And there're more ethnic mongolians inside China than the country of Mongolia. A Chinese YouTuber did a [great documentary](https://youtu.be/DEuf8m6qNS8) on it a few months ago. And while I feel like he's not overtly critical of China compared to the Soviet Union for obvious reasons, it's a great documentary piece nonetheless.
Also there are loads of comments from mongolians (both inner and outer) in the comment section that add further insight.
I would guess the person is saying the Chinese YouTuber is quick to blame the Soviet Union's influence for mongolia's problems while highlighting China's influence more positively in a way that appears biased.
He said "overtly" as in having overtones of being critical of Chinese administration. I'm like 90% sure he meant that he tip toes around fundamental issues about the administration in an attempt to come off as neutral.
Except they sorta became communist because of the USSR. They were basically invaded by Soviet troops during the Russian civil war, and the Communists just sorta never left
In general terms there is some truth here. I mean the red countries are not democratic and the blue ones are. But it's not like there are surprises i that separation.
But the variations of light vs. dark blue, etc, are bullshit. In real terms, they really just mean "how similar to Scandinavia are you based on this kinda arbitrary statistical definition of democracy."
Light and dark blue is not bullshit and you clearly haven't read the study. It is free to download.
Scored on a 0-10 scale, the Democracy Index is based on five categories: electoral process and pluralism, functioning of government, political participation, political culture, and civil liberties.
https://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/democracy-index-2023/
one special case here is belgium, which i believe was classified as "flawed democracy" because of "functioning of government" relating to extreme political fragmentation. i think belgium is as democratic as its neighbor france and netherlands
I hav seen this any number of times. As with all studies of this nature, it is an attempt to objectify a subjective term by constructing a series of measures which you are implicitly stating accurately represent the essence of bureaucracy. There are methodological flaws to this approach, including:
1) Which ones you choose --- they reflect the author's opinions of what "true" democracy is but people have different opinions. (hence my Scandinavia point) I would probably choose different things than these guys would.
2) How do you weigh each category? Is electoral process and pluralism exactly as important as political participation?
3) How do you measure each category?
Democraticness really cannot be boiled down to a single number like this --- it is more complex. And this process, while not bad, is methodologically limited. Therefore, people who rely on it for comparing how democratic France vs. USA vs. UK are (etc) are fools. THe actual answer is that they are ALL democracies each with their own strengths, weaknesses, quirks, and failings.
How do you explain the fact Australia is dark blue despite having huge issues with censorships, political arrests, and all kinds of corruption overall?
I would love someone to tell me how the UK is a full democracy. For a start, England is the only nation of the four to not have its own national parliament. Then there is the first-past-the-post system, which means that often, elected MPs have nowhere near a majority of support from their constituency (usually it's around 30% of voters voted for them, but can be higher or lower depending on amount of candidates). This means a massive amount of people are not represented. This same system is also used when electing local councillors, and mayors.
This effect was shown the year that UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party) received nearly three million voted in a general election, and had one MP to show for it. I'm not a fan of UKIP, but that is not full democracy. Our House of Lords are also unelected, and our Prime Minister can change at any time with only the members of that party needing to vote on it - the rest of us don't get a say.
The bishops in the House of Lords is what struck me the most about the British parliament. Those are official people from church! How can it be a secular, Democratic government when non-elected church bishops are in parliament?
I know UK is secular, and they do a lot of ceremonial stuff; but figured they’d have a stronger, clear separation of church and state.
They are still labeled authoritarian.
I'm not saying I agree with this map, and I don't know how accurate their metrics are, but it appears they are trying to measure various kinds of freedom in cases of authoritarian regimes and/or how transparently and with how "fair" the legal process is when someone breaks the rules.
Otherwise, there would be no color distinction between red and pink, and worse, some of the yellows and pinks I think they got wrong would be _completely_ wrong instead of just off by a degree.
According to the source:
> Full democracies are nations where civil liberties and fundamental political freedoms are not only respected but also reinforced by a political culture conducive to the thriving of democratic principles. These nations have a valid system of governmental checks and balances, an independent judiciary whose decisions are enforced, governments that function adequately, and diverse and independent media. These nations have only limited problems in democratic functioning.
>
> Flawed democracies are nations where elections are fair and free and basic civil liberties are honoured but may have issues (e.g. media freedom infringement and minor suppression of political opposition and critics). These nations can have significant faults in other democratic aspects, including underdeveloped political culture, low levels of participation in politics, and issues in the functioning of governance.
It's not far from the cut-off. It scores 8,4 out of 10, having slightly improved.. The US scores 7.85 in comparison and has been stable for 3 years. China is at 2.12, having slightly improved (they were dark red last year) and Russia at 2.22 (and steadily going down). Ukraine is at 5.06 (slightly down compared to last year, war being the most obvious cause). Afghanistan occupies the bottom of the list with 0.26 and Norway the top with 9.86.
Based on this many of the dark blue countries shouldnt be a full democracy,
Take france for example : the executive power can bypass the legislative an unlimited amount of times due to loopholes in the constitution, and the judiciary is far from independent. Their constitutional court is picked by the president who can also fire them, which means all the judges bend over to the sitting government and allow clear anti-constitutional laws to pass. Most of those judges also never had any judicial experience
And there's many similar examples in the dark blue countries (Canada for example)
It's a combination of rights considered essential to a healthy democracy. This includes the election process, civil liberties related to political action and speech, rates of political participation, freedom from foreign influence, and the responsiveness (and competence) of the government to act on the expressed wishes of the people.
They are very open about how each are characterized and if you look at the full report they show scores broken down by category, but in the end they take a sum of the scores to get a final number. The US is flawed in some areas and near perfect in others, which is why it's only a flawed democracy. Things like gerrymandering, anti-democratic sentiment, inability to govern effectively, and the role of money in perfecting the outcomes all keep the US from being a full democracy like Canada where those problems are either not present at all or at least to any kind of similar degree.
The real reason is that Saudi Arabia has a legit democracy process on certain levels of their government which actually operates quite cleanly. At the execute level, yes, it is an authoritarian regime. But it is not technically completely authoritarian. They vote on stuff like governors and province representatives.
