Democracy Tracker Methodology and User Guide

The following countries are included in the Democracy Tracker’s monthly reporting:

Table C.1. UN’s core international human rights treaties

Table C.2. International Labour Organization fundamental conventions

Table C.3. Regional human rights conventions

The following CAMEO codes are used to filter data from GDELT for analysis.

Different types of sources and data sets

The GSoD Indices summarize information from 165 indicators collected from 24 data sets. Some of these indicators, such as the elected office and direct democracy indicators from V-Dem, are composite measures based on several subindicators. The data sets listed in Table E.1 represent four different types of source data:

1. Expert surveys (ES). In these surveys, country experts assess the situation on a particular issue in a country. This kind of data is provided by V-Dem and the ICRG.
2. Standards-based ‘in-house coding’ (IC). This type of coding is carried out by researchers and/or their assistants based on an evaluative assessment of country-specific information found in reports, academic publications, reference works, news articles, and so on. This kind of data is provided by V-Dem, Polity5, Lexical Index of Electoral Democracy (LIED), CIRIGHTS, Civil Liberty Dataset (CLD), Bjørnskov-Rode regime data (BRRD), Political Terror Scale (PTS) and Media Freedom Data (MFD). Freedom in the World and the BTI are classified as ‘in-house coding’ in the rest of this document, but it should be noted that their internal processes involve both country experts and in-house review and revision, meaning that their coding processes are between these first two categories.
3. Observational data (OD). This is data on directly observable features such as the ratio of women to men in parliament, infant mortality rates and legislative elections. This kind of data is provided by V-Dem, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Global Health Data Exchange (GHDx), World Health Organization (WHO), International Labour Organization (ILO) and the UN Statistics Division.
4. Composite measures (CM). These are based on a number of variables that come from different existing data sets rather than original data collection. This kind of data is provided by V-Dem in the form of an elected officials index, a direct democracy index, and a local government index.

Absence of Corruption

Corruption disrupts the effective functioning of democratic institutions by introducing partiality and arbitrariness in the application of laws and distribution of resources. This kind of activity can undermine popular control over decision making, hindering the ability of opposition parties, civil society, independent media and the population at large to hold the government accountable.

When public officials engage in the arbitrary exercise of power, for example by using state resources for personal benefit or by rewarding allies, decisions are not made in the public interest and are instead driven by personal or political motives (Huntington 1996). This fosters favouritism and personalism (Rose-Ackerman 1999) often resulting in a lack of accountability. Fundamentally, corruption undermines the principle of equality before the law—a fundamental pillar of democracy.

Such dynamics also undermine policy effectiveness, exacerbate inequality and prevent democratic governments from meeting the needs of their citizens (Mauro 1995), eroding public trust in institutions and threatening the legitimacy of democratic institutions (Norris 2011).

Definition: Absence of Corruption measures the degree to which public officials (including elected representatives and public servants) abuse their positions through the arbitrary exercise of power for illicit personal or political gain. It also includes lax or selective enforcement of relevant laws intended to prevent significant acts of corruption in the private sector.

What the Democracy Tracker measures: The primary focus is on events that shed light on corrupt activities, events that address (investigate, prosecute, etc.) cases of corruption and strengthen/weaken laws that regulate corrupt activities.

What the GSoD Indices measure: The index measures the extent to which the executive, and public administration more broadly, does not abuse office for personal gain as measured through indicators covering public sector corrupt exchanges and theft, executive embezzlement, bribery, safeguards against official corruption and prosecution of office abuse.

Note: ES = expert surveys; IC = standards-based in-house coding.

Access to Justice

The opportunity for all people to have access to legal remedies when they have been harmed is fundamental in a democracy. In most cases, this takes place through courts established by the national constitution, but it may also involve traditional dispute resolution systems and even supranational courts. However it is facilitated, Access to Justice serves as a procedural safeguard of other rights and of the rule of law more broadly (United Nations Human Rights Committee 2007). The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) guarantees the right to a fair trial and to guarantees of due process, equal treatment and equal access to the courts (United Nations 1966a: articles 14–15), which are key to ensure Access to Justice.

Access to Justice is closely related to Judicial Independence. In many cases, effective Access to Justice depends on a high level of Judicial Independence. However, for the purposes of the GSoD framework, matters that relate to the independence of judges (including appointment processes and the compliance of other actors with judicial rulings) are covered by the Judicial Independence measures.

Definition: Access to Justice measures the extent to which individuals and groups can use legal institutions to redress injustices and wrongful acts, including historic wrongs. It also entails a guarantee that all people are equal before courts and tribunals and those accused of a crime have an effective right to a fair trial. That is, that people have equal access to the justice system without discrimination and are also guaranteed due process (free from corruption), including when they are accused and charged with a crime. Access to Justice may also take the form of non-judicial (or quasi-judicial) mechanisms for traditional dispute resolution, transitional justice, and truth and reconciliation processes (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights n.d.b).

What the Democracy Tracker measures: Democracy Tracker reports measure the extent to which people can defend their rights before the courts. Democracy Tracker reports are not focused on high-profile or widely covered cases, but those that demonstrate a change in the ability of people to seek redress when wronged or defend themselves from legal consequences when charged with a crime or accused of wrongdoing. It also covers legislation or executive decisions that impact the ability to access justice. Reports related to progress or setbacks surrounding accountability measures, victims’ rights and transitional justice are also relevant to measure Access to Justice. Truth and reconciliation processes related to historic crimes, in both domestic and international settings, are important evidence of changes in Access to Justice.

What the GSoD Indices measure: The GSoD Indices measure of Access to Justice aggregates indicators on effective access to justice, judicial corruption, judicial accountability and fair trial.

Note: ES = expert surveys; IC = standards-based in-house coding.

Basic Welfare

The Basic Welfare factor serves as an indicator of how well a population’s most fundamental needs are met in a given country. This may initially seem a marginal aspect when assessing democratic performance; however, basic welfare provides a crucial material foundation for democracy. Citizens who cannot meet their basic needs for a full and dignified life cannot fully engage in democratic participation or exercise their rights (Sen 1999a). Moreover, since no one would willingly choose poverty, limited access to essential services—such as clean water, sufficient and nutritious food, education and healthcare—reflects a lack of citizen influence over political decisions shaping their lives (SIDA 2022).

Basic Welfare indicates the ability and willingness of a government to ensure its population has access to essential needs, such as food, clean water, healthcare and education. This may be done through policies, programmes and actions that aim to alleviate poverty and guarantee access to key services across the population. The ability of governments to guarantee Basic Welfare can be affected by external factors such as armed conflicts and natural disasters, which can lead to displacement, destruction of critical infrastructure and food supply disruptions. Environmental issues, such as pollution and degradation, can also compromise water supplies, increase food insecurity and contribute to the spread of diseases. In this sense, Basic Welfare reveals the government’s responsiveness and preventive capabilities towards crisis situations.

Definition: Basic Welfare measures the extent to which a population’s basic needs, including access to essential goods and services such as nutrition, healthcare and education, are met.

What the Democracy Tracker measures: The focus is on policy changes or government (in)actions that affect people’s access to the necessities of life. In addition to assessing governments’ choices regarding how and where to allocate resources, the factor also covers natural disasters, humanitarian crises and conflicts where access to essential supplies and infrastructure—such as food, water, medicine and shelter—is negatively impacted and, in some cases, where these resources are deliberately withheld as a tactic in a conflict. Reports may also address the living conditions of migrants, asylum seekers and refugees. A negative coding often depicts cases in which governments have neglected critical infrastructure maintenance, exacerbating disaster impacts, or have failed to implement policies addressing climate change when directly linked to natural events. Finally, Basic Welfare includes reports on government inaction regarding environmental degradation and pollution, which directly impact public health and livelihoods.

What the GSoD Indices measure: For measuring Basic Welfare, we utilize a variety of human development indicators such as literacy, kilocalories consumption, years of schooling or access to healthcare.

Civic Engagement

Engagement in political activities as part of organized groups has been a critical part of democracy for centuries. As an example, Alexis de Tocqueville famously characterized the associational life of the early United States as a key contributor to its democratic development (Tocqueville 1945: 196). However, the democracy-enhancing effects of associations are not inevitable or universal (Theiss-Morse and Hibbing 2005; LeVan 2011). Along with electoral participation, associational engagement is the second form of participation measured in the GSoD framework. Civic Engagement may also be understood to include other ways in which individuals participate in political activities (absent membership in a formal association) such as through political speech (verbal or written expression, including posts on social media), joining protests of various kinds, or even through acts of public service.

