Front Matter

Preface

When I wrote in The Economist at the start of 2024 about the challenges for democracy from mounting global uncertainty, I did not know the extent to which this would bear out over the year. In the following months, political developments in the United States highlighted a trend of democratic slippage in new forms and places, while conflict and insecurity shifted policy and funding priorities in ways that put democracy—and democracy support—into ever greater jeopardy. Today, the state and fate of democracy in the world is perhaps more uncertain than it has been in our lifetimes.

In addition to this macro trend, this year’s Global State of Democracy report reveals democratic instability at a thematic level. Representation is the strongest aspect of democracy overall, according to International IDEA’s indices. Yet, amid an unprecedented 74 national elections in 2024, Representation scores collapsed to their worst level in over 20 years, with seven times more countries declining than advancing. Meanwhile, Rule of Law—the weakest overall performer—fell most strikingly in Europe, where performance has been historically robust. Only Participation scores stayed relatively constant, confirming our previous findings that much of democracy’s lingering resilience comes from civic engagement, including in regions suffering deterioration in other aspects of democracy.

If this age of radical uncertainty is visible in the data, it is felt in human lives. This is certainly true with respect to where people live and what it means for them to live there. More than 300 million people now reside outside the country of their birth, a figure that has tripled since the 1970s, modestly outpacing total population growth. The political inclusion or exclusion of these people in their countries of citizenship reflects important questions—both philosophical and practical—about national belonging and civil rights in a modern democracy. Current migration trends render those questions unavoidable for democracies around the world.

To shed some light on these issues, the second part of this report focuses on the topic of voting rights for citizens living abroad. Leveraging our Institute’s global expertise at the nexus of electoral processes and democracy assessment, the report finds that expanding political participation—such as through effective enfranchisement of out-of-country voters—supports democratic resilience in both the home and host countries. However, the report also documents inconsistencies in data collection and vote administration for out-of-country electorates, calling attention to the need for further research and refinement of electoral mechanisms for this growing group of eligible voters.

Amid all the changes and challenges in the world, our Institute must constantly evaluate whether our indicators and analysis reflect the full spectrum of democratic principles. As I write this preface, the heart-wrenching crisis in Gaza continues. In the two years since Hamas’ horrific mass murder and hostage-taking, Israel’s war in Gaza has killed tens of thousands of innocent people, displaced most of the population, and destroyed nearly every livelihood. Israel is a mid-to-high performing democracy across all our categories, albeit one that has, like many others, suffered some recent declines. That is what this report shows. What the report does not show—what our current methodology cannot show—is that Israel’s war and occupation represent a systematic and brutal assault on Rights, Representation, Rule of Law and Participation in Palestine. Nor does the report show that, on a daily basis, in broad daylight, the authorities of a democratic nation appear to be perpetrating gross violations of international human rights laws in another jurisdiction, as stated by numerous human rights organizations from around the world, a panel of independent United Nations experts, and the International Court of Justice. Such behaviour debases norms designed to protect the values that lie at the heart of the democratic system. Every country has the right to defend itself, but not at the price of making a mockery of international law and democratic principles. While not unique, the case of Israel raises serious, global questions about what it means to be a democracy, and whether the duties of democracy extend beyond borders. Those questions will not be answered in this report, but our Institute is committed to examining them in the months and years ahead.

International IDEA’s guiding vision is a world in which everyone lives in inclusive and resilient democracies. This report is about how democracy is faring to this end—and what might be done, in ways big and small, to bring us closer.

Dr Kevin Casas-Zamora
Secretary-General, International IDEA

Abbreviations

CEC Central Electoral Commission, Kosovo

CSO Civil society organization

EMB Electoral management body

GSoD Global State of Democracy

OCV Out-of-country voting

UNDESA United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs

Methodology and structure of the report

Data sources

The Global State of Democracy (GSoD) report, the flagship publication of the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA), provides annual analysis of democratization across the globe.

Version 9 of the GSoD Indices, a quantitative data set, provides the majority of the data on which this report is based (unless otherwise stated). The Indices measure national performance across discrete areas of democracy, broadly understood as a system in which there is public control over decision making and decision makers, and in which there is equality in the exercise of that control. While this report refers to the five-year period from 2019 through December 2024, the complete data set covers the years 1975–2024 (International IDEA n.d.e).