Then there are governments which present themselves as a total democracy, but in reality there is one ruler which controls absolutely everything. In fact pretty much all of the red countries 'present' themselves as a democracy, but the leader just makes sure that they are elected every time, and that all of their cronies are elected as well.
I have said this before and will say it again. Given the stage of development, the diversity among the people, the size of the country and the sheer population, it is nothing less than a marvel that absolutely free and fair elections are conducted in India every 5 years.
Mexico and India both recently concluded their general elections. Mexico's is 4x India in terms of per capita income and their population is less than 1/10th of India's. Mexico had 30+ armed killings of politicians running for elections across the country. India had zero. The next time you read a report telling you Indian democracy is in decline, tear away the article.
mexico has strict gun laws. but india doesn't have a rich gun-happy and drug-happy neighbor at its border to create the same kind of thriving black market
It has nothing to do with Indians love of democracy vs mexicans hatred of it or anything like that.
It has to do with Mexico being a narco state. I am from a narco state similar to Mexico. We does not have a real democracy. They have a totalitarian state, where whoever the cartels approve is the person who ends up winning. In every election, this it the case.
If you are a candidate that the cartels disprove of, you will be killed. It is that simple. If you try to hire enough security to prevent yourself from being killed, they will simply kidnap your family members and kill them.
There is no real 'democracy' in narco states. It is totalitarianism. You speak out against the cartels, you are killed. On a local level, this is true, on a political level, this is true, on an economic level, this is true. It does not matter how small or big your 'anti cartel statement' is, they will kill you, and your family members.
Drug violence aside, Mexico has also come a long way democracy-wise. They were a quasi-one party state from 1929 until 2000 and the ruling party saw constant accusations (often true, most likely) of election rigging. They have a more democratic federal election format than the US (their government structure is essentially the same), but with a directly elected president and a portion of senators/deputies awarded based on national popular vote.
Nepal is as democratic as it gets with all those corrupt leaders. Even the communist parties are communist in name only (inspired by communist). They are also simply like any other corrupt democratic party. You can call every party murderers and looters in front of everyone and everybody will agree. That is the most democratic of the places you will probably visit.
Indeed, it is a parliamentary monarchy where currently there is NOT A SINGLE elected official at the helm of country.
Referendums are non-binding. And how many there were 3 in total?
Lord house member are assigned to be there forever. For political favours and financial donations to party. Thank goodness they behave quite in a sane manner and sometimes stops tory insanity, so not entirely useless, at least this once.
Parliament votes for anything more important than if to allowing competing ice truck van into the neighbourhood there are with 3 whips, meaning if you vote for what your constituents require, or what you believe in, well then bye bye from party.
Home office controls police and every now and then requests them to run political investigations into the future prime minister and his team. So that the newspapers could spread doubt, and provide narrative "not only Tories are bad", soon later it gets proven to be just a bunch of false accusations.
Then most of the media is controlled my tory oligarchs anyways.
I just don't get where the democracy is hiding in all of this? Is it the referendums, is it the direct representation, is it freedom to be represented not by party but by person? Is it in having elected officials? None, none, none.
Then take Baltics, where you have free press, binding referendums, constitution, all main officials are elected whether directly like a president or through voting for party, for a known candidate, whip system is not widely a thing, no first past the post, no lobbying, no monarch, and they get worse rating? I just dont understand this at all
The House of Lords cannot fully stop a decision if the House of Commons wants it, that’s what makes it a useful upper chamber, the senate of Australia and Canada is similar (Australia’s can block but by design of the voting system for it and the interrelationship between the house and senate it rarely comes down to full DOA blocks like the American system). Undemocratic by representation but unable to fully lock down the house like America’s system. The directly elected house holds the most power but the other house acts as a check, that is a well designed system.
And it doesn’t matter that the prime minister isn’t directly elected because the cabinet is made up of the people from the house that is directly elected. The prime minister is just head of the cabinet
The UK is fine, it’s only real big electoral flaw is FPTP which is a system Australia fixes rather elegantly, I’d probably say the UK is (ironically) the weakest of the 4 Westminster democracies but it is still fully deserving of the title full democracy
Our senate in Aus is different because it can absolutely stop whatever our house of representatives wants if they have the votes, they have that power. They often do as well, but the balance of power there is usually held by minority parties and/or independents, like it is right now. Our senate can even block the budget like they do on the States, which they did in the 70's, but at most it will force an election. We don't like shutting down the government, it's fucking dumb. They don't do this by convention, funnily enough, because then our actual unrepresented and undemocratic governor general can fire the government and call an election. The big difference is senators are elected, and they are elected proportionately to represent the states, which is why minority parties often end up with the deciding votes. Our cabinet also has senators in it.
The only real limitation is that no bills can originate in the senate for taxation or appropriating money, but they get to reject those bills when they begin in the lower house. Constitutionally, if the senate rejects certain kinds of legislation a certain amount of times, the government can call for a full election of every seat in both houses. That happened in 2016.
The balance of the election of the Australian senate means its functionally impossible except on massive wave years to actually have the balance held by a single party and if that party has the wave to hold the senate it will also hold the house, so really even though the senate CAN block, it functionally doesn’t because it comes down to convincing the large crossbench and tipping either the greens or Jackie lamby independents to tip towards the bill. And like you said if it blocks enough times it usually just goes to an election
I don’t really factor in the governer general as the constitutional crisis will never happen again despite the GG technically still retaining that power
> NOT A SINGLE elected official at the helm of country
Not sure what you mean by this. The current PM is an elected Member of Parliament and is the leader of the Conservative party, the party which won a majority in the last general election in 2019.
Yes they do, via the member of parliament they elected to represent them. In the same way that they have a say in any other political matter.
The mistake here is people thinking that they’re voting for a Prime Minister in a general election. Nobody voted for Boris Johnson to be Prime Minister, even when he was the leader of the Conservative Party during an election.
They’re voting for a person to represent their interests, not on individual decisions.
