictions.

3. Mostly respected by the public authorities. Limitations on freedom of movement and residence are not directed at political opponents but minor restrictions exist. For example, exit visas may be required and citizens may be prohibited from travelling outside the country when accompanied by other members of their family.

4. Fully respected by the government. The freedom of citizens to travel from and to the country, and to emigrate and repatriate, is not restricted by the public authorities.

Clarification: This indicator specifies the extent to which citizens are able to travel freely to and from the country and to emigrate without being subject to restrictions by the public authorities.

Pemstein et al. (2025)

Coppedge et al. (2025)

2. Rights

2.2. Civil Liberties

2.2.E. Freedom of Movement

Question: Do women enjoy freedom of movement within the country?

Responses:

0. Virtually no women enjoy full freedom of movement (e.g. North Korea or Afghanistan under the Taliban).

1. Some women enjoy full freedom of movement but most do not (e.g. Apartheid South Africa).

2. Most women enjoy some freedom of movement but a sizeable minority does not. Alternatively, all women enjoy partial freedom of movement.

3. Most women enjoy full freedom of movement but a small minority does not.

4. Virtually all women enjoy full freedom of movement.

Clarification: This indicator specifies the extent to which all women are able to move freely, in daytime and at night, in public thoroughfares and across regions within a country, and to establish permanent residence where they wish. Note that restrictions of movement might be imposed by the state and/or by informal norms and practices. Such restrictions sometimes fall on rural residents, on specific social groups or on dissidents. This question does not ask you to assess the relative freedom of men and women. Thus, it is correct to assign the lowest possible score to a country if men and women enjoy equal but extremely low levels of freedom of movement. Do not consider restrictions on movement that are placed on non-political criminals. Do not consider restrictions on movement that result from crime or unrest.

Pemstein et al. (2025)

Coppedge et al. (2025)

2. Rights

2.2. Civil Liberties

2.2.E. Freedom of Movement

Question: Do men enjoy freedom of movement within the country?

Responses:

0. Virtually no men enjoy full freedom of movement (e.g. North Korea).

1. Some men enjoy full freedom of movement but most do not (e.g. Apartheid South Africa).

2. Most men enjoy some freedom of movement but a sizeable minority does not. Alternatively, all men enjoy partial freedom of movement.

3. Most men enjoy full freedom of movement but a small minority does not.

4. Virtually all men enjoy full freedom of movement.

Clarification: This indicator specifies the extent to which all men are able to move freely, in daytime or at night, in public thoroughfares or across regions in a country, and to establish permanent residence where they wish. Note that restrictions in movement might be imposed by the state and/or by informal norms and practices. Such restrictions sometimes fall on rural residents, on specific social groups or on dissidents. This question does not ask you to assess the relative freedom of men and women. Thus, it is correct to assign the lowest possible score to a country if men and women enjoy equal but extremely low levels of freedom of movement. Do not consider restrictions in movement that are placed on non-political criminals. Do not consider restrictions in movement that result from crime or unrest.

Pemstein et al. (2025)

Coppedge et al. (2025)

2. Rights

2.2. Civil Liberties

2.2.E. Freedom of Movement

The extent to which individuals and groups have freedom of movement and residence, that is, the right of citizens to settle and travel within their country or to leave and return to their country of their own volition without being subject to limitations or restrictions.

Component scale:

1. Severely restricted. Hardly any freedom of movement exists. As a rule, citizens are not allowed to choose their place of residence or to travel around the country or abroad.

2. Fairly restricted. Some elements of foreign travel, choice of residence and/or domestic travel exist but numerous individuals, often belonging to specific groups, are exposed to a variety of prohibitions.

3. Modestly restricted. There are minor restraints on the freedom of travel and/or residence, predominantly limited to a few isolated cases, but as a rule there are no prohibitions.

4. Unrestricted. There is unrestricted freedom of movement and residence.

2. Rights

2.2. Civil Liberties

2.2.E. Freedom of Movement

Question: Do individuals enjoy freedom of movement, including the ability to change their place of residence, employment or education?

Country scores vary between 0 (worst) and 4 (best).

2. Rights

2.2. Civil Liberties

2.2.E. Freedom of Movement

2. Rights

2.3. Basic Welfare

2. Rights

2.3. Basic Welfare

2. Rights

2.3. Basic Welfare

2. Rights

2.3. Basic Welfare

2. Rights

2.3. Basic Welfare

Question: To what extent is high quality basic education guaranteed to all, sufficient to enable them to exercise their basic rights as adult citizens?

Responses:

0. Extreme. Provision of high-quality basic education is extremely unequal and at least 75% of children receive education of such low quality that it undermines their ability to exercise their basic rights as adult citizens.

1. Unequal. Provision of high-quality basic education is extremely unequal and at least 25% of children receive education of such low quality that it undermines their ability to exercise their basic rights as adult citizens.