Definition: Civic engagement primarily encompasses membership in voluntary, non-party, formal associations (Theiss-Morse and Hibbing 2005), but may also include individual participation in collective political activities. Note that membership or support for a political party is not considered to be part of Civic Engagement and should be dealt with under the concept of Free Political Parties.

What the Democracy Tracker measures: The Democracy Tracker reports on events that demonstrate that the level of actual participation in organized associations and in political activities in a given country has changed. Participation by members of formal associations is not required for an event to be relevant to Civic Engagement. For example, participation in somewhat spontaneous protests may indicate that there has been a change in Civic Engagement. However, in the main, events that affect this concept should deal with associational life, such as the prevalence of voluntarism, membership in trade unions, or participation in civic, socially oriented, or religious movements.

What the GSoD Indices measure: The GSoD Indices aggregate four closely related indicators from two sources to estimate the level of Civic Engagement.

Note: ES = expert surveys; IC = standards-based in-house coding.

Civil Liberties

The idea of civil liberties has a long tradition in Western legal theory (Russell 1969), but it has also been important to independence and liberation movements in the majority world (Brooks 2018; Upadhyay and Hegde 2018). These rights are often included in concepts of democracy and feature prominently in human rights treaties, most notably the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Definition: Civil liberties are those negative rights that are understood to be most closely linked to political activity or personal fulfilment. Some theorists see these rights as being inherent to human personhood (Foster 2008: 3). Civil liberties set boundaries for state conduct, specifying the areas where a citizen’s ‘freedom of action, conduct, or condition’ should be legally protected (Katalin 1991) and which can only be limited by the government when their completely free exercise would conflict with other goals of democratic government (Hovius 1986; Gardbaum 2007). Note that civil liberties are generally understood to apply to individuals and not to groups. The list of rights that are included within the concept of civil liberties is not universally agreed upon. However, the most common rights to be included are the freedoms of expression, association, assembly and religion, along with rights to life, property, privacy, bodily integrity and a fair trial. Civil liberties differ from civil rights (at least in contemporary English-language discourse) in that civil rights primarily concern guarantees against discrimination (Schmidt 2016: 1). Some aspects of civil rights are included under Social Group Equality.

What the Democracy Tracker measures: Civil Liberties are protected to the extent that the government both takes no disproportionate or unjustifiable actions to restrict the exercise of these rights itself and prevents other actors in society from illegitimately interfering with the free exercise of these rights. The Democracy Tracker’s work is focused on six specific freedoms (expression, press, association, assembly, religion and movement), but will also track positive and negative events relating to the larger meaning of the concept.

What the GSoD Indices measure: The data set measures the larger latent concept of Civil Liberties by aggregating indices that measure five specific freedoms within Civil Liberties, namely: Freedom of Expression, Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Association and Assembly, Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Movement. Each of these component indices is itself understood as a latent concept, measured through the aggregation of a number of related indicators.

Note: ES = expert surveys; IC = standards-based in-house coding; OD = observational data; CM = composite measures.

Civil Society

Long considered to be one of the key social enablers of democracy, civil society serves several functions, including structuring citizen political participation (Scholte 2002) and providing organized systems of accountability for governments (Goodin 2003). In the GSoD framework, the closely related concepts of Civil Society and Civic Engagement are measured separately. Civil Society is focused on the context in which citizens engage with each other and with the government, while Civic Engagement is focused on the extent to which citizens actively engage in political activities and associations beyond voting and political parties. Civil Society also overlaps to some degree with Freedom of Association and Assembly, which measures the extent to which citizens are free to physically gather with like-minded (or indeed oppositional) individuals and groups to pursue projects of common interest.

Definition: One of the leading scholars of this concept defined it this way: ‘The words “civil society” name the space of uncoerced human association and also the set of relational networks—formed for the sake of family, faith, interest and ideology—that fill this space’ (Walzer 1995). For the purposes of the GSoD framework, the most important elements of this definition are the ‘space’ and the ‘networks’. We also consider the interactions between these uncoerced associations and the state to be part of this ‘network’.

What the Democracy Tracker measures: The Democracy Tracker reports events that have an impact on these spaces and networks. This may include changes in the regulatory environment or funding conditions for civil society organizations and NGOs. Note that the focus here is on the regulatory and social environment that supports (or hinders) the organization and functioning of civil society organizations. The level of participation in these organizations is covered by Civic Engagement.

What the GSoD Indices measure: The GSoD Indices aggregate six closely related indicators from three sources to estimate the level of Civil Society.

Note: ES = expert surveys; IC = standards-based in-house coding; CM = composite measures.

Credible Elections

By many measures, elections serve as the foundational building block of any democratic system (Schumpeter 1950; Przeworski 1999). In contemporary times—and notwithstanding the recent surge in deliberative forms of democracy—elections are the primary means through which constituents make their political views known, either by endorsing policy platforms or by recalling disappointing leaders. In an era of illiberal democracy (Zakaria 2003), however, undemocratic leaders and regimes often hold ‘sham’ elections that are marked by factors such as excessive incumbency advantage, suppression of opposition parties and candidates, and laws that enable a skewed playing field. Even in democratic contexts, of course, elections can be problematic or tainted by certain irregularities that cast a shadow over the legitimacy of the result. Against this backdrop, scholars have devoted decades of work to defining the minimum standards of ‘free and fair’ or ‘credible’ elections (Elklit and Svensson 1997; Schedler 2002; Goodwin-Gill 2006; Norris 2013; Norris, Frank and Martínez i Coma 2013), a topic that is again in the spotlight as election disputes are on the rise around the world (International IDEA 2024). While there is no definitive consensus on such minimum standards, there is widespread agreement that the credibility of a result is dependent upon the credibility of the entire process.

Definition: Credible Elections is a measure of the extent to which electoral processes are free and fair. Our conception is based on the electoral cycle approach, which emphasizes the importance of the cyclical nature of elections and the ways in which the pre-election, election day and post-election periods are interlinked and impact each other. Based on this approach, our measure of Credible Elections may be impacted by a range of activities and events, including, for example, changes to the electoral law, the process of observer accreditation, candidate registration, polling station irregularities, election authorities’ independence and post-election audits. We do not assess the overall credibility of any electoral process.

What the Democracy Tracker measures: The focus is on the quality of the electoral cycle (at national and subnational levels), including all its constituent phases. Reports of irregularities and other breaches of the electoral law, as well as significant changes to the relevant legal frameworks, feature prominently. Examples of relevant issues include campaign finance, boundary delimitation and voters’ and candidates’ security. The Democracy Tracker also includes incidents of election delays, coups and other unconstitutional or illegal regime changes.

What the GSoD Indices measure: The GSoD Indices measure the quality of elections, with a focus on the extent to which elections for national, representative political office are free from irregularities as well as the degree of electoral competition. These indicators also tap into the fairness of the electoral laws, electoral management body (EMB) autonomy and capacity, government intimidation and other irregularities.

Note: ES = expert surveys; IC = standards-based in-house coding.

Economic Equality

Economic Equality is a core part of International IDEA’s definition of democracy, based on the understanding that meaningful political equality is contingent on the lack of significant socio-economic inequities and the absence of poverty. This can be thought of as another way of articulating the interdependence of human rights—that the rights enumerated in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (United Nations 1966a) and those in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (United Nations 1966b) are mutually reinforcing and dependent. This concept is also rooted in the latter treaty’s requirement that states take positive action to ensure that everyone within their borders fully enjoys these rights, not just refrain from taking actions that may violate them, discriminate, or lead to unequal economic outcomes.

Economic Equality is not intended to be a proxy of income or wealth disparities, but instead a measure of how inequalities impact the ability of individual citizens or groups to influence political decision making or exercise their rights.

Definition: Economic Equality is a measure of the extent to which individuals and social groups enjoy equal socio-economic rights and ability to exert political influence. Events coded as affecting Economic Equality may overlap with Social Group Equality, but this measure is related to changes in a country’s economy that primarily affect the relative economic position of individuals or social groups. Social Group Equality is more directly related to events that impact a social group’s ability to directly engage in politics or democratic processes on non-economic grounds.

What the Democracy Tracker measures: The core focus is events that are likely to increase or decrease the extent to which disparities in wealth or income impact the ability of individual citizens or groups to influence political decision making or exercise their rights. Events may concern policy decisions, binding legal opinions and acts of parliament that can be reasonably expected to significantly narrow or widen the distribution of wealth or income in a country. However, given the state’s ultimate responsibility to ensure the enjoyment of social, economic and cultural rights within its borders, the immediately responsible party for any change does not necessarily have to be the state itself. This can also include reports or data that significantly alter the perception of the status quo ante of economic inequality’s influence on political processes, representation, or the enjoyment of rights in the country.