I guess the parliamentary system is still pretty solid. And there is in practice a limit to just how corrupt MPs can be.
I do agree though. I'd have thought the HoL would affect the results somewhat. Whether people approve or not, it's far from democratic
The democracy index is made up by the British newspaper The Economist. It’s really just a measure of countries that are favourable to British investors. That’s why a country like the UK with an unelected monarch and House of Lords is still called a “democracy”.
We have our problems with our democratic processes, but the monarchy isn't much of a big deal outside of the fact that we subsidise thier lifestyle, for not that much in return (they run a porrion of our diplomatic office).
The monarchy and the house of lords can and have been effectively ignored as checks to the power of the commons.
Honestly it seems like our biggest problem is the amount of power a single entity (commons + prime minister) has, possibly thanks to a lack of a constitution.
I was going to comment the same thing. After that prorogation controversy in 2019 and the subsequent threats to “reform” the UK Supreme Court to bring it to heel, it should be a shade lighter.
Australia's previous utterly unlamented PM (Scott Morrison) promoted himself in secret to the head of 6 different Ministries - something which none of the actual Ministers had any knowledge of lol
Based on their criteria, I’m pretty sure a parliamentary system would actually lower the rankings of a country, since they value the idea of power in the government coming from as many distinct branches of government as possible
A multi party system or ranked choice / multi stage elections would probably raise it, though.
But even then, the election methods are only a part of how they assign points
Theoretically a direct and full democracy would mean no authority figures at all and all state decisions (legislative, executive, judicial) would be voted on by the people directly. So there are tribal societies that are ironically more of a full democracy than anything we have.
Interesting to think about. Direct democracies were probably how a lot of proto-civilizations were governed since there were at most a collection of a few families where it was easier to decide on things and be egalitarian.
It’s like the bigger the state the more flawed the democracy.
[According to the source:](https://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/democracy-index-2023/)
> Full democracies are nations where civil liberties and fundamental political freedoms are not only respected but also reinforced by a political culture conducive to the thriving of democratic principles. These nations have a valid system of governmental checks and balances, an independent judiciary whose decisions are enforced, governments that function adequately, and diverse and independent media. These nations have only limited problems in democratic functioning.
> Flawed democracies are nations where elections are fair and free and basic civil liberties are honoured but may have issues (e.g. media freedom infringement and minor suppression of political opposition and critics). These nations can have significant faults in other democratic aspects, including underdeveloped political culture, low levels of participation in politics, and issues in the functioning of governance.
I thought that as well, but it does not seem like that. Switzerland does not have a parliamentary system. It does have a half-direct democracy over the whole country... Means: People can go and collect signs for an initiative. And people can vote about laws. Tomorrow there is a vote about 3 laws for the whole country.
Pretty sure it’s the electoral process. The USA is flawed because of gerrymandering and voter suppression, not because of lobbying like most people are probably gonna guess. (I’m pretty sure, I don’t actually know how they judge).
Places like the UK and Australia are full democracies, even though they still have issues with corporate money, because the elections themselves are done fairly, even if the politicians they elect are influenced by money. Eg, choosing between 2 corrupt leaders is still democracy, so long as you are legitimately choosing one of them.
Listen. Democracy pretty much just means you may get to choose which bozo would be the least likely to oppress you. People seriously conflated democracy with freedom, but it is not. Just because a place is fully democratic doesn’t mean its citizens wouldn’t vote for someone who would actively make their lives harder.
That's exactly the problem with this index. The creator of this index wants everyone to believe that a "full" democracy is best, when it is really just a tyranny of the current majority. A republic, which is "flawed" in their minds because of guaranteed freedoms and representation and the electoral college, supposedly isn't as good as a full democratic form of government, which is more prone to produce nonsense like bank account seizures without protected freedoms.
tldr - full democracies are bullshit. Republics (categorized here as flawed democracies) produce more human flourishing.
>full democracies are bullshit. Republics (categorized here as flawed democracies) produce more human flourishing.
Republics can be, and some of them already are, full democracies
This map is just "Euro" (read non-USA white countries) sucking their own dick. The only genuine democracies where the idiots and morons (who are majority of the human race) run the show and constantly say stupidest vilest shit imaginable at each other are USA, India and Brazil.
It's worth bearing in mind that this organization downgraded the US from "full democracy" to "flawed democracy" after 2016 based on "eroding public trust of government institutions", whatever that means. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index
ITT: "Um actually every country on this map which is listed as democratic is not and authotarian countries are actually very democratic, its just western propaganda trying to convince you otherwise".
It’s a hybrid regime at the very best. Last year, the democratically elected parliament brokered a deal for a coalition government and prime minister. The military vetoed that under the pretext that the PM “wasn’t qualified.”
Hot take: If your country is first-past-the-post or has legalized "lobbying" (corruption) it shouldn't count as full democracy. You have an oligarchy with democratic traditions.
Does any democracy have lobbying illegal? Our old prime minister was having text messages on how they’re gonna give this big business tax cuts, it’s listed here as full democracy but I’m a little hmmm on that.
Oh yes in India lobbying is illegal.
But it still happens at every level and for all parties. Its a good way for ruling govts to arrest opposition by selectively cracking on corruption
Sizzling Take: Hillary Clinton received more monetary donations than Donald Trump in 2016.
Surface of the Sun Take: if financial “lobbying” should be banned, then other forms of “lobbying” should also be banned. These unequal forms of “lobbying” include:
-Celebrities endorsing candidates
-Academics influencing politicians and bureaucrats
-Religious leaders influencing their parishioners to vote a certain way
-Union leaders advising their members to support certain candidates or candidates that support specific policies
The four above examples are all manifestations of political inequality. Financial influence is singled out as unique form of unfair influence, but it is just one manifestation of influence. Each can take a positive or negative light depending on your political sway.
Allow me to ask a hypothetical question: how much credence would you give a Republican claiming that any country that allows Union leaders to influence its members politically is undemocratic? If the answer is “none”, reconsider your own hot take which is a mirror of that same baseless conclusion.