2. Somewhat equal. Basic education is relatively equal in quality but 10–25% of children receive education of such low quality that it undermines their ability to exercise their basic rights as adult citizens.

3. Relatively equal. Basic education overall is equal in quality but 5–10% of children receive education of such low quality that it probably undermines their ability to exercise their basic rights as adult citizens.

4. Equal. Basic education is equal in quality and less than 5% of children receive education of such low quality that it probably undermines their ability to exercise their basic rights as adult citizens.

Clarification: Basic education typically refers to schooling between 6 and 16 years of age but this varies slightly among countries.

Pemstein et al. (2025)

Coppedge et al. (2025)

2. Rights

2.3. Basic Welfare

Question: To what extent is high quality basic healthcare guaranteed to all, sufficient to enable them to exercise their basic political rights as adult citizens?

Responses:

0. Extreme. Because of poor quality healthcare, at least 75% of citizens’ ability to exercise their political rights as adult citizens is undermined.

1. Unequal. Because of poor quality healthcare, at least 25% of citizens’ ability to exercise their political rights as adult citizens is undermined.

2. Somewhat equal. Because of poor quality healthcare, 10–25% of citizens’ ability to exercise their political rights as adult citizens is undermined.

3. Relatively equal. Basic healthcare overall is equal in quality but because of poor quality healthcare, 5–10% of citizens’ ability to exercise their political rights as adult citizens is undermined.

4. Equal. Basic healthcare is equal in quality and less than 5% of citizens cannot exercise their basic political rights as adult citizens.

Clarification: Poor quality healthcare can leave citizens unable to exercise their basic rights as adult citizens by failing to adequately treat preventable and treatable illnesses that render them unable to work, participate in social or political organizations, or vote (where voting is allowed).

Pemstein et al. (2025)

Coppedge et al. (2025)

2. Rights

2.3. Basic Welfare

The average number of years in full health a person (usually at age 60) can expect to live based on current rates of ill-health and mortality.

The equivalent lost healthy year fractions required for the HALE calculation are estimated as the all-cause years lost due to disability (YLD) rate per capita, adjusted for independent comorbidity, by age, sex and country. Sullivan’s method uses the equivalent lost healthy year fraction (adjusted for comorbidity) at each age in the current population (for a given year) to divide the hypothetical years of life lived by a period life table cohort at different ages into years of equivalent full health and equivalent lost healthy years.

2. Rights

2.3. Basic Welfare

The average number of years in full health a person (usually at age 60) can expect to live based on current rates of ill-health and mortality.

The equivalent lost healthy year fractions required for the HALE calculation are estimated as the all-cause years lost due to disability (YLD) rate per capita, adjusted for independent comorbidity, by age, sex and country. Sullivan’s method uses the equivalent lost healthy year fraction (adjusted for comorbidity) at each age in the current population (for a given year) to divide the hypothetical years of life lived by a period life table cohort at different ages into years of equivalent full health and equivalent lost healthy years.

2. Rights

2.3. Basic Welfare

Question: Do all social groups, as distinguished by language, ethnicity, religion, race, region or caste, enjoy the same level of civil liberties? Or are some groups generally in a more favourable position?

Responses:

0. Members of some social groups enjoy far fewer civil liberties than the general population.

1. Members of some social groups enjoy substantially fewer civil liberties than the general population.

2. Members of some social groups enjoy moderately fewer civil liberties than the general population.

3. Members of some social groups enjoy slightly fewer civil liberties than the general population.

4. Members of all salient social groups enjoy the same level of civil liberties.

Clarification: Here, civil liberties are understood as comprising access to justice, private property rights, freedom of movement and freedom from forced labour.

Pemstein et al. (2025)

Coppedge et al. (2025)

2. Rights

2.4. Political Equality

2.4.A. Social Group Equality

Question: Is political power distributed according to social groups?

Responses:

0. Political power is monopolized by one social group comprising a minority of the population. This monopoly is institutionalized, or not subject to frequent change.

1. Political power is monopolized by several social groups comprising a minority of the population. This monopoly is institutionalized, or not subject to frequent change.

2. Political power is monopolized by several social groups comprising a majority of the population. This monopoly is institutionalized, or not subject to frequent change.

3. Either all social groups possess some political power, with some groups having more power than others; or different social groups alternate in power, with one group controlling much of the political power for a period of time followed by another group, but all significant groups have a turn at the seat of power.

4. All social groups have roughly equal political power or there are no strong ethnic, caste, linguistic, racial, religious or regional differences to speak of. Social group characteristics are not relevant to politics.

Clarification: A social group is differentiated within a country by caste, ethnicity, language, race, region, religion or some combination thereof. (It does not include identities grounded in sexual orientation or socio-economic status.) Social group identity is contextually defined and is likely to vary across countries and through time. Social group identities are also likely to cross-cut, so that a given person could be defined in multiple ways and as part of multiple groups. Nonetheless, at any given point in time there are social groups within a society that are understood by those residing in that society to be different, in ways that may be politically relevant.