What the GSoD Indices measure: The GSoD Indices measure of the latent concept of Economic Equality aggregates measures that specify dimensions of political exclusion based on economic and geographical characteristics, as well as measures of socio-economic barriers and purely economic indicators.

Note: ES = expert surveys; IC = standards-based in-house coding; OD = observational data.

Effective Parliament

The primary underlying concept for what we call ‘effective parliament’ is representation. The selection of a group of representatives who then make laws on behalf of the people has been a central institution of democratic government for at least 4,000 years (Keane 2022). We use the term ‘parliament’, but this is a shorthand reference to what is more generally called the legislative branch of government.

Definition: Effective Parliament describes the extent to which the legislature fulfils the core democratic functions of a legislature. The core democratic functions of a legislature are: (1) to represent the people, (2) to make laws and (3) to provide oversight and accountability to other branches of the government (Böckenförde 2011). Some scholars add a fourth function: to provide ‘constituency service’ through which the members of the legislature assist the people whom they represent in accessing government services (Barkan 2017). This may also be considered to be a particular form of representation (function 1).

In many political systems legislatures perform other important functions that are not described above. But when considering such additional functions, we must ask what about those functions is essentially linked to democracy. For example, approving a budget or levying taxes are often the sole competence of the legislature (Driedger 1968: 25), yet these functions are not central to the democratic contributions of the legislature and are excluded from the concept.

What the Democracy Tracker measures: A legislature is effective to the extent that it fulfils the three functions described above. The Tracker therefore measures improvements and declines in a legislature’s execution of these functions. Such changes may affect any one (or several) of the functions noted above.

What the GSoD Indices measure: The GSoD Indices incorporate as many indicators of the functions of legislatures as possible. In this case, most of the indicators that are available deal with the third function described above (oversight and accountability). When possible, more indicators should be added to the index.

Note: ES = expert surveys; IC = standards-based in-house coding.

Elected Government

In the contemporary practice of representative democracy, government by elected leaders is a non-negotiable institution. Electing leaders is certainly not the only way to have a democratic or representative government (Urbinati 2006), but an elected government is the cornerstone of many so-called minimalist definitions of democracy, including Schumpeter’s famous description of a ‘competitive struggle for the people’s vote’ (Schumpeter 1950: 269).

Definition: Elected Government measures the extent to which key positions within the executive branch of government are selected through competitive multiparty elections. As members of the executive in parliamentary systems are drawn from the legislature, the extent to which the legislature is selected through competitive multiparty elections is also relevant.

What the Democracy Tracker measures: The Democracy Tracker addresses this concept primarily through coding events that change the extent to which high political offices, especially the head of state or head of government, are chosen through competitive elections (excluding the judiciary). Note that most election-related events should be coded under Credible Elections. Instead Elected Government is most relevant when there are events between elections that either remove an elected official from office (such as through a coup d’etat or forced resignation), or replace a non-elected official with an elected one (such as through the resignation of a military leader). The Elected Government factor does not address the efficiency or capacity of the government, only the extent to which those who hold power have gained it through elections.

What the GSoD Indices measure: Elected Government measures the extent to which national, governing offices are filled through elections.

Note: IC = standards-based in-house coding; CM = composite measures.

Electoral Participation

Voting in elections is the most common means of participation in democracy today. Electoral Participation is therefore a key measure of Participation in the GSoD framework.

Levels of Electoral Participation vary widely around the world. There are many reasons for this, including the presence or absence of laws that make voting mandatory, levels of trust in elections and social matters such as political interest and apathy.

There are two principal ways to measure Electoral Participation for a geographical or electoral unit (such as a country or an electoral district): either (1) dividing the number of valid votes cast by the total number of registered voters, or (2) dividing the number of valid votes cast by the total voting-age population.

Definition: Electoral Participation measures the rate at which members of the political community participate in electoral processes.

What the Democracy Tracker measures: The Democracy Tracker reports levels of Electoral Participation measured as the percentage of the registered voters who cast a valid ballot in an electoral process. These data are reported both in standard election reports and in directionally coded reports that record significant changes in the level of Electoral Participation.

What the GSoD Indices measure: In contrast to the Democracy Tracker’s measure that uses the percentage of registered voters, the Electoral Participation index reports the percentage of the voting-age population that cast a valid ballot in the most recent national election. Values are carried forward between elections.

Note: OD = observational data.

Free Political Parties

While they are rarely included in formal definitions of democracy or mentioned in constitutions, political parties have arisen in and form a core part of every modern democracy (Stokes 1999). Political parties serve several theoretical roles in a well-functioning democracy: they mobilize the general public and help translate its preferences into policies and laws, bring order to and streamline policymaking processes and, when parties are strong, provide for greater political accountability (Aldrich 2011; Mainwaring and Torcal 2005; Schattschneider 2004).

Definition: Free Political Parties assess the restraints and barriers preventing citizens from organizing themselves into political parties or their equivalents and how free those political parties are to contest elections and compete with similar organizations and parties. It also includes the extent to which elected political parties in a country’s legislature are able to exercise the powers of that office, or whether their ability to participate is limited by unconstitutional or otherwise broadly undemocratic means.

What the Democracy Tracker measures: This measure includes executive, legislative and judicial actions that change the status quo of the political party environment and in particular actions taken against—or to the benefit of—a particular political party. It is also broad enough to consider whether extralegal or indirect factors are inhibiting either the formation of political parties or the ability of existing parties to register, compete, field candidates or take part in policymaking processes. In this measure the Democracy Tracker is by default neutral in terms of party platforms and ideological predispositions. The core exception to this rule is when the party in question poses an implicit or explicit threat to the broader functioning of political party formation and contestation in the country—for example, restrictions on exclusionary or explicitly anti-democratic parties may be necessary to protect the freedom of citizens to organize into political parties more broadly.

What the GSoD Indices measure: Free Political Parties measures the extent to which political parties are free to form and campaign for political office. Eight indicators, partly based on expert surveys and partly in-house coded, are used to measure how free political parties are. All of them reflect whether political parties generally, and opposition parties in particular, are allowed to organize freely and run in elections.

Note: ES = expert surveys; IC = standards-based in-house coding; OD = observational data.

Freedom of Assembly and Association

The rights to Freedom of Association and Assembly are among the civil liberties generally considered to be essential to the functioning of democracy and are protected by articles 21 and 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, respectively. By ensuring that individuals are able to organize and interact with others to collectively pursue common interests and to peacefully assemble, these freedoms, among other things, enable public discussion of ideas, stimulate political participation and enhance government accountability and responsiveness (Beetham 2004; Diamond 1994; Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights n.d.a.). They are also important tools for the exercise of other civil and political rights, such as freedom of expression and the recognition and realization of economic, social and cultural rights (Sen 1999b; United Nations Human Rights Committee 2020).

Freedom of Association is one of the rights that enables people to organize political parties and the two concepts are closely linked within our conceptual framework. Wherever possible, we distinguish between Freedom of Association in general and Free Political Parties specifically.

Definition: Freedom of Association concerns the ability of individuals to ‘formally join together in groups to pursue common interests’ (Joseph and Castan 2013). Such groups include trade unions, political parties, NGOs, professional or sporting clubs and corporations (Joseph and Castan 2013). Freedom of Assembly concerns the extent to which individuals are able to participate in peaceful gatherings of more than one person, which may be in-person or online, in public or in private. It covers a range of different types of gathering, including meetings, processions, protests, demonstrations, rallies, strikes and sit-ins (United Nations Human Rights Committee 2020; Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights n.d.a). International human rights law permits states to restrict Freedom of Association and Assembly where such restrictions are justified on legitimate grounds (e.g. in the interests of national security or public safety) and where the restrictions are provided for by national law, necessary, proportionate and non-discriminatory (United Nations 1966a; United Nations Human Rights Committee 2011). States may suspend the rights in times of emergency (United Nations Human Rights Committee 2001).

What the Democracy Tracker measures: The Democracy Tracker reports events that signal a significant change in the quality of Freedom of Association and Assembly, such as unwarranted restrictions on civil society organizations and instances where the state has failed to protect against rights violations perpetrated by non-state actors, for example by failing to protect protesters against violence by other members of the public. They also include positive actions taken by states to facilitate the enjoyment of these rights, such as improvements to legal and institutional frameworks. This measure does not include the regulation of political parties (covered by Free Political Parties) or of registered civil society organizations (covered by Civil Society) as such.