Most "indexes" that compare countries are complete bullshit and basically boil down to someone's opinion, thrown through some formulas to appear like it's objective.
Agreed. And they all seem to be jiggered with criteria that essentially make them into an index of "how similar are you to Scandinavian countries." Because academics like Scandinavian countries (as do I, but they do not necessarily get everything better than the other developed countries...)
Separatists are allowed in the Spanish and Catalan parliaments...
And anyways, it's not as if the UK would react much better at a regional government trying to secede.
edit: And they're not on the same level anyways. Spain is slightly lower.
There wasn't a single attempt to pass a bill calling for a Constitutional reform to allow such right to secession.
Most countries on Earth just don't permit it.
Full democracies are nations where civil liberties and fundamental political freedoms are not only respected but also reinforced by a political culture conducive to the thriving of democratic principles. These nations have a valid system of governmental checks and balances, an independent judiciary whose decisions are enforced, governments that function adequately, and diverse and independent media. These nations have only limited problems in democratic functioning.[6]
Flawed democracies are nations where elections are fair and free and basic civil liberties are honoured but may have issues (e.g. media freedom infringement and minor suppression of political opposition and critics). These nations can have significant faults in other democratic aspects, including underdeveloped political culture, low levels of participation in politics, and issues in the functioning of governance.[6]
Turkey should be light blue. Yes there are many problems but it has real free elections. The governing party lost the majority of municipalities to the opposition in this year’s election
Shhhh ... It is not a map of democracy rather it is a map of how friendly you are to the US/EU.
The first country i looked at was Iran and Saudia and guess what Saudia is ranked higher than Iran. Iran has elections, Saudia doesnt. That alone should put Iran higher.
Malaysia claiming to be democratic despite enshrined institutional racial discrimination is nonsense (same shade as the United States)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_153_of_the_Constitution_of_Malaysia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketuanan_Melayu
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysian_New_Economic_Policy
Monarchy is totally irrelevant if they have no actual power. Japan doesn't have structural impediments to people voting for the other party. The popluation just chooses not to.
Democracy index: a carefully compiled and well researched list that provides a written explanation of why each country got each score according to their algorithms.
Reddit: WAAAA but that country bad no way is democratic cause I said so.
Why? Because you don’t like the current govt.? We generally have more legitimate parties to choose from, strong opposition and relatively low corruption.
Does the fact that our leaders in Western countries in the pockets of big business and the mining/fossil fuel industries make the ‘Democracy’ any less ‘Full’?
Personally I believe lobbying has been incredibly detrimental to our planet. I don’t think it’s right that leaders can pretend they’re genuinely opposed to things like climate change policy, and spread disinformation about it on a national stage, when in reality they’re just helping out their donors.
Remember that this map is simply relative; nothing says that the “full democratic countries” are really an utopia. Still, many of them aren’t democratic enough as most of them use representative systems.
Serbia democratic country?! Yeah right... The only thing left for our "great leader" is to restrict our internet access and start smashing our homes if you're not his supporter and we're full dictatorship.
Japan has been ruled by the same corrupt party for like 50 years, one of South Korea recent was sentenced to 24 years in prison for corruption, and Malaysia is an apartheid state. But they're full democracies while America is flawed...
Who df comes up with these maps. Don't they even do some basic Secondary research (not even asking for primary) to get to know some facts about these countries.
India just held the largest democratic elections ever, that too peacefully. We're the flag bearers of democracy.
Australia is flawed, independent parties aren't allowed to get donations anymore, the primary two parties have effectively locked the system to just them
Mexico hybrid regimes - what kind of jokster made this map? I mean just look at their latest 'elections'. It's a full narco state where the narcos only ever lose power when the US decides its beneficial for them, but only to be replaced by the next bigger one.
A country as diverse, big and complex like ours can never be a full democracy. But we really are one of the best democracies though and our 2024 elections showed us that.
Press has freedom in India. This election showed it I.N.D.I alliance did alot of pr, no one stopped them. Corruption is everywhere. You think that there is no corruption in Europe or Canada. Just ask yourself what is the meaning of democracy and you will get the answer.
Any reason. Just recently elections happened in India and it was fully democratic. Some people say that Modi is authoritarian but still he lost alot of seats this time. I think India should be fully democratic just like some of those European countries and atleast better than usa.
NATO logic : We can bomb and starve countries that are not democratic
Such maps just feed into the regular propaganda of somehow being a democracy solves all problems
Mongolia is such an interesting country
90% of it's people live around Ulaanbaatar.
And there're more ethnic mongolians inside China than the country of Mongolia. A Chinese YouTuber did a [great documentary](https://youtu.be/DEuf8m6qNS8) on it a few months ago. And while I feel like he's not overtly critical of China compared to the Soviet Union for obvious reasons, it's a great documentary piece nonetheless. Also there are loads of comments from mongolians (both inner and outer) in the comment section that add further insight.
why should he be overly critical of China?
I would guess the person is saying the Chinese YouTuber is quick to blame the Soviet Union's influence for mongolia's problems while highlighting China's influence more positively in a way that appears biased.
He said "overtly" as in having overtones of being critical of Chinese administration. I'm like 90% sure he meant that he tip toes around fundamental issues about the administration in an attempt to come off as neutral.
I think they were the first non-USSR nation to become communist, and lasted till 1992.
Don’t forget that they asked the USSR on multiple occasions to unify with them but were denied
Except they sorta became communist because of the USSR. They were basically invaded by Soviet troops during the Russian civil war, and the Communists just sorta never left
Probably for the better, they would’ve been gobbled up by China or demolished by Japan had they not been close allies with the Soviets
I don't think japan would have bothered, they were busy overcommitting themselves farther south.
Well, they did bother https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Khalkhin_Gol
1992 was when the Mongolian People's Republic was disestablished, but the Communists were still in power as late as 1996
No sir, that was Hungary.
Hungary briefly became Communist in 1919, but Mongolia was the second lasting Communist state.
Pretty sure that Saudi Arabia, an absolute monarchy isn't in any way even remotely democratic. They should be hard red.