Pemstein et al. (2025)

Coppedge et al. (2025)

2. Rights

2.4. Political Equality

2.4.A. Social Group Equality

Question: To what extent is political power distributed according to sexual orientation?

Responses:

0. LGBTs are entirely excluded from the public sphere and thus deprived of any real political power (even though they may possess formal powers such as the ballot).

1. LGBTs have much less political power than heterosexuals. LGBTs enjoy formal rights to participate in politics but are subject to informal norms that often serve to exclude them from the halls of power.

2. LGBTs have somewhat less political power than heterosexual citizens.

3. LGBTs have about the same political power as heterosexuals. Each group enjoys a degree of political power that is roughly proportional to their population.

4. LGBTs enjoy somewhat more political power than heterosexuals by virtue of greater wealth, education, and high level of organization and mobilization

Clarification: This question contrasts (A) the political power of heterosexuals and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) members of the polity who are not open about their sexuality with (B) the political power of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) members of the polity who are open about their sexuality. (A) will be referred to as ‘heterosexual’ and (B) as ‘LGBT’.

Note that in comparing the political power of these two groups we are comparing their power per person. So, when we say that LGBT have less, equal or more power than heterosexuals we mean relative to their share of the population (as near as this can be estimated).

Pemstein et al. (2025)

Coppedge et al. (2025)

2. Rights

2.4. Political Equality

2.4.A. Social Group Equality

Index of (political) exclusion by political group.

Clarification:

Exclusion is when individuals are denied access to services or participation in governed spaces (spaces that are part of the public space and the government should regulate, while excluding private spaces and organizations except when exclusion in those private spheres is linked to exclusion in the public sphere) based on their identity or belonging to a particular group.

The index is formed by taking the point estimates from a Bayesian factor analysis model of the indicators political group equality in respect for civil liberties (v2clpolcl), access to public services by political group (v2peapspol), access to state jobs by political group (v2peasjpol), and access to state business opportunities by political group (v2peasbpol).

Pemstein et al. (2025)

Coppedge et al. (2025)

2. Rights

2.4. Political Equality

2.4.A. Social Group Equality

Index of (political) exclusion by social group.

Clarification:

Exclusion is when individuals are denied access to services or participation in governed spaces (spaces that are part of the public space and the government should regulate, while excluding private spaces and organizations except when exclusion in those private spheres is linked to exclusion in the public sphere) based on their identity or belonging to a particular group.

The index is formed by taking the point estimates from a Bayesian factor analysis model of the indicators power distributed by social group (v2pepwrsoc), social group equality in respect for civil liberties (v2clsocgrp), access to public services by social group (v2peapssoc), access to state jobs by social group (v2peasjsoc), and access to state business opportunities by social group (v2peasbsoc).

Pemstein et al. (2025)

Coppedge et al. (2025)

2. Rights

2.4. Political Equality

2.4.A. Social Group Equality

Question: Do various segments of the population (including ethnic, racial, religious, gender, LGBT+, and other relevant groups) have full political rights and electoral opportunities?

Country scores vary between 0 (worst) and 4 (best).

2. Rights

2.4. Political Equality

2.4.A. Social Group Equality

Question: Do laws, policies, and practices guarantee equal treatment of various segments of the population?

Country scores vary between 0 (worst) and 4 (best).

2. Rights

2.4. Political Equality

2.4.A. Social Group Equality

Countries scored from 1 to 10, following the statements listed below:

1. Equality of opportunity is not achieved. Women and/or members of ethnic, religious and other groups have only very limited access to education, public office and employment. There are no legal provisions against discrimination.

2.

3.

4. Equality of opportunity is only partially achieved. Women and/or members of ethnic, religious and other groups have limited access to education, public office and employment. There are some legal provisions against discrimination, but their implementation is highly deficient.

5.

6.

7. Equality of opportunity is largely achieved. Women and members of ethnic, religious and other groups have near-equal access to education, public office and employment. There are a number of legal provisions against discrimination, but their implementation is at times insufficient.

8.

9.

10. Equality of opportunity is achieved. Women and members of ethnic, religious and other groups have equal access to education, public office and employment. There is a comprehensive and effective legal and institutional framework for the protection against discrimination.

2. Rights

2.4. Political Equality

2.4.A. Social Group Equality

Question: Do poor people enjoy the same level of civil liberties as rich people do?

Responses:

0. Poor people enjoy far fewer civil liberties than rich people.

1. Poor people enjoy substantially fewer civil liberties than rich people.

2. Poor people enjoy moderately fewer civil liberties than rich people.

3. Poor people enjoy slightly fewer civil liberties than rich people.

4. Poor people enjoy the same level of civil liberties as rich people.

Clarification: This question specifies the extent to which the level of civil liberties is generally the same across socio-economic groups so that people with a low social status are not treated worse than people with high social status. Here, civil liberties are understood to include access to justice, private property rights, freedom of movement and freedom from forced labour.