What the GSoD Indices measure: The GSoD Indices measure of Freedom of Association and Assembly aggregates a variety of related indicators from expert-coded data sets.

Note: ES = expert surveys; IC = standards-based in-house coding.

Freedom of Expression

The principle of Freedom of Expression has for centuries been considered a core component of democracy. For some theorists, any restriction therefore constitutes a less democratic polity (Meiklejohn 1948; Rawls 1993). For others, the value of freedom of expression to democracy is more instrumental—it helps democratic polities to produce the outcomes its citizens want, or maintains the political equality necessary to the functioning of a democracy (Arneson 2009; Dewey 2001). While the specific nature of its contribution to democracy is a matter of philosophical debate, the importance of freedom of expression to democracy is not; it is a core component of all functioning democratic systems. As a freedom that is vitally connected to communication, Freedom of Expression addresses both the speaker and the hearer, protecting the rights of both (Steel 1971).

Definition: Freedom of expression is a measure of the ability of individuals both to express themselves and to hear from others on private and public matters, free from censorship and without fear of retribution or outsized legal or social consequences.

The relationship between less legal restrictions on speech and greater freedom of expression is not always linear—in the case of hate speech, for example, legal restrictions may be justified to protect against calls to violence or credible threats that may directly inhibit the free speech rights of certain members of a community (Waldron 2012).

Within the general concept of Freedom of Expression there are more specific ideas, including the degree to which news media are able to report without intimidation, censorship or punishment. The GSoD framework treats these matters separately from Freedom of Expression in general and considers media freedom under the concept Freedom of the Press.

The concept of Freedom of Expression has also grown broader as advances in information and communications technology have radically altered the scale of expression that is possible. Freedom of Expression now also involves the receivers of electronic information, covering the right both to receive desired information and to be protected from receiving harmful information (such as disinformation and hate speech) (Cavaliere 2024). Within the GSoD framework, many aspects of public access to information are considered to be part of Freedom of Expression.

What the Democracy Tracker measures: Events that demonstrate changes in the level of Freedom of Expression are reported, especially events in which this freedom is infringed upon or expanded. These events are not limited to state actions and may also include actions taken by private or religious authorities when there is a significant national-level impact.

What the GSoD Indices measure: The GSoD Indices measure of Freedom of Expression aggregates a variety of indicators from expert-coded data sets on the freedom of expression in public and private, censorship, academic freedom and restrictions to freedom of expression online.

Note: ES = expert surveys; IC = standards-based in-house coding.

Freedom of Movement

The principle of Freedom of Movement is one of the most ancient and intrinsic expressions of personal liberty. Throughout written history, liberty and freedom of movement are intertwined concepts, where liberty often derives from the notion of the right to move freely. In ancient Greece, Epictetus described freedom as meaning ‘I go wherever I wish; I come from whence I wish’ (McAdam 2011: 32). As a legal principle in the West, it dates back to 13th century England and the Magna Carta (McAdam 2011). Since then, the principle has become a fundamental human right and a common characteristic of democratic societies, enshrined in several international treaties, most notably the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UNGA 1948). As a right, freedom of movement exists to varying degrees almost globally, but the ease of this movement varies greatly (Dowty 1987).

Definition: Freedom of Movement is a measure of the ability of individuals to reside and move freely within a country or between countries, including the ability to leave and return to a country, for purposes of leisure, employment, emigration and asylum-seeking, without undue impediments or fear of repercussions from governments. The extent to which this right can be infringed upon is subject to national laws, issues of national security, public order and health (United Nations 1966a). Freedom of Movement does not require that governments allow any person to enter their territory for any purpose. The Covid-19 pandemic is one such example of when worldwide restrictions on the freedom of movement were deemed justifiable in the name of public health (Mezzadra and Stierl 2020).

What the Democracy Tracker measures: The Democracy Tracker reports events that expand or reduce the degree to which this freedom is enjoyed. The measurement of this right is two-dimensional, distinguishing between the movement of people within the borders of a state and outside the borders. The assessment of this right pertains to the actions of the state, as the ability to impose restrictions on freedom of movement, internally and externally, is within the sole jurisdiction of the state. The right can also be impacted by the activities of non-state actors (in a war, for example).

What the GSoD Indices measure: The GSoD Indices measure of Freedom of Movement aggregates a variety of indicators from expert-coded data sets on the freedom of movement, encompassing the freedom of foreign and domestic movement for men and women, as well as the freedom to choose a place of residence.

Note: ES = expert surveys; IC = standards-based in-house coding.

Freedom of Religion

Freedom of Religion is an essential component of democracies and a human right. It is established in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and other regional instruments that elaborate on the meaning and boundaries of religious freedom (African Union 1981: article 8; Organization of American States 1969: article 9; Council of Europe 1950: article 9). Provisions on equality before the law in international instruments, including the ICCPR, establish states’ obligations to ensure the same protections to all people without distinction, including on account of religious beliefs. Religious freedom, however, may also be perceived as a fault line, particularly when its politicization contributes to polarization and social and cultural cleavages (Bielefeldt, Pinto and Petersen 2022).

Definition: Freedom of Religion entails the right to express or practise one’s religion or faith, both publicly and privately, and individually or collectively (United Nations 1966a: article 18). It also encompasses the freedom not to practise any religion at all and to be free from the imposition of religion. The United Nations Human Rights Committee has further asserted that freedom of religion includes the right of a person to change or leave their religion, establish a new religious group (United Nations Human Rights Committee 1993), or to be non-religious. The rights of religious minorities should be equally protected (including, for example, in access to education or healthcare) and their members not discriminated against. Freedom of religion may only be subject to restrictions established in law that are necessary for public order, safety or health (United Nations 1966a: article 18).

What the Democracy Tracker measures: Democracy Tracker reports highlight evidence of change in the ability of people to profess their faith (or lack of faith), be it in legislation, jurisprudence, executive decisions, or other obstacles to religious freedom stemming from the actions of private individuals, for example, acts of religiously motivated violence. Reports also track repression and harassment of religious orders, the invocation of necessity to impose restrictions on freedom of religion, or those that result in a disproportionate burden to people expressing their faith, including members of religious minorities. How authorities ponder and balance the potential collision of certain rights, such as freedom of expression and freedom of religion, may also be relevant for Democracy Tracker reports.

What the GSoD Indices measure: The GSoD Indices measure of Freedom of Religion aggregates indicators including those related to religious organization repression, restrictions on religious practices, and private and public religious expressions.

Note: ES = expert surveys; IC = standards-based in-house coding.

Freedom of the Press

Freedom of the press is a fundamental democratic principle which upholds the idea that communication and expression through news media is a fundamental right (UNGA 1948: article 19). It guarantees the right of journalists, media organizations and individuals to gather, disseminate and access information without undue interference, censorship or intimidation. The concept is closely linked to other civil liberties, such as Freedom of Expression and access to information, and it supports the role of the media in holding those in power accountable and in facilitating informed public discourse. Freedom of the Press can be understood to be a more specific concept within the larger concept of Freedom of Expression. However, the GSoD framework includes the specific concept in order to facilitate specific attention to this aspect of expression.

Freedom of the Press can sometimes be compromised by state ownership or control of media outlets, suppression of dissent via censorship or other means, and legal or physical intimidation of journalists. To uphold Freedom of the Press, the state must refrain from censorship, protect journalists from harassment or threats (OSCE 2020) and promote an independent media environment favourable to the dissemination of diverse viewpoints. In some legal frameworks, boundaries of the concept include incitement of violence, defamation, the dissemination of false information, or the protection of national security (United Nations 1966a: article 19[3]).

Definition: Freedom of the Press refers to the right of media organizations and individuals to report, publish and distribute information and opinions without governmental censorship, interference or fear of retribution. It rests on three key principles: (1) independence, allowing journalists and media outlets to operate free from undue political or corporate influence; (2) protection, ensuring journalists are safeguarded from physical harm, intimidation and unjust prosecution; and (3) transparency, promoting access to accurate information and enabling the press to scrutinize institutions, thereby fostering accountability and public discourse.

What the Democracy Tracker measures: The core focus is on events that positively or negatively impact the freedom of professional news media to operate. This may include changes to the legal environment such as updates to press laws, media ownership regulations and censorship policies that specifically address the work of journalists and media organizations. Reports may also address threats to journalists’ safety, including instances of prosecution, harassment or intimidation when such events differ substantially from the status quo, as well as events that have an impact on the exercise of the right in the digital space. Overlaps with Freedom of Expression coding are avoided wherever possible.