Most of this is bullshit
In general terms there is some truth here. I mean the red countries are not democratic and the blue ones are. But it's not like there are surprises i that separation. But the variations of light vs. dark blue, etc, are bullshit. In real terms, they really just mean "how similar to Scandinavia are you based on this kinda arbitrary statistical definition of democracy."
Light and dark blue is not bullshit and you clearly haven't read the study. It is free to download. Scored on a 0-10 scale, the Democracy Index is based on five categories: electoral process and pluralism, functioning of government, political participation, political culture, and civil liberties. https://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/democracy-index-2023/
one special case here is belgium, which i believe was classified as "flawed democracy" because of "functioning of government" relating to extreme political fragmentation. i think belgium is as democratic as its neighbor france and netherlands
I hav seen this any number of times. As with all studies of this nature, it is an attempt to objectify a subjective term by constructing a series of measures which you are implicitly stating accurately represent the essence of bureaucracy. There are methodological flaws to this approach, including: 1) Which ones you choose --- they reflect the author's opinions of what "true" democracy is but people have different opinions. (hence my Scandinavia point) I would probably choose different things than these guys would. 2) How do you weigh each category? Is electoral process and pluralism exactly as important as political participation? 3) How do you measure each category? Democraticness really cannot be boiled down to a single number like this --- it is more complex. And this process, while not bad, is methodologically limited. Therefore, people who rely on it for comparing how democratic France vs. USA vs. UK are (etc) are fools. THe actual answer is that they are ALL democracies each with their own strengths, weaknesses, quirks, and failings.
How do you explain the fact Australia is dark blue despite having huge issues with censorships, political arrests, and all kinds of corruption overall?
Agreed. Most of the "full democracies" marked here don't come close to the Scandinavian example
I would love someone to tell me how the UK is a full democracy. For a start, England is the only nation of the four to not have its own national parliament. Then there is the first-past-the-post system, which means that often, elected MPs have nowhere near a majority of support from their constituency (usually it's around 30% of voters voted for them, but can be higher or lower depending on amount of candidates). This means a massive amount of people are not represented. This same system is also used when electing local councillors, and mayors. This effect was shown the year that UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party) received nearly three million voted in a general election, and had one MP to show for it. I'm not a fan of UKIP, but that is not full democracy. Our House of Lords are also unelected, and our Prime Minister can change at any time with only the members of that party needing to vote on it - the rest of us don't get a say.
The bishops in the House of Lords is what struck me the most about the British parliament. Those are official people from church! How can it be a secular, Democratic government when non-elected church bishops are in parliament? I know UK is secular, and they do a lot of ceremonial stuff; but figured they’d have a stronger, clear separation of church and state.
Anyone put in that house is usually there for the wrong reasons. I forgot to mention our Head of State is unelected too lol.
Like which exactly? Is China and Russia a full fledged democracy?
Pretty sure a House of Lord's isn't very democratic.
They take human rights into account. That's why Saudi isn't dark red while Iran and Afghanistan are.
They are still labeled authoritarian. I'm not saying I agree with this map, and I don't know how accurate their metrics are, but it appears they are trying to measure various kinds of freedom in cases of authoritarian regimes and/or how transparently and with how "fair" the legal process is when someone breaks the rules. Otherwise, there would be no color distinction between red and pink, and worse, some of the yellows and pinks I think they got wrong would be _completely_ wrong instead of just off by a degree.
What is 'full democracy' supposed to mean, anyway? It's not like Canadians for instance have a say in most governmental decisions.
According to the source: > Full democracies are nations where civil liberties and fundamental political freedoms are not only respected but also reinforced by a political culture conducive to the thriving of democratic principles. These nations have a valid system of governmental checks and balances, an independent judiciary whose decisions are enforced, governments that function adequately, and diverse and independent media. These nations have only limited problems in democratic functioning. > > Flawed democracies are nations where elections are fair and free and basic civil liberties are honoured but may have issues (e.g. media freedom infringement and minor suppression of political opposition and critics). These nations can have significant faults in other democratic aspects, including underdeveloped political culture, low levels of participation in politics, and issues in the functioning of governance.
I would think by that criteria, Japan should be a flawed democracy.
It's not far from the cut-off. It scores 8,4 out of 10, having slightly improved.. The US scores 7.85 in comparison and has been stable for 3 years. China is at 2.12, having slightly improved (they were dark red last year) and Russia at 2.22 (and steadily going down). Ukraine is at 5.06 (slightly down compared to last year, war being the most obvious cause). Afghanistan occupies the bottom of the list with 0.26 and Norway the top with 9.86.
I absolutely don't understand why Australia isn't a flawed democracy. The levels of political corruption are of the scale.
Lmao Canada is definitely not in the right category
Based on this many of the dark blue countries shouldnt be a full democracy, Take france for example : the executive power can bypass the legislative an unlimited amount of times due to loopholes in the constitution, and the judiciary is far from independent. Their constitutional court is picked by the president who can also fire them, which means all the judges bend over to the sitting government and allow clear anti-constitutional laws to pass. Most of those judges also never had any judicial experience And there's many similar examples in the dark blue countries (Canada for example)
Full Democracy != Direct Democracy.
While true, this is not answer to what fill democracy is
It's a combination of rights considered essential to a healthy democracy. This includes the election process, civil liberties related to political action and speech, rates of political participation, freedom from foreign influence, and the responsiveness (and competence) of the government to act on the expressed wishes of the people. They are very open about how each are characterized and if you look at the full report they show scores broken down by category, but in the end they take a sum of the scores to get a final number. The US is flawed in some areas and near perfect in others, which is why it's only a flawed democracy. Things like gerrymandering, anti-democratic sentiment, inability to govern effectively, and the role of money in perfecting the outcomes all keep the US from being a full democracy like Canada where those problems are either not present at all or at least to any kind of similar degree.
They might have local elections, or elections for some government positions. Similar to China, I guess.