The Indices measure national performance across discrete areas of democracy, broadly understood as a system in which there is public control over decision making and decision makers, and in which there is equality in the exercise of that control.

The Indices employ a hierarchical conceptual framework oriented around four core categories of democratic performance: Representation, Rights, Rule of Law and Participation (see Figure 0.1). Each category is subdivided into factors (such as Credible Elections or Judicial Independence) and subfactors (such as Freedom of Expression or Social Group Equality).

Figure 0.1. Global State of Democracy Indices' conceptual framework

The GSoD Indices aggregate indicators from 22 data sources (see Box 0.1), which include observational data from United Nations agencies, expert-coded data from academic programmes and some data collected directly by International IDEA. The Indices are based on a total of 154 indicators. The result is a collection of 1,676,362 data points collected on 174 countries^[1]over 50 years.

Box 0.1. The Global State of Democracy Indices: Source data sets

A complementary source of evidence for this report is International IDEA’s Democracy Tracker, a qualitative data set that provides event-centric information on democracy developments in 173 countries, with a data series beginning in August 2022 and updated every month after that. The Tracker reports democracy-related developments that may signal significant advances or declines in a country’s democratic performance in a particular month, and monitors developing events that could signal that such a change is very likely in the next year (International IDEA 2025h). The Tracker has enabled this edition of the GSoD report to reflect key democratic trends through June 2025, offering additional depth to country-specific discussions, including cases where notable developments occurred after the December 2024 cut-off for the GSoD Indices data.

Some country examples featured in the report, such as those from the USA, are included based on the relevance of their democratic developments to broader regional or global patterns. The Tracker ensures that these examples are evidence-based and grounded in recent developments.

In addition to data, the report also draws on the subject matter and regional expertise of International IDEA’s staff at the Institute’s headquarters in Sweden, as well as the work of staff at regional and country offices across Africa and West Asia, the Americas, Asia and the Pacific, and Europe. The insights of International IDEA staff who are closely involved in democracy-building efforts help to contextualize the data and identify critical trends as they unfold.

Structure and approach of the report

This year’s report begins with a broad overview of trends at the global level, shining a light on the aspects of democracy that experienced the most change—positive and negative—comparing 2024 to 2019. Specifically, Part 1 of the report provides a description of what has changed within each category of democratic performance—Representation, Rights, Rule of Law and Participation. It uses country cases^[2] to draw out illustrative examples and highlight noticeable patterns. These descriptions are meant to serve not as exhaustive lists of the events that are driving change but as illustrations of the kinds of developments that explain what the data reflect. In most cases, the analysis illustrates advances and declines by referencing statistically significant changes that have occurred in comparison with five years earlier. When that is not the case, the specific interval is referenced.

Quantitative scores from the GSoD Indices for each category, factor and subfactor are also categorized into levels of performance. All the indices at the different levels have been normalized to range from 0 (lowest achievement) to 1 (highest achievement). If a country’s score exceeds 0.7, its performance is labelled ‘high’. Scores below 0.4 correspond to ‘low’ performance. Scores between 0.4 and 0.7 classify a country’s performance as ‘mid-range’.

Several countries currently experiencing armed conflict or war—such as Haiti, Palestine[3], Sudan and Ukraine—have suffered declines in their democratic performance. These declines are closely linked to institutional disruption, political instability and deteriorating security conditions. The complexity and fluidity of such conflict-affected environments mean that existing democratic indices may not fully capture the on-the-ground realities. Further research is warranted to better understand how armed-conflict dynamics interact with democratic resilience or declines, and to assess the methodological limits of measuring democracy in such contexts.

The complexity and fluidity of conflict-affected environments mean that existing democratic indices may not fully capture the on-the-ground realities.

In response to growing global migration and a resurgence of inward- looking policies, Part 2 of the report focuses on demonstrating why and how democracies can lead the way in responding to a world on the move. It explains how democracies and countries with democratic aspirations can foster inclusion by helping to facilitate political participation for non-resident nationals. This section of the report also includes a set of guiding questions for policymakers who are considering how to craft out-of-country voting policies in line with democratic values.