Pemstein et al. (2025)

Coppedge et al. (2025)

2. Rights

2.4. Political Equality

2.4.B. Economic Equality

Question: Is political power distributed according to socio-economic position?

Responses:

0. Wealthy people enjoy a virtual monopoly on political power. People of average wealth and poorer people have almost no influence.

1. Wealthy people enjoy a dominant hold on political power. People of average wealth have little say. Poorer people have essentially no influence.

2. Wealthy people have a very strong hold on political power. People of average wealth or poorer people have some degree of influence but only on issues that matter less to wealthy people.

3. Wealthy people have more political power than others but people of average wealth have almost as much influence and poor people have a significant degree of political power.

4. Wealthy people have no more political power than those whose economic status is average or poor. Political power is more or less equally distributed across economic groups.

Clarification: All societies are characterized by some degree of economic (wealth and income) inequality. In some societies, income and wealth are distributed in a grossly unequal fashion. In others, the difference between rich and poor is not so great. Here, we are concerned not with the degree of social inequality but rather with the political effects of this inequality. Specifically, we are concerned with the extent to which wealth and income translate into political power.

Pemstein et al. (2025)

Coppedge et al. (2025)

2. Rights

2.4. Political Equality

2.4.B. Economic Equality

Index of (political) exclusion by socio-economic group.

Clarification:

Exclusion is when individuals are denied access to services or participation in governed spaces (spaces that are part of the public space and the government should regulate, while excluding private spaces and organizations except when exclusion in those private spheres is linked to exclusion in the public sphere) based on their identity or belonging to a particular group. The index is formed by taking the point estimates from a Bayesian factor analysis model of the indicators power distributed by socio-economic group (v2pepwrses), socio-economic position equality in respect for civil liberties (v2clacjust), access to public services by socio-economic group (v2peapsecon), access to state jobs by socio-economic group (v2peasjsoecon), and access to state business opportunities by socio-economic group (v2peasbecon). Exclusion is when individuals are denied access to services or participation in governed spaces (spaces that are part of the public space and the government should regulate, while excluding private spaces and organizations except when exclusion in those private spheres is linked to exclusion in the public sphere) based on their identity or belonging to a particular group.

Pemstein et al. (2025)

Coppedge et al. (2025)

2. Rights

2.4. Political Equality

2.4.B. Economic Equality

Index of (political) exclusion by urban–rural location.

Clarification:

Exclusion is when individuals are denied access to services or participation in governed spaces (spaces that are part of the public space and the government should regulate, while excluding private spaces and organizations except when exclusion in those private spheres is linked to exclusion in the public sphere) based on their identity or belonging to a particular group.

The index is formed by taking the point estimates from a Bayesian factor analysis model of the indicators power distributed by urban–rural location (v2pepwrgeo), urban–rural equality in respect for civil liberties (v2clgeocl), access to public services by urban–rural location (v2peapsgeo), access to state jobs by urban–rural location (v2peasjgeo), and access to state business opportunities by urban–rural location (v2peasbgeo).

Pemstein et al. (2025)

Coppedge et al. (2025)

2. Rights

2.4. Political Equality

2.4.B. Economic Equality

Countries scored from 1 to 10, following the statements listed below:

1. Poverty and inequality are extensive and structurally ingrained.

2.

3.

4. Poverty and inequality are pronounced and partly structurally ingrained.

5.

6.

7. Poverty and inequality are limited and barely structurally ingrained.

8.

9.

10. Poverty and inequality are minor and not structurally ingrained.

2. Rights

2.4. Political Equality

2.4.B. Economic Equality

2. Rights

2.4. Political Equality

2.4.B. Economic Equality

Question: Is political power distributed according to gender?

Responses:

0. Men have a near-monopoly on political power.

1. Men have a dominant hold on political power. Women have only marginal influence.

2. Men have much more political power but women have some areas of influence.

3. Men have somewhat more political power than women.

4. Men and women have roughly equal political power.

Pemstein et al. (2025)

Coppedge et al. (2025)

2. Rights

2.4. Political Equality

2.4.C. Gender Equality

Question: Are women prevented from participating in civil society organizations?

Responses:

0. Almost always.

1. Frequently.

2. About half the time.

3. Rarely.

4. Almost never.

Clarification: Please pay attention to both: (a) whether women are prevented from participating in CSOs because of their gender; and (b) whether CSOs pursuing women’s interests are prevented from taking part in associational life.

Pemstein et al. (2025)

Coppedge et al. (2025)

2. Rights

2.4. Political Equality

2.4.C. Gender Equality

2. Rights

2.4. Political Equality

2.4.C. Gender Equality

Question: What percentage of the lower (or unicameral) chamber of the legislature is female?