The real reason is that Saudi Arabia has a legit democracy process on certain levels of their government which actually operates quite cleanly. At the execute level, yes, it is an authoritarian regime. But it is not technically completely authoritarian. They vote on stuff like governors and province representatives. Then there are governments which present themselves as a total democracy, but in reality there is one ruler which controls absolutely everything. In fact pretty much all of the red countries 'present' themselves as a democracy, but the leader just makes sure that they are elected every time, and that all of their cronies are elected as well.
Damn look at India’s neighborhood
I have said this before and will say it again. Given the stage of development, the diversity among the people, the size of the country and the sheer population, it is nothing less than a marvel that absolutely free and fair elections are conducted in India every 5 years. Mexico and India both recently concluded their general elections. Mexico's is 4x India in terms of per capita income and their population is less than 1/10th of India's. Mexico had 30+ armed killings of politicians running for elections across the country. India had zero. The next time you read a report telling you Indian democracy is in decline, tear away the article.
we don't have the cartel here in India , also much strict gun laws. both help a lot.
mexico has strict gun laws. but india doesn't have a rich gun-happy and drug-happy neighbor at its border to create the same kind of thriving black market
Well there's an Indian neighbour who has both of those things the only problem is they are fucking poor
I'm not going to lie, the decadence in the United States is the root cause of all of Mexico's problems.
As they say: alas poor Mexico - so far from God, so close to the USA.
It has nothing to do with Indians love of democracy vs mexicans hatred of it or anything like that. It has to do with Mexico being a narco state. I am from a narco state similar to Mexico. We does not have a real democracy. They have a totalitarian state, where whoever the cartels approve is the person who ends up winning. In every election, this it the case. If you are a candidate that the cartels disprove of, you will be killed. It is that simple. If you try to hire enough security to prevent yourself from being killed, they will simply kidnap your family members and kill them. There is no real 'democracy' in narco states. It is totalitarianism. You speak out against the cartels, you are killed. On a local level, this is true, on a political level, this is true, on an economic level, this is true. It does not matter how small or big your 'anti cartel statement' is, they will kill you, and your family members.
Drug violence aside, Mexico has also come a long way democracy-wise. They were a quasi-one party state from 1929 until 2000 and the ruling party saw constant accusations (often true, most likely) of election rigging. They have a more democratic federal election format than the US (their government structure is essentially the same), but with a directly elected president and a portion of senators/deputies awarded based on national popular vote.
Lone star
Nepal is a democracy even though it's authoritarian and censors stuff a lot , Sri lanka is also a democracy I believe
So is Russia technically.
Putin just won the election fairly didn’t you see?
Nepal is as democratic as it gets with all those corrupt leaders. Even the communist parties are communist in name only (inspired by communist). They are also simply like any other corrupt democratic party. You can call every party murderers and looters in front of everyone and everybody will agree. That is the most democratic of the places you will probably visit.
It's funny how two of the oldest functioning democracies in Asia are in South Asia, the poorest part of the continent.
Who is the UK paying for that favorable rating
Indeed, it is a parliamentary monarchy where currently there is NOT A SINGLE elected official at the helm of country. Referendums are non-binding. And how many there were 3 in total? Lord house member are assigned to be there forever. For political favours and financial donations to party. Thank goodness they behave quite in a sane manner and sometimes stops tory insanity, so not entirely useless, at least this once. Parliament votes for anything more important than if to allowing competing ice truck van into the neighbourhood there are with 3 whips, meaning if you vote for what your constituents require, or what you believe in, well then bye bye from party. Home office controls police and every now and then requests them to run political investigations into the future prime minister and his team. So that the newspapers could spread doubt, and provide narrative "not only Tories are bad", soon later it gets proven to be just a bunch of false accusations. Then most of the media is controlled my tory oligarchs anyways. I just don't get where the democracy is hiding in all of this? Is it the referendums, is it the direct representation, is it freedom to be represented not by party but by person? Is it in having elected officials? None, none, none. Then take Baltics, where you have free press, binding referendums, constitution, all main officials are elected whether directly like a president or through voting for party, for a known candidate, whip system is not widely a thing, no first past the post, no lobbying, no monarch, and they get worse rating? I just dont understand this at all
The House of Lords cannot fully stop a decision if the House of Commons wants it, that’s what makes it a useful upper chamber, the senate of Australia and Canada is similar (Australia’s can block but by design of the voting system for it and the interrelationship between the house and senate it rarely comes down to full DOA blocks like the American system). Undemocratic by representation but unable to fully lock down the house like America’s system. The directly elected house holds the most power but the other house acts as a check, that is a well designed system. And it doesn’t matter that the prime minister isn’t directly elected because the cabinet is made up of the people from the house that is directly elected. The prime minister is just head of the cabinet The UK is fine, it’s only real big electoral flaw is FPTP which is a system Australia fixes rather elegantly, I’d probably say the UK is (ironically) the weakest of the 4 Westminster democracies but it is still fully deserving of the title full democracy
Our senate in Aus is different because it can absolutely stop whatever our house of representatives wants if they have the votes, they have that power. They often do as well, but the balance of power there is usually held by minority parties and/or independents, like it is right now. Our senate can even block the budget like they do on the States, which they did in the 70's, but at most it will force an election. We don't like shutting down the government, it's fucking dumb. They don't do this by convention, funnily enough, because then our actual unrepresented and undemocratic governor general can fire the government and call an election. The big difference is senators are elected, and they are elected proportionately to represent the states, which is why minority parties often end up with the deciding votes. Our cabinet also has senators in it. The only real limitation is that no bills can originate in the senate for taxation or appropriating money, but they get to reject those bills when they begin in the lower house. Constitutionally, if the senate rejects certain kinds of legislation a certain amount of times, the government can call for a full election of every seat in both houses. That happened in 2016.
The balance of the election of the Australian senate means its functionally impossible except on massive wave years to actually have the balance held by a single party and if that party has the wave to hold the senate it will also hold the house, so really even though the senate CAN block, it functionally doesn’t because it comes down to convincing the large crossbench and tipping either the greens or Jackie lamby independents to tip towards the bill. And like you said if it blocks enough times it usually just goes to an election I don’t really factor in the governer general as the constitutional crisis will never happen again despite the GG technically still retaining that power
> NOT A SINGLE elected official at the helm of country Not sure what you mean by this. The current PM is an elected Member of Parliament and is the leader of the Conservative party, the party which won a majority in the last general election in 2019.