What the GSoD Indices measure: The GSoD Indices assess the latent concept of Freedom of the Press by aggregating indicators related to censorship, harassment and intimidation of journalists, diversity of political perspectives, media bias and corruption, and the broader context of media freedom and freedom of expression.

Note: ES = expert surveys; IC = standards-based in-house coding.

Gender Equality

Democracy is understood to require both popular control and political equality. As such, democracy requires that a person’s sex or gender identity does not impede their ability to participate in politics or access to public goods and institutions. In contemporary practice, gender equality—and especially women’s full and equal participation in economic, social and political life—is central to ensuring prosperous and inclusive democracies (International IDEA n.d.). Gender Equality is also a fundamental human right which upholds the equal economic, social, cultural, civil and political rights of women and men. International law has developed a principle of the inadmissibility of discrimination based on sex and gender (United Nations 1979). These rights are featured prominently in the International Bill of Human Rights, the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and other international instruments.¹

In practice, due to longstanding patterns of discrimination in many countries, the concept is often focused on discrimination directed towards women and girls. The importance of the concept is illustrated in CEDAW’s requirements that state parties take measures to eliminate discrimination against women and ensure the advancement of women towards achieving gender equality. The concept has expanded in recent decades to include more diverse expressions of gender. Protection against discrimination and violence based on gender identity and sexual orientation is called for by the United Nations Human Rights Council (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights n.d.c).

Definition: Gender equality refers to the equal enjoyment of rights, responsibilities and opportunities for people of any gender expression. It requires that the interests, needs and priorities of all genders in their diversity are considered (UN Women 2022). The concept is understood based on diverse perspectives of feminists and gender theorists, who have found the roots of gender inequality in social constructs rather than biological differences, critiqued gender norms which have focused on masculine ideals and challenged gender as a binary conception or an inherent identity (Beauvoir 2011; Irigaray 1977; Butler 1990). Gender equality calls for greater opportunities for women in the workforce and public life, and the need to apply an intersectional lens to analysis, recognizing that factors such as race and class shape (and are shaped by) gender inequality. The concept also addresses the ability of traditionally marginalized genders to make substantial improvements to their lives, going beyond representation and access to resources.

What the Democracy Tracker measures: Gender Equality primarily focuses on the extent to which gender expression impacts individuals’ ability to engage in (and influence) political and democratic processes, as well as their level of access to social and economic rights. The Democracy Tracker also tracks evidence of change in the prevalence of gender-based violence. Reports monitor developments related to legislation, administrative measures, court rulings, processes and events which expand or limit gender equality and in particular women’s rights. The events covered may include the impact of gender quotas to increase women’s political representation, expansion of reproductive rights, or harsher/lighter penalties for gender-based violence, and other actions by the state, civil society or engaged citizens. The Democracy Tracker also measures the extent to which laws and practices impact the rights of LGBTQIA+ individuals, particularly the right to gender identity, including laws and provisions that recognize or enable changes to gender identities.² Rights related to sexual orientations and same-sex relations are covered under the Social Group Equality indicator.

What the GSoD Indices measure: The GSoD Indices measure of Gender Equality aggregates indicators related to political power, representation, empowerment and exclusion, participation in civil society organizations, mean years of schooling, participation in the labour force and control of finance, as well as the extent to which laws both guarantee women’s political and economic rights and are enforced.

Note: ES = expert surveys; IC = standards-based in-house coding; OD = observational data; CM = composite measures.

Inclusive Suffrage

A democratic government must be representative of the people it represents, and it follows that any such government requires ensuring every member of the political community has a vote of equal weight. The question of how ‘the people’ who are to be represented are delineated is a contested philosophical question, commonly referred to as the ‘boundary problem’ that does not have a straightforward or universally agreed-upon answer (Abizadeh 2008; Dahl 1990; Song 2012; Whelan 1983). The Democracy Tracker focuses not on philosophical or academic discussions but the real-world ground on which the boundaries of a political community and the exercise of suffrage is contested: the right to citizenship, incidences of disenfranchisement, and discrimination.

Definition: As the Democracy Tracker uses modern nation-states as its unit of analysis, for our purposes the ‘boundary problem’ is mostly solved by the necessity of adherence to definitive and legal borders for matters of coding. However, existing states may choose to extend the franchise to non-citizens living within or without its boundaries, change the voting age, or extend/restrict the franchise to diaspora communities. Changes of this nature are included in the Democracy Tracker, which recognizes a ‘thin’ commitment to the two principles stated above. A state may also make technical or legal changes that limit or expand the practical ability of enfranchised adults to cast a vote (such as changing the distribution or voting stations or registration procedures), or it could permit a private actor, political party, or any similar such entity to act in such a way that the same effect is observed.

What the Democracy Tracker measures: The extent to which a country’s electorate both is legally enfranchised and has the practical ability to exercise their right to vote. Inclusive Suffrage is closely related to Credible Elections, but the former is more closely related to the ability to take part in an election, not broader issues of electoral conduct and finance or the quality of choices presented on the ballot. Given differing legal conceptions of citizenship and patterns of disenfranchisement globally, events in which the franchise expands or is limited in the broadest sense are included, regardless of national legal definitions of or constraints on citizenship or voting rights.

What the GSoD Indices measure: The GSoD Indices measure of Inclusive Suffrage aggregates two indicators from the Varieties of Democracy data set on the legal right to vote of adult citizens and the accuracy of the voter registry.

Note: ES = expert surveys; OD = observational data.

Judicial Independence

Legitimate mechanisms for the resolution of disputes are vital to democracies. In most cases today, the mechanism is a professional court, staffed by judges selected through a legally defined process. The independence of these judges is necessary to ensure the impartial administration of justice, and the effective resolution of disputes between branches or levels of government.

Judicial Independence is also key for supporting the broader commitments of the Rule of Law. Holding those in power accountable for their actions and ensuring that no one is above the law is a crucial task of an independent and impartial judiciary. Judicial Independence is moreover and evidently necessary to guarantee the separation of powers between branches of government. Further, it is vital to ensure people’s right to a fair trial and their trust in judicial institutions (United Nations 1966a: article 14; UNODC n.d.).

Judicial Independence also requires that other actors (be they private individuals, corporate entities, or other governmental institutions) effectively implement court rulings. Courts themselves rarely have the ability to enforce their rulings, and rely on voluntary compliance from other governmental institutions, or the assistance of executive agencies in order to enforce their decisions.

Finally, the appropriate level of Judicial Independence is a political matter. While judges must be free from outside influences and pressure, they must not be completely immune from censure, or completely ignorant of democratic pressures. An equal horizontal balance of powers is vital to most contemporary democracies.

Definition: Judicial Independence entails the justice system functioning free from influence from both government and non-state actors. Basic requisites for a judicial system that is independent and impartial are laid out in international standards and doctrine, and comprise aspects such as: the duty of government and other institutions to refrain from direct or indirect pressures, interferences or threats to the judicial process; the ability of courts to assert their competence and jurisdiction; the prohibition of special courts; the establishment of objective factors (such as appropriate qualifications and experience) for appointments and promotions; security of tenure, salary and conditions of service; and adequate provisions for disciplinary measures and their independent review (United Nations 1985).

What the Democracy Tracker measures: The extent to which judiciaries are able to carry out their functions free from interference, pressure or threats from other government officials or private individuals. Whether a judicial system meets basic elements for the independent and impartial discharge of its duties is also measured in the Democracy Tracker. Efforts to influence judicial proceedings by the executive or legislative branches may be evidence of change in Judicial Independence. The ability of courts to exercise judicial or constitutional review may also be relevant to assess this factor. Disciplinary measures and other changes to conditions of service could also be relevant to reporting.

What the GSoD Indices measure: The GSoD Indices measure of Judicial Independence aggregates indicators such as those related to the independence of high and lower courts, government compliance with judicial orders and separation of powers.

Note: ES = expert surveys; IC = standards-based in-house coding.

Local Democracy

The core of democracy is self-governance, and in many cases democratic processes are more responsive and representative when they are closest to the people being governed. Therefore, a functioning democracy requires the division of certain powers and administrative capacities among national, regional and local authorities. This is measured in the Democracy Tracker under the concept of Local Democracy (Sisk 2001). Local democratic governments are frequently better suited than national ones at providing and apportioning public goods and services (Arora et al. 2023; Reiss 2021; Stiglitz 1982). Local democratic governments are also more attuned to and representative of local populations, and therefore more suited to resolving social conflicts and finding solutions to pressing local issues than oft-distant national governments (Sisk 2001). This relationship is not unidirectional, and over-localized government can result in poor service delivery and public good management, or contribute to the creation of localized autocracies (Bulmer 2015).