Responses: Percentage.

2. Rights

2.4. Political Equality

2.4.C. Gender Equality

Index of (political) exclusion by gender.

Clarification:

Exclusion is when individuals are denied access to services or participation in governed spaces (spaces that are part of the public space and the government should regulate, while excluding private spaces and organizations except when exclusion in those private spheres is linked to exclusion in the public sphere) based on their identity or belonging to a particular group.

The index is formed by taking the point estimates from a Bayesian factor analysis model of the indicators power distributed by gender (v2pepwgen), equality in respect for civil liberties by gender (v2clgencl), access to public services by gender (v2peapsgen), access to state jobs by gender (v2peasjgen), and access to state business opportunities by gender (v2peasbgen).

Pemstein et al. (2025)

Coppedge et al. (2025)

2. Rights

2.4. Political Equality

2.4.C. Gender Equality

2. Rights

2.4. Political Equality

2.4.C. Gender Equality

The labour force participation rate is the number of persons in the labour force as a percentage of the working-age population. The labour force is the sum of the number of persons employed and the number of persons unemployed. Thus, the measurement of the labour force participation rate requires the measurement of both employment and unemployment. Employment comprises all persons of working age who during a specified brief period, such as one week or one day, were in the following categories: (a) paid employment (whether at work or with a job but not at work); or (b) self-employment (whether at work or with an enterprise but not at work). The unemployed comprise all persons of working age who were: (a) without work during the reference period, i.e. were not in paid employment or self-employment; (b) currently available for work, i.e. were available for paid employment or self-employment during the reference period; and (c) seeking work, i.e. had taken specific steps in a specified recent period to seek paid employment or self-employment.

The data are published with disaggregation by age (bands) and gender. The age band selected for this purpose is ‘Total’.

2. Rights

2.4. Political Equality

2.4.C. Gender Equality

2. Rights

2.4. Political Equality

2.4.C. Gender Equality

Account denotes the percentage of respondents who report having an account (by themselves or together with someone else) at a bank or another type of financial institution or report personally using a mobile money service in the past 12 months (% age 15+).

Data are provided disaggregated by gender.

2. Rights

2.4. Political Equality

2.4.C. Gender Equality

rule_law_l = lower bound for the 68% confidence interval

rule_law_u = upper bound for the 68% confidence interval

jud_ind_l = lower bound for the 68% confidence interval

jud_ind_u = upper bound for the 68% confidence interval

abs_corrupt_l = lower bound for the 68% confidence interval

abs_corrupt_u = upper bound for the 68% confidence interval

predict_enf_l = lower bound for the 68% confidence interval

predict_enf_u = upper bound for the 68% confidence interval

pers_integ_sec_l = lower bound for the 68% confidence interval

pers_integ_sec_u = upper bound for the 68% confidence interval

Question: When the High Court in the judicial system rules in cases that are salient to the government, how often would you say that it makes decisions that merely reflect the government’s wishes regardless of its sincere view of the legal record?

Responses:

0. Always.

1. Usually.

2. About half of the time.

3. Seldom.

4. Never.

Clarification: We are seeking to identify autonomous judicial decision making and its absence. Decisions certainly can reflect government wishes without ‘merely reflecting’ those wishes, in that a court can be autonomous when its decisions support the government’s position because a court can be fairly persuaded that the government’s position is meritorious. ‘Merely reflect the wishes of the government’ means that the court’s own sincere evaluation of the record is irrelevant to the outcome. The court simply adopts the government’s position regardless of its sincere view.

Pemstein et al. (2025)

Coppedge et al. (2025)

3. Rule of Law

3.1. Judicial Independence

Question: When judges not on the High Court are ruling in cases that are salient to the government, how often would you say that their decisions merely reflect government wishes regardless of their sincere view of the legal record?

Responses:

0. Always.

1. Usually.

2. About half of the time.

3. Seldom.

4. Never.

Pemstein et al. (2025)

Coppedge et al. (2025)

3. Rule of Law

3.1. Judicial Independence

Question: How often would you say the government complies with important decisions of the High Court with which it disagrees?

Responses:

0. Never.

1. Seldom.

2. About half of the time.

3. Usually.

4. Always.

Pemstein et al. (2025)

Coppedge et al. (2025)

3. Rule of Law

3.1. Judicial Independence

Question: How often would you say the government complies with important decisions by other courts with which it disagrees?

Responses:

0. Never.

1. Seldom.

2. About half of the time.

3. Usually.

4. Always.

Clarification: We are looking for a judgment on the entire judiciary excluding the High Court. Consider judges in both the ordinary courts and the specialized courts.

Pemstein et al. (2025)

Coppedge et al. (2025)

3. Rule of Law

3.1. Judicial Independence

Question: Is there an independent judiciary?