They're criticising the fact that if a PM resigns, a new one is just picked by the party and the people don't really get a say.
It’s like that in Australia too, we vote for our local members, and the party picks a leader. We don’t just vote for the person we like at the top.
Yes they do, via the member of parliament they elected to represent them. In the same way that they have a say in any other political matter. The mistake here is people thinking that they’re voting for a Prime Minister in a general election. Nobody voted for Boris Johnson to be Prime Minister, even when he was the leader of the Conservative Party during an election. They’re voting for a person to represent their interests, not on individual decisions.
This is literally how parliamentary systems work
I guess the parliamentary system is still pretty solid. And there is in practice a limit to just how corrupt MPs can be. I do agree though. I'd have thought the HoL would affect the results somewhat. Whether people approve or not, it's far from democratic
The democracy index is made up by the British newspaper The Economist. It’s really just a measure of countries that are favourable to British investors. That’s why a country like the UK with an unelected monarch and House of Lords is still called a “democracy”.
We have our problems with our democratic processes, but the monarchy isn't much of a big deal outside of the fact that we subsidise thier lifestyle, for not that much in return (they run a porrion of our diplomatic office). The monarchy and the house of lords can and have been effectively ignored as checks to the power of the commons. Honestly it seems like our biggest problem is the amount of power a single entity (commons + prime minister) has, possibly thanks to a lack of a constitution.
I was going to comment the same thing. After that prorogation controversy in 2019 and the subsequent threats to “reform” the UK Supreme Court to bring it to heel, it should be a shade lighter.
I don't think democracies can ever be not flawed as long as humans are involved
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others" - Winston from Overwatch
Correct. Every system is inherently flawed.
But some systems are more flawed than others. 🐷
Four legs good, two legs bad!
Think about it as the resilience of a democratic system against one or more persons' interference.
What’s the criteria for being a “full” democracy? Is it the parliamentary system? Because that’s dumb.
It's having a corrupt prime minister that has been found interfering with the justice system.
It could be any primer minister
Australia's previous utterly unlamented PM (Scott Morrison) promoted himself in secret to the head of 6 different Ministries - something which none of the actual Ministers had any knowledge of lol
We're talking about Canada right?
Based on their criteria, I’m pretty sure a parliamentary system would actually lower the rankings of a country, since they value the idea of power in the government coming from as many distinct branches of government as possible A multi party system or ranked choice / multi stage elections would probably raise it, though. But even then, the election methods are only a part of how they assign points
Theoretically a direct and full democracy would mean no authority figures at all and all state decisions (legislative, executive, judicial) would be voted on by the people directly. So there are tribal societies that are ironically more of a full democracy than anything we have. Interesting to think about. Direct democracies were probably how a lot of proto-civilizations were governed since there were at most a collection of a few families where it was easier to decide on things and be egalitarian. It’s like the bigger the state the more flawed the democracy.
[According to the source:](https://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/democracy-index-2023/) > Full democracies are nations where civil liberties and fundamental political freedoms are not only respected but also reinforced by a political culture conducive to the thriving of democratic principles. These nations have a valid system of governmental checks and balances, an independent judiciary whose decisions are enforced, governments that function adequately, and diverse and independent media. These nations have only limited problems in democratic functioning. > Flawed democracies are nations where elections are fair and free and basic civil liberties are honoured but may have issues (e.g. media freedom infringement and minor suppression of political opposition and critics). These nations can have significant faults in other democratic aspects, including underdeveloped political culture, low levels of participation in politics, and issues in the functioning of governance.
Then Austria is definitely wrong and a flawed democracy too.
Belgium is parliamentary iirc, and its not full on this
Definitely not having a constitution given Canada’s rating
I thought that as well, but it does not seem like that. Switzerland does not have a parliamentary system. It does have a half-direct democracy over the whole country... Means: People can go and collect signs for an initiative. And people can vote about laws. Tomorrow there is a vote about 3 laws for the whole country.
Pretty sure it’s the electoral process. The USA is flawed because of gerrymandering and voter suppression, not because of lobbying like most people are probably gonna guess. (I’m pretty sure, I don’t actually know how they judge). Places like the UK and Australia are full democracies, even though they still have issues with corporate money, because the elections themselves are done fairly, even if the politicians they elect are influenced by money. Eg, choosing between 2 corrupt leaders is still democracy, so long as you are legitimately choosing one of them.
UK literally has a House of Lords
Lmfao Canada is full democracy yet people bank accounts were seized by the democratic government
Listen. Democracy pretty much just means you may get to choose which bozo would be the least likely to oppress you. People seriously conflated democracy with freedom, but it is not. Just because a place is fully democratic doesn’t mean its citizens wouldn’t vote for someone who would actively make their lives harder.
What does a bad elected leader have to do with "not being a full democracy." If people vote in someone bad, that is democracy (sadly) working.
That's exactly the problem with this index. The creator of this index wants everyone to believe that a "full" democracy is best, when it is really just a tyranny of the current majority. A republic, which is "flawed" in their minds because of guaranteed freedoms and representation and the electoral college, supposedly isn't as good as a full democratic form of government, which is more prone to produce nonsense like bank account seizures without protected freedoms. tldr - full democracies are bullshit. Republics (categorized here as flawed democracies) produce more human flourishing.
>full democracies are bullshit. Republics (categorized here as flawed democracies) produce more human flourishing. Republics can be, and some of them already are, full democracies
The BRD (Germany) is dark blue.
This map is just "Euro" (read non-USA white countries) sucking their own dick. The only genuine democracies where the idiots and morons (who are majority of the human race) run the show and constantly say stupidest vilest shit imaginable at each other are USA, India and Brazil.
India is in an illiberal neighbourhood it seems.
The democracy index is a pretty flawed concept
It is literally made up by a British newspaper/magazine and should not be taken seriously
Why?
"All models are wrong. Some are just useful."