Definition: Local Democracy is the ability of subnational governments to conduct fair and credible elections, and the extent to which they are selected through them, as well as the degree to which they competently exercise the vested powers and responsibilities inherent in their offices. The GSoD Indices use a strict definition of local, that is municipal, government but the Democracy Tracker is slightly broader and considers higher-level subnational forms as well.

What the Democracy Tracker measures: Local Democracy is coded when an event reflects a significant change to local and subnational electoral procedures, or when the ability of subnational elections to be contested in a free, fair and credible manner is similarly altered. Similarly, Local Democracy is also relevant when there are significant changes in the capacity of subnational governments to govern effectively. Local and regional elections themselves are not normally covered by the Democracy Tracker, but exceptions are made when the results of an election can be clearly shown to be of national significance.

What the GSoD Indices measure: The GSoD Indices measure of Local Democracy aggregates two measures of local government capacity and electoral credibility from V-Dem.

Note: ES = expert surveys; CM = composite measures.

Personal Integrity and Security

The concept that we call Personal Integrity and Security brings together several interrelated matters that have been considered as distinct rights in national and international law, but which all share a concern for human dignity (Rodley 2010). Many of these rights are included in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (United Nations 1966a), including: the right to life (art. 6), freedom from torture (art. 7), freedom from slavery (art. 8), right to liberty and security of person (art. 9), right to humane treatment in detention (art. 10), right to recognition as a person (art. 16), and the right to privacy (art. 17). The broad sense of the concept is that individuals have rights against physical harm to their person, unwarranted interference with their fundamental freedom, and unwarranted violations of their privacy.

Definition: Personal Integrity and Security is a measure of the extent to which individuals’ physical person, personal autonomy, and personal information are free from unwarranted harm or interference from the state or other actors. Personal Integrity and Security can be harmed in many ways, including through actions that kill, maim or injure people; deprive people of their freedom without due process; limit people’s bodily autonomy; or expose information about people without their consent.

What the Democracy Tracker measures: The primary focus is on events in which state or non-state actors physically harm people who have the right to expect protection from the state. Police brutality, torture and mistreatment of detained persons feature prominently. However, the Tracker also covers non-state violence, including events that indicate changes in the overall level of security in the country. The Tracker also covers violations of privacy, particularly those in which personal information is published without an individual’s consent.

What the GSoD Indices measure: The GSoD Indices measure of the latent concept of Personal Integrity and Security aggregates measures that primarily consider the extent to which state actors kill, injure or mistreat their own citizens.

Note: ES = expert surveys; IC = standards-based in-house coding.

Political Equality

As understood by International IDEA, democracy has two core principles—popular control and political equality. As such, the measure of Political Equality is central not only to the Rights category, but to the whole array of concepts that capture the extent of democracy in a polity. International IDEA essentially adopted this concept of democracy from David Beetham, and his definition of political equality is therefore most apt for us to also adopt.

Definition: ‘all adult members of the political community should have an equal right to have their voices heard, and be given equal consideration in the formulation of public policy’ (Beetham 2009: 282). Following this definition, any reduction in an individual’s voice and influence due to an ascriptive characteristic or non-political personal choice (such as place of residence or occupation) is detrimental to the overall level of political equality, and thus to the fundamental extent of democracy in the polity. As the concept of Political Equality is so broad, we measure it with reference to three subfactors: Social Group Equality, Economic Equality and Gender Equality.

What the Democracy Tracker measures: The Democracy Tracker does not cover Political Equality directly, instead addressing improvements and declines in each of the subfactors of the concept. When one of the subfactors is coded, the factor is of course also coded accordingly.

What the GSoD Indices measure: The GSoD Indices measure Political Equality by aggregating the three subfactors.

Note: ES = expert surveys; IC = standards-based in-house coding; OD = observational data; CM = composite measures.

Predictable Enforcement

Predictable enforcement serves both as a governance principle and a foundational element of a legal and administrative system. As a governance principle, it reflects the commitment of public officials to uphold the Rule of Law through consistent actions and decision making, ensuring that laws are applied fairly and equally at all levels of society. To some extent, this requires that the state maintains a monopoly on the legitimate use of force across its internationally recognized territory. Additionally, the effective application of this principle is closely dependent upon the existence of a professional public service with high levels of Absence of Corruption. Laws that are accessible and comprehensible enable predictable enforcement. In contrast, a lack of predictability is evidenced in inconsistent enforcement, arbitrary decisions, and potential abuse of power.

Definition: Predictable Enforcement refers to the consistent, transparent and impartial application and enforcement of laws by public servants, including bureaucrats, law enforcement agencies and the judiciary. It rests on three key principles: (1) transparency, with laws that are clear, accessible, and publicly communicated, (2) consistency, with laws uniformly applied and interpreted across different cases and individuals, and (3) impartiality, with equal enforcement of laws, regardless of an individual or entity’s status or position.

What the Democracy Tracker measures: The core focus is on events that may increase or decrease the predictable enforcement of the laws in a given country. This may include legislative changes—such as new laws or amendments—that affect legal clarity and consistency; inconsistent or opaque court judgments; actions by public servants that demonstrate a significant change in the consistent application of laws; or appointments or dismissals of public servants that deviate from the norms of that country.

What the GSoD Indices measure: The GSoD Indices assess the latent concept of Predictable Enforcement by aggregating indicators related to the executive’s adherence to constitutional provisions, the consistency and transparency of laws, public sector compliance, appointment practices, bureaucratic strength, government transparency, law and order, administrative capacity, and monopoly on the use of force.

Note: ES = expert surveys; IC = standards-based in-house coding.

Social Group Equality

Social Group Equality is a subfactor (along Economic Equality and Gender Equality) of Political Equality, a core principle of International IDEA’s definition of democracy. Social Group Equality is rooted in the right to non-discrimination and equal treatment before the law. As established in the main human rights treaties, people’s access to rights, including participation of citizens in politics, should be guaranteed without distinction ‘such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status’ (United Nations 1966a, articles 2.1, 25–27, 1966b, article 2.2), or a particular descent or ethnic origin (United Nations 1979, article 1.1). At present, the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity (which is covered under the subfactor of Gender Equality) is also recognized by human rights bodies and experts (UNGA 2017; Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights n.d.c), and covered by the Global State of Democracy framework. Although certain rights, such as those related to political participation and representation, may be only applicable to citizens (United Nations Human Rights Committee 1986), authorities’ respect for the rights of non-citizens (including migrants, asylum-seekers, refugees and stateless persons) also constitutes an important component of Social Group Equality.

Membership in a social group is often ascribed to individuals, sometimes against their wishes. For our purposes, the most important matter is that assumed membership in a group may have impacts on how an individual is treated, in some cases diminishing their legal and political rights.

Definition: Social Group Equality measures the extent to which members of all social groups can enjoy the same degree of civil liberties, political power and opportunities. It also measures whether a particular group (or groups) has a more favourable position in comparison with others in the enjoyment of these rights, and conversely, if a particular group (or groups) faces repression, discrimination or persecution. Regarding the treatment of non-citizens, Social Group Equality relates to the extent to which the rule of law is ensured consistently and without discrimination, and laws and practices are applied in compliance with States’ international obligations.

What the Democracy Tracker measures: Democracy Tracker reports on Social Group Equality primarily relate to changes in the ability of social groups (whether they be racial, national, ethnic, linguistic, political, sexual or any other category of difference) to access rights, political power and opportunities without discrimination and free of violence. The occurrence of violence against a social group is also monitored in the tracker as is the extent to which States ensure the rights of non-citizens.

What the GSoD Indices measure: The GSoD Indices measure of Social Group Equality aggregates indicators that measure variation in the distribution of political power on the basis of political or social group or sexual orientation, pluralism and participation, equal treatment and equal opportunity.

Note: ES = expert surveys; IC = standards-based in-house coding.