Country scores vary between 0 (worst) and 4 (best).

3. Rule of Law

3.1. Judicial Independence

Countries scored from 1 to 10, following the statements listed below:

1. There is no separation of powers, neither de jure nor de facto.

2.

3.

4. The separation of powers is formally established but weak in practice. One branch, generally the executive, has largely undermined checks and balances.

5.

6.

7. The separation of powers is in place and functioning. Checks and balances are occasionally subject to interference, but a restoration of balance is sought.

8.

9.

10. There is a clear separation of powers with mutual checks and balances.

3. Rule of Law

3.1. Judicial Independence

Countries scored from 1 to 10, following the statements listed below:

1. The judiciary is not independent and not institutionally differentiated.

2.

3.

4. The independence of the judiciary is heavily impaired by political authorities and high levels of corruption. It is to some extent institutionally differentiated, but severely restricted by functional deficits, insufficient territorial operability and scarce resources.

5.

6.

7. The judiciary is largely independent, even though occasionally its decisions are subordinated to political authorities or influenced by corruption. It is institutionally differentiated, but partially restricted by insufficient territorial or functional operability.

8.

9.

10. The judiciary is independent and free both from unconstitutional intervention by other institutions and from corruption. It is institutionally differentiated, and there are mechanisms for judicial review of legislative or executive acts.

3. Rule of Law

3.1. Judicial Independence

Question: How routinely do public sector employees grant favours in exchange for bribes or other material inducements?

Responses:

0. Extremely common. Most public sector employees are systematically involved in petty but corrupt exchanges almost all the time.

1. Common. Such petty but corrupt exchanges occur regularly involving a majority of public employees.

2. Sometimes. About half or less than half of public sector employees engage in such exchanges for petty gains at times.

3. Scattered. A small minority of public sector employees engage in petty corruption from time to time.

4. No. Never, or hardly ever.

Clarification: When responding to this question, think about a typical person employed in the public sector, excluding the military. If there are large discrepancies between branches of the public sector, between the national/federal and subnational/state level, or between the core bureaucracy and employees working in public service delivery, try to average them out before stating your response.

Pemstein et al. (2025)

Coppedge et al. (2025)

3. Rule of Law

3.2. Absence of Corruption

Question: How often do public sector employees steal, embezzle or misappropriate public funds or other state resources for personal or family use?

Responses:

0. Constantly. Public sector employees act as though all public resources were their personal or family property.

1. Often. Public sector employees are responsible stewards of selected public resources but treat the rest as personal property.

2. About half the time. Public sector employees are about as likely to be responsible stewards of selected public resources as they are to treat them as personal property.

3. Occasionally. Public sector employees are responsible stewards of most public resources but treat selected others as personal property.

4. Never, or hardly ever. Public sector employees are almost always responsible stewards of public resources and keep them separate from personal or family property.

Clarification: When responding to this question, think about a typical person employed by the public sector, excluding the military. If there are large discrepancies between branches of the public sector, between the national/federal and subnational/state level, or between the core bureaucracy and employees working in public service delivery, try to average them out before stating your response.

Pemstein et al. (2025)

Coppedge et al. (2025)

3. Rule of Law

3.2. Absence of Corruption

Question: How often do members of the executive (the head of state, the head of government and cabinet ministers), or their agents, steal, embezzle or misappropriate public funds or other state resources for personal or family use?

Responses:

0. Constantly. Members of the executive act as though all public resources were their personal or family property.

1. Often. Members of the executive are responsible stewards of selected public resources but treat the rest as personal property.

2. About half the time. Members of the executive are about as likely to be responsible stewards of selected public resources as they are to treat them as personal property.

3. Occasionally. Members of the executive are responsible stewards of most public resources but treat selected others as personal property.

4. Never, or hardly ever. Members of the executive are almost always responsible stewards of public resources and keep them separate from personal or family property.

Pemstein et al. (2025)

Coppedge et al. (2025)

3. Rule of Law

3.2. Absence of Corruption

Question: How routinely do members of the executive (the head of state, the head of government and cabinet ministers) or their agents grant favours in exchange for bribes or other material inducements?

Responses:

0. It is routine and expected.

1. It happens more often than not in dealings with the executive.

2. It happens but is unpredictable; those dealing with the executive find it hard to predict when an inducement will be required.

3. It happens occasionally but is not expected.

4. It never, or hardly ever, happens.

Pemstein et al. (2025)

Coppedge et al. (2025)

3. Rule of Law

3.2. Absence of Corruption

3. Rule of Law

3.2. Absence of Corruption

Question: Are safeguards against official corruption strong and effective?

Country scores vary between 0 (worst) and 4 (best).

3. Rule of Law

3.2. Absence of Corruption

Countries scored from 1 to 10, following the statements listed below:

1. Officeholders who break the law and engage in corruption can do so without fear of legal consequences or adverse publicity.

2.

3.