References Annex E

Abizadeh, A., ‘Democratic theory and border coercion: No right to unilaterally control your own borders’, Political Theory, 36/1 (2008), pp. 37–65, <https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591707310090>

African Union, African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 1 June 1981

Aldrich, J. H., Why Parties? A Second Look (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2011), <https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/W/bo11315021.html>, accessed 29 January 2025

Arneson, R. J., ‘Democracy is not intrinsically just’, in K. Dowding, R. E. Goodin and C. Pateman (eds), Justice and Democracy: Essays for Brian Berry (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2009), pp. 40–58, <https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/justice-and-democracy/democracy-is-not-intrinsically-just/16D69C089CC31609D7177DF8019E99D0>, accessed 29 January 2025

Arora, A., George, S., Rao, V. and Sharan, M. R., ‘The Added Value of Local Democracy: Evidence from a Natural Experiment in India’, World Bank Group, Policy Research Working Paper 10555, August 2023, <https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/a21c7d98-bf42-46b2-8def-fa5bb3ddfcf3/content>, accessed 29 January 2025

Barkan, J. D., ‘Emerging legislatures’, in N. Cheeseman (ed.), Routledge Handbook of African Politics (New York, NY: Routledge, 2017), pp. 252–64

Beauvoir, S. d., The Second Sex (New York, NY: Vintage Books, 2011), <https://uberty.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/1949_simone-de-beauvoir-the-second-sex.pdf>, accessed 29 January 2025

Beetham, D., ‘The quality of democracy: Freedom as the foundation’, Journal of Democracy, 15/4 (2004), pp. 61–75, <https://muse.jhu.edu/article/173996>, accessed 29 January 2025

—, ‘Democracy: Universality and diversity’, Ethics and Global Politics, 2/4 (2009), pp. 284–96, <https://doi.org/10.3402/egp.v2i4.2111>

Bielefeldt, H., Pinto, T. A. and Petersen, M. J., ‘Freedom of religion or belief as a human right’, The Review of Faith and International Affairs, 20/2 (2022), pp. 1–12, <https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/15570274.2022.2065799?needAccess=true>, accessed 29 January 2025

Böckenförde, M., ‘The design of the legislature’, in M. Böckenförde, N. Hedling and W. Wahiu (eds), A Practical Guide to Constitution Building (Stockholm: International IDEA, 2011), pp. 185–222, <https://www.idea.int/publications/catalogue/practical-guide-constitution-building>, accessed 29 January 2025

Brooks, H., ‘Merging radical and liberal traditions: The Constitution Committee and the development of democratic thought in the African National Congress, 1986–1990’, Journal of Southern African Studies, 44/1 (2018), pp. 167–84, <https://doi.org/10.1080/03057070.2018.1403742>

Bulmer, E. W., Local Democracy, International IDEA Constitution-Building Primer 13 (Stockholm: International IDEA, 2015), <https://www.idea.int/publications/catalogue/local-democracy>, accessed 29 January 2025

Butler, J., Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (New York, NY, and London: Routledge, 1990), <https://selforganizedseminar.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/butler-gender_trouble.pdf>, accessed 29 January 2025

Cavaliere, P., ‘Freedom of expression after disinformation: Towards a new paradigm for the right to receive information’, Journal of Media Law, 16/1 (2024), pp. 28–37, <https://doi.org/10.1080/17577632.2024.2362482>

Council of Europe, European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 4 November 1950

Dahl, R., After the Revolution? Authority in a Good Society, revised edn (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1990), <https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300049640>, accessed 29 January 2025

Dewey, J., Democracy and Education (University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University, 2001), <https://nsee.memberclicks.net/assets/docs/KnowledgeCenter/BuildingExpEduc/BooksReports/10.%20democracy%20and%20education%20by%20dewey.pdf>, accessed 29 January 2025

Diamond, L., ‘Rethinking civil society: Toward democratic consolidation’, Journal of Democracy, 5/3 (1994), pp. 4–17, <https://muse.jhu.edu/article/225379>, accessed 29 January 2025

Dowty, A., Closed Borders: The Contemporary Assault on Freedom of Movement (New Haven, CT, and London: Yale University Press, 1987)

Driedger, E. A., ‘Money bills and the Senate’, Ottawa Law Review, 3/25 (1968), pp. 25–46, <https://rdo-olr.org/money-bills-and-the-senate>, accessed 30 January 2025

Elklit, J. and Svensson, P., ‘The rise of election monitoring: What makes elections free and fair?’, Journal of Democracy, 8/3 (1997), pp. 32–46, <https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/the-rise-of-election-monitoring>, accessed 30 January 2025

Foster, S., Human Rights and Civil Liberties (London and New York, NY: Pearson Education, 2008)

Gardbaum, S., ‘Limiting constitutional rights’, UCLA Law Review, 54 (2007), pp. 789–854, <https://www.uclalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/25_54UCLALRev789April2007.pdf>, accessed 30 January 2025

Goodin, R. E., ‘Democratic accountability: The distinctiveness of the third sector’, European Journal of Sociology / Archives Européennes de Sociologie / Europäisches Archiv für Soziologie, 44/3 (2003), pp. 359–96, <https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003975603001322>

Goodwin-Gill, G., Free and Fair Elections (Geneva: Inter-Parliamentary Union, 2006)

Hovius, B., ‘The limitations clauses of the European Convention on Human Rights and Freedoms and section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: A comparative analysis’, Yearbook of European Law, 6/1 (1986), pp. 1–54, <https://doi.org/10.1093/yel/6.1.1>

Huntington, S. P., Political Order in Changing Societies (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1996), <http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1cc2m34>, accessed 29 January 2024

International IDEA, Summit for Democracy Resources Portal, ‘Cohort on gender equality as a pre-requisite for democracy’, [n.d.], <https://summitfordemocracyresources.eu/cp_cohorts/gender-equality-as-a-pre-requisite-for-democracy>, accessed 29 January 2025

—, The Global State of Democracy 2024: Strengthening the Legitimacy of Elections in a Time of Radical Uncertainty (Stockholm: International IDEA, 2024), <https://doi.org/10.31752/idea.2024.55>

Irigaray, L., The Sex Which Is Not One (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1977), <https://caringlabor.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/irigaray-this-sex-which-is-not-one.pdf>, accessed 29 January 2025

Joseph, S. and Castan, M., The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 3rd edn (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2013), <https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-international-covenant-on-civil-and-political-rights-9780199641949>, accessed 29 January 2025

Katalin, G., ‘From traditional fundamental rights to the modern concept of civil liberties’, Acta Universitatis Szegediensis: Acta Juridica et Politica, 40/1–26 (1991), pp. 107–18

Keane, J., The Shortest History of Democracy: 4,000 Years of Self-Government – A Retelling for Our Times (Collingwood, Australia: Black Inc., 2022)

LeVan, A. C., ‘Questioning Tocqueville in Africa: Continuity and change in civil society during Nigeria’s democratization’, Democratization, 18/1 (2011), pp. 135–59, <https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2011.532622>

Mainwaring, S. and Torcal, M., ‘Party system institutionalization and party system theory after the third wave of democratization’, in R. S. Katz and W. Crotty (eds), Handbook of Party Politics (London: Sage Publications Ltd., 2006), pp. 204–27, <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mariano-Torcal/publication/264888729_Party_system_institutionalization_and_party_system_theory_after_the_third_wave_of_democratization/links/5731e12d08ae9f741b234c47/Party-system-institutionalization-and-party-system-theory-after-the-third-wave-of-democratization.pdf>, accessed 30 January 2025

Mauro, P., ‘Corruption and growth’, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110/3 (1995), pp. 681–712, <https://doi.org/10.2307/2946696>

McAdam, J., ‘An intellectual history of freedom of movement in international law: The right to leave as a personal liberty’, Melbourne Journal of International Law, 12 (2011), <https://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/1686926/McAdam.pdf>, accessed 4 February 2025

Meiklejohn, A., Free Speech and Its Relation to Self-government (New York, NY: Harper & Brothers, 1948), <https://search.library.wisc.edu/digital/ACOJRL3HHCHP678U>, accessed 29 January 2025

Mezzadra, S. and Stierl, M., ‘What happens to freedom of movement during a pandemic?’, openDemocracy, 24 March 2020, <https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/can-europe-make-it/what-happens-freedom-movement-during-pandemic>, accessed 29 January 2025

Norris, P., Democratic Deficit: Critical Citizens Revisited (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2011)

—, ‘The new research agenda studying electoral integrity’, Electoral Studies, 32/4 (2013), pp. 563–75, <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2013.07.015>

Norris, P., Frank, R. W. and Martínez i Coma, F., ‘Assessing the quality of elections’, Journal of Democracy, 24/4 (2013), pp. 124–35, <https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/research-report-assessing-the-quality-of-elections>, accessed 30 January 2025