4. Officeholders who break the law and engage in corruption are not adequately prosecuted, but occasionally attract adverse publicity.

5.

6.

7. Officeholders who break the law and engage in corruption generally are prosecuted under established laws and often attract adverse publicity, but occasionally slip through political, legal or procedural loopholes.

8.

9.

10. Officeholders who break the law and engage in corruption are prosecuted rigorously under established laws and always attract adverse publicity.

3. Rule of Law

3.2. Absence of Corruption

Question: Do members of the executive (the head of state, the head of government and cabinet ministers) respect the constitution?

Responses:

0. Members of the executive violate the constitution whenever they want to without legal consequences.

1. Members of the executive violate most provisions of the constitution without legal consequences, but must respect certain provisions.

2. Somewhere between 1 and 3. Members of the executive would face legal consequences for violating most provisions of the constitution but can disregard some provisions without any legal consequences.

3. Members of the executive rarely violate the constitution and when it happens they face legal charges.

4. Members of the executive never violate the constitution.

Pemstein et al. (2025)

Coppedge et al. (2025)

3. Rule of Law

3.3. Predictable Enforcement

Question: Are the laws of the land clear, well publicized, coherent (consistent with each other), relatively stable from year to year and enforced in a predictable manner?

Responses:

0. Transparency and predictability are almost non-existent. The laws of the land are created and/or enforced in completely arbitrary fashion.

1. Transparency and predictability are severely limited. The laws of the land are more often than not created and/or enforced in arbitrary fashion.

2. Transparency and predictability are somewhat limited. The laws of the land are mostly created in a non-arbitrary fashion but enforcement is rather arbitrary in some parts of the country.

3. Transparency and predictability are fairly strong. The laws of the land are usually created and enforced in a non-arbitrary fashion.

4. Transparency and predictability are very strong. The laws of the land are created and enforced in a non-arbitrary fashion.

Clarification: This question focuses on the transparency and predictability of the laws of the land.

Pemstein et al. (2025)

Coppedge et al. (2025)

3. Rule of Law

3.3. Predictable Enforcement

Question: Are public officials rigorous and impartial in the performance of their duties?

Responses:

0. The law is not respected by public officials. Arbitrary or biased administration of the law is rampant.

1. The law is weakly respected by public officials. Arbitrary or biased administration of the law is widespread.

2. The law is modestly respected by public officials. Arbitrary or biased administration of the law is moderate.

3. The law is mostly respected by public officials. Arbitrary or biased administration of the law is limited.

4. The law is generally fully respected by the public officials. Arbitrary or biased administration of the law is rare.

Clarification: This question focuses on the extent to which public officials generally abide by the law and treat like cases alike; or, conversely, the extent to which public administration is characterized by arbitrariness and bias (i.e. nepotism, cronyism or discrimination). The question covers the public officials who handle the cases of ordinary people. If no functioning public administration exists, the lowest score (0) applies.

Pemstein et al. (2025)

Coppedge et al. (2025)

3. Rule of Law

3.3. Predictable Enforcement

Question: To what extent are appointment decisions in the state administration based on personal and political connections, as opposed to skills and merit?

Responses:

0. All appointment decisions in the state administration are based on personal or political connections. None are based on skills and merit.

1. Most appointment decisions in the state administration are based on personal or political connections. Only a few are based on skills and merit.

2. Approximately half of the appointment decisions in the state administration are based on personal or political connections. Approximately half are based on skills and merit.

3. Only few of the appointment decisions in the state administration are based on personal or political connections. Most appointment decisions are based on skills and merit.

4. None of the appointment decisions in the state administration are based on personal or political connections. All are based on skills and merit.

Clarification:

Appointment decisions include hiring, firing and promotion in the state administration. Note that the question refers to the typical de facto (rather than de jure) situation obtaining in the state administration, excluding the armed forces. If there are large differences between different branches of the state administration or between top and lower level state administrators please try to consider the average when answering the question.

Pemstein et al. (2025)

Coppedge et al. (2025)

3. Rule of Law

3.3. Predictable Enforcement

Question: To what extent are appointment decisions in the armed forces based on personal or political connections or alternatively based on skills and merit?

Responses:

0. All appointment decisions in the armed forces are based on personal or political connections. None are based on skills and merit.

1. Most appointment decisions in the armed forces are based on personal or political connections. Only a few are based on skills and merit.

2. Approximately half of the appointment decisions in the armed forces are based on personal or political connections. Approximately half are based on skills and merit.

3. Only few of the appointment decisions in the armed forces are based on personal or political connections. Most are based on skills and merit.

4. None of the appointment decisions in the armed forces are based on personal or political connections. All are based on skills and merit.

Clarification:

Appointment decisions include hiring, firing and promotions in the armed forces. Note that the question refers to the typical de facto (rather than de jure) situation obtaining in the armed forces. If there are large differences between different branches of the armed forces or between top and lower level ranks please try to consider the average when answering the question.