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, ‘Freedom of assembly and of association’, [n.d.a], <https://www.ohchr.org/en/topic/freedom-assembly-and-association>, accessed 29 January 2025

—, ‘OHCHR: Transitional justice and human rights’, [n.d.b], <https://www.ohchr.org/en/transitional-justice>, accessed 29 January 2025

—, ‘United Nations Resolutions on sexual orientation, gender identity and sex characteristics: OHCHR and the human rights of LGBTI people’, [n.d.c], <https://www.ohchr.org/en/sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity/united-nations-resolutions-sexual-orientation-gender-identity-and-sex-characteristics>, accessed 29 January 2025

Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), Safety of Journalists Guidebook, 3rd edn (Vienna: OSCE, 2020), <https://www.osce.org/representative-on-freedom-of-media/469758>, accessed 29 January 2025

Organization of American States, American Convention on Human Rights, 22 November 1969

Przeworski, A., ‘Minimalist conception of democracy: A defense’, in I. Shapiro and C. Hacker-Cordon (eds), Democracy’s Value (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1999)

Rawls, J., Political Liberalism (New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1993), <https://doi.org/10.2307/2220257>

Reiss, J., ‘Public goods’, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Archive, 21 July 2021, <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2021/entries/public-goods>, accessed 29 January 2025

Rodley, N. S., ‘Integrity of the person’ in D. Moeckli, S. Shah and S. Sivakumaran, International Human Rights Law (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2010), pp. 209–31

Rose-Ackerman, S., Corruption and Government: Causes, Consequences, and Reform (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1999)

Russell, P. H., ‘A democratic approach to civil liberties’, University of Toronto Law Journal, 19/2 (1969), pp. 109–31

Schattschneider, E., Party Government: American Government in Action (New York, NY: Routledge, 2004), <https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/mono/10.4324/9781315126050/party-government-schattschneider>, accessed 29 January 2025

Schedler, A., ‘Elections without democracy: The menu of manipulation’, Journal of Democracy, 13/2 (2002), pp. 36–50, <https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2002.0031>

Schmidt, C. W., ‘The civil rights-civil liberties divide’, Stanford Journal of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, 12 (2016), pp. 1–41, <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2604275>, accessed 30 January 2025

Scholte, J. A., ‘Civil society and democracy in global governance’, Global Governance, 8/3 (2002), pp. 281–304

Schumpeter, J. A., Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, 3rd edn (New York, NY: Harper, 1950), <http://archive.org/details/capitalismsocial0000unse>, accessed 29 January 2025

Sen, A., Development as Freedom (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1999a)

Sen, A. K., ‘Democracy as a universal value’, Journal of Democracy, 10/3 (1999b), pp. 3–17, <https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/democracy-as-a-universal-value>, accessed 29 January 2025

Sisk, T. D., Democracy at the Local Level: The International IDEA Handbook on Participation, Representation, Conflict Management and Governance (Stockholm: International IDEA, 2001), <https://www.idea.int/publications/catalogue/democracy-local-level>, accessed 29 January 2025

Song, S., ‘The boundary problem in democratic theory: Why the demos should be bounded by the state’, International Theory, 4/1 (2012), pp. 39–68, <https://doi.org/10.1017/S1752971911000248>

Steel, J. M., ‘Freedom to hear: A political justification of the First Amendment’, Washington Law Review, 46/2 (1971), <https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol46/iss2/5>, accessed 29 January 2025

Stiglitz, J. E., ‘The Theory of Local Public Goods Twenty-Five Years after Tiebout: A Perspective’, National Bureau of Economic Research, NBER Working Paper Series, Working Paper No. 954, August 1982, <https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w0954/w0954.pdf>, accessed 29 January 2025

Stokes, S. C., ‘Political parties and democracy’, Annual Review of Political Science, 2 (1999), <https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev.polisci.2.1.243>, accessed 29 January 2025

Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA), ‘Multidimensional Poverty Analysis for the Asia Pacific Region 2022’, 2022, <https://cdn.sida.se/app/uploads/2022/08/26165454/Sida-MDPA-Regional-Asia.pdf>, accessed 29 January 2024

Theiss-Morse, E. and Hibbing, J. R., ‘Citizenship and civic engagement’, Annual Review of Political Science, 8 (2005), pp. 227–49, <https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.8.082103.104829>

Tocqueville, A. d., Democracy in America, vol. 1 (New York, NY: Knopf, 1945)

United Nations, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 21 December 1965, <https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CERD.aspx>, accessed 10 February 2025

—, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16 December 1966a, <https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights>, accessed 29 January 2025

—, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 16 December 1966b, <https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-economic-social-and-cultural-rights>, accessed 29 January 2025

—, Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, 18 December 1979, <https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-elimination-all-forms-discrimination-against-women>, accessed 29 January 2025

—, Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, 6 September 1985, <https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/basic-principles-independence-judiciary>, accessed 29 January 2025

United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), Universal Declaration of Human Rights, A/811, 16 December 1948, <https://documents.un.org/api/symbol/access?j=NL309369&t=pdf&i=A/811_6511989>, accessed 29 January 2025

–, ‘Report of the Independent Expert on protection against violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity’, 19 April 2017, <https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/g17/095/53/pdf/g1709553.pdf>, accessed 10 February 2025.

United Nations Human Rights Committee, ‘General Comment No. 15: The position of aliens under the Covenant’, 1986, <https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/TreatyBodyExternal/TBSearch.aspx?Lang=en&TreatyID=8&DocTypeID=11>, accessed 10 February 2025.

—, ‘General comment No. 22 on the right to freedom of thought, conscience or religion’, 27 September 1993

—, ‘General comment No. 29: States of emergency (article 4)’, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.11, 31 August 2001, <https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2fC%2f21%2fRev.1%2fAdd.11&Lang=en>, accessed 29 January 2025

—, ‘General comment No. 32: Article 14: Right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial’, CCPR/C/GC/32, 23 August 2007, <https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/606075?ln=en&v=pdf>, accessed 29 January 2025

—, ‘General comment No. 34: Article 19: Freedoms of opinion and expression’, CCPR/C/GC/34, 12 September 2011, <https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/g11/453/31/pdf/g1145331.pdf>, accessed 29 January 2025

—, ‘General comment No. 37 (2020) on the right of peaceful assembly (article 21)’, CCPR/C/GC/37, 17 September 2020, <https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/g20/232/15/pdf/g2023215.pdf>, accessed 29 January 2025

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), ‘Judicial independence as a fundamental value of the rule of law and of constitutionalism’, [n.d.], <https://www.unodc.org/e4j/pt/crime-prevention-criminal-justice/module-14/key-issues/1--general-issues--judicial-independence-as-a-fundamental-value-of-the-rule-of-law-and-of-constitutionalism.html>, accessed 29 January 2025

UN Women, Handbook on Gender Mainstreaming for Gender Equality Results (New York, NY: UN Women, 2022), <https://www.unwomen.org/en/digital-library/publications/2022/02/handbook-on-gender-mainstreaming-for-gender-equality-results>, accessed 29 January 2025

Upadhyay, A. and Hegde, S., ‘Back to the rough ground of rights: Pathways for a historicisation of “civil liberties” in India’, History and Sociology of South Asia, 12/1 (2018), pp. 1–15, <https://doi.org/10.1177/2230807517732489>

Urbinati, N., Representative Democracy: Principles and Genealogy (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2006)

Waldron, J., The Harm in Hate Speech (Cambridge, MA, and London: Harvard University Press, 2012), <https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674065086>

Walzer, M., ‘The concept of civil society’, in M. Walzer (ed.), Toward a Global Civil Society (New York, NY, and Oxford, UK: Berghahn Books, 1995), <https://doi.org/10.1515/9781782381600-003>

Whelan, F. G., ‘Prologue: Democratic theory and the boundary problem’, Liberal Democracy, 25 (1983), pp. 13–47, <https://www.jstor.org/stable/24219358>, accessed 29 January 2025

Zakaria, F., The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad (New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, 2003)

Abbreviations

We thank the Democracy Assessment team for its dedication to creating, revising, testing and finalizing the Democracy Tracker methodology. We thank David Towriss for leading the writing and Alexander Hudson, Atsuko Hirakawa and Seema Shah for oversight and editing. We thank Marcus Bengtsson, Emily Bloom, Gentiana Gola, Atsuko Hirakawa, Maria Angeles Morales Gonzalez, Irene Postigo Sánchez and Michael Runey for annual updates.