Pemstein et al. (2025)

Coppedge et al. (2025)

3. Rule of Law

3.3. Predictable Enforcement

3. Rule of Law

3.3. Predictable Enforcement

3. Rule of Law

3.3. Predictable Enforcement

Question: Does the government operate with openness and transparency?

Country scores vary between 0 (worst) and 4 (best).

3. Rule of Law

3.3. Predictable Enforcement

Countries scored from 1 to 10, following the statements listed below:

1. There is no state monopoly on the use of force.

2.

3.

4. The state’s monopoly on the use of force is established only in key parts of the country. Large areas of the country are controlled by guerrillas, paramilitaries or clans.

5.

6.

7. The state’s monopoly on the use of force is established nationwide in principle, but it is challenged by guerrillas, mafias or clans in territorial enclaves.

8.

9.

10. There is no competition with the state’s monopoly on the use of force throughout the entire territory.

3. Rule of Law

3.3. Predictable Enforcement

Countries scored from 1 to 10, following the statements listed below:

1. The administrative structures of the state are limited to keeping the peace and maintaining law and order. Their territorial scope is very limited, and broad segments of the population are not covered.

2.

3.

4. The administrative structures of the state are extending beyond maintaining law and order, but their territorial scope and effectivity are limited.

5.

6.

7. The administrative structures of the state provide most basic public services throughout the country, but their operation is to some extent deficient (lack of resources, corruption, inefficiency).

8.

9.

10. The state has a differentiated administrative structure throughout the country which provides all basic public services.

3. Rule of Law

3.3. Predictable Enforcement

Question: Is there freedom from torture?

Responses:

0. Not respected by the public authorities. Torture is practised systematically and is incited and approved by the leaders of the government.

1. Weakly respected by the public authorities. Torture is practised frequently but is often not incited or approved by senior leaders in the government. At the same time, government leaders are not actively working to prevent it.

2. Somewhat. Torture is practised occasionally but is typically not approved by senior leaders in the government.

3. Mostly respected by the public authorities. Torture is practised in a few isolated cases but is not incited or approved by senior government leaders.

4. Fully respected by the public authorities. Torture is non-existent.

Clarification: Torture refers to the deliberate inflicting of extreme pain, whether mental or physical, with the aim of extracting information or intimidating victims, who are in a state of incarceration. Here, we are concerned with torture practised by state officials or other agents of the state (the police, security forces, prison guards and paramilitary groups).

Pemstein et al. (2025)

Coppedge et al. (2025)

3. Rule of Law

3.4. Personal Integrity and Security

Question: Is there freedom from political killings?

Responses:

0. Not respected by the public authorities. Political killings are practised systematically and they are typically incited and approved by the senior leaders of the government.

1. Weakly respected by the public authorities. Political killings are practised frequently and senior government leaders are not actively working to prevent them.

2. Somewhat respected by the public authorities. Political killings are practised occasionally but they are typically not incited and approved by senior government leaders.

3. Mostly respected by the public authorities. Political killings are practised in a few isolated cases but they are not incited or approved by senior government leaders.

4. Fully respected by the public authorities. Political killings do not take place.

Clarification: Political killings are killings by the state or its agents without due process of law for the purpose of eliminating political opponents. These killings are the result of the deliberate use of lethal force by the police, security forces, prison officials or other agents of the state, including paramilitary groups.

Pemstein et al. (2025)

Coppedge et al. (2025)

3. Rule of Law

3.4. Personal Integrity and Security

3. Rule of Law

3.4. Personal Integrity and Security

3. Rule of Law

3.4. Personal Integrity and Security

Question: Do individuals enjoy equality of opportunity and freedom from economic exploitation?

Country scores vary between 0 (worst) and 4 (best).

3. Rule of Law

3.4. Personal Integrity and Security

Question: Is there protection from the illegitimate use of physical force and freedom from war and insurgencies?

Country scores vary between 0 (worst) and 4 (best).

3. Rule of Law

3.4. Personal Integrity and Security

participation_l = lower bound for the 68% confidence interval

participation_u = upper bound for the 68% confidence interval

civil_soc_l = lower bound for the 68% confidence interval

civil_soc_u = upper bound for the 68% confidence interval

civic_engage_l = lower bound for the 68% confidence interval

civic_engage_u = upper bound for the 68% confidence interval

Question: Which of these best describes the involvement of people in civil society organizations (CSOs)?

Responses:

0. Most associations are state-sponsored and although a large number of people may be active in them, their participation is not purely voluntary.

1. Voluntary CSOs exist but few people are active in them.

2. There are many diverse CSOs, but popular involvement is minimal.

3. There are many diverse CSOs and it is considered normal for people to be at least occasionally active in at least one of them.

Pemstein et al. (2025)

Coppedge et al. (2025)