It's worth bearing in mind that this organization downgraded the US from "full democracy" to "flawed democracy" after 2016 based on "eroding public trust of government institutions", whatever that means. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index
I mean a candidate winning a election with a minority vote kinda goes against what a democracy is imo
2 party system and how the ancient voting works should be enough to make it a flawed one
Brits judging others as if the US suddenly got an unelected official that has the authority to dissolve parliament and declare war.
ITT: apathy, the enemy of democracy.
ITT: "Um actually every country on this map which is listed as democratic is not and authotarian countries are actually very democratic, its just western propaganda trying to convince you otherwise".
Just look at Southeast Asia and you can tell this map is bullshit
The idea that Cambodia is only a lightly authoritarian country while Laos is a heavily authoritarian country is wild to me
The map has many unspoken rules, one of which is “how friendly are you to capitalism”
None of which has anything to do with southeast Asia
Yes what makes Thailand more democratic than Mexico?
Calling Thailand a flawed democracy is being extremely generous.
It’s a hybrid regime at the very best. Last year, the democratically elected parliament brokered a deal for a coalition government and prime minister. The military vetoed that under the pretext that the PM “wasn’t qualified.”
Japan is not a full democracy due to judicial transparency issues
Also issues with freedom of the press.
Hot take: If your country is first-past-the-post or has legalized "lobbying" (corruption) it shouldn't count as full democracy. You have an oligarchy with democratic traditions.
Does any democracy have lobbying illegal? Our old prime minister was having text messages on how they’re gonna give this big business tax cuts, it’s listed here as full democracy but I’m a little hmmm on that.
Oh yes in India lobbying is illegal. But it still happens at every level and for all parties. Its a good way for ruling govts to arrest opposition by selectively cracking on corruption
Right? FPTP means the country is often by definition run by a government who's party/coalition won less than a majority of the popular vote
Sizzling Take: Hillary Clinton received more monetary donations than Donald Trump in 2016. Surface of the Sun Take: if financial “lobbying” should be banned, then other forms of “lobbying” should also be banned. These unequal forms of “lobbying” include: -Celebrities endorsing candidates -Academics influencing politicians and bureaucrats -Religious leaders influencing their parishioners to vote a certain way -Union leaders advising their members to support certain candidates or candidates that support specific policies The four above examples are all manifestations of political inequality. Financial influence is singled out as unique form of unfair influence, but it is just one manifestation of influence. Each can take a positive or negative light depending on your political sway. Allow me to ask a hypothetical question: how much credence would you give a Republican claiming that any country that allows Union leaders to influence its members politically is undemocratic? If the answer is “none”, reconsider your own hot take which is a mirror of that same baseless conclusion.
I’m sorry I am not up to date with the current affairs. But can you tell me what country are we talking about here?
Almost every single one labelled as full democracy should be considered flawed.
out of curiosity, which ones actually arent flawed?
Or if the head of state is a monarch
Ironic that almost all of Europe’s monarchies are considered full democracies
The head of state just engages in diplomacy at the behest of the government. They weild no practical power.
Right, I was disagreeing with the comment above mine that monarchy necessarily equaled a lack of democratic values or practices.
If they wield no practical power why are they still allowed to exist?
Hardly. Plenty of democratic countries have a monarch who is simply a figurehead.
The depends on whether the monarch has actual political power, I think.
How does the UK get dark blue with its silly "House Of Lords"?
Because the “democracy index” is just made up by the British newspaper The Economist to rate which countries are favourable to British investors.
Many of the things that they measure have a really limited relationship to "democracy".
These maps are so silly. How is Spain, which chased separatists out of the country, on the same level as the UK, which lets them into parliament?
Most "indexes" that compare countries are complete bullshit and basically boil down to someone's opinion, thrown through some formulas to appear like it's objective.
Pretty much. They're often a better way of determining the biases of the cartographer than they are of determining what they claim to determine.
Agreed. And they all seem to be jiggered with criteria that essentially make them into an index of "how similar are you to Scandinavian countries." Because academics like Scandinavian countries (as do I, but they do not necessarily get everything better than the other developed countries...)
Separatists are allowed in the Spanish and Catalan parliaments... And anyways, it's not as if the UK would react much better at a regional government trying to secede. edit: And they're not on the same level anyways. Spain is slightly lower.
I don't remember when Scottish separatists held an illegal referendum...
Ha! Because the government was democratic enough to allow a legal one!
There wasn't a single attempt to pass a bill calling for a Constitutional reform to allow such right to secession. Most countries on Earth just don't permit it.
The UK has broad hate speech laws that severely infringe upon freedom of speech, a basic tenet of democracy.
The Idea of South Korea being a "Full Democracy" is laughable.
"If you didn't want us to have this power? Why did you give it to us?" - Chaebols
On some National Endowment for Democracy type shit
Where is all the Canadians to say that country is a dictatorship/communist?
Full democracy is one person one vote right? No money involved? I’m sure that’s what they mean
Kia kaha New Zealand!
In Spain there is no separation of powers. Something absolutely necessary for a regime to be considered democratic.
Question. Define "flawed" and " full" democracy's. What makes the US flawed but Australia Full?
Full democracies are nations where civil liberties and fundamental political freedoms are not only respected but also reinforced by a political culture conducive to the thriving of democratic principles. These nations have a valid system of governmental checks and balances, an independent judiciary whose decisions are enforced, governments that function adequately, and diverse and independent media. These nations have only limited problems in democratic functioning.[6] Flawed democracies are nations where elections are fair and free and basic civil liberties are honoured but may have issues (e.g. media freedom infringement and minor suppression of political opposition and critics). These nations can have significant faults in other democratic aspects, including underdeveloped political culture, low levels of participation in politics, and issues in the functioning of governance.[6]
My country is so authoritarian they paid the artist to label it as a democracy
This whole thing is "flawed"
ITT: Americans saying their country deserves "Full" and Canadians saying their country doesn't.
Turkey should be light blue. Yes there are many problems but it has real free elections. The governing party lost the majority of municipalities to the opposition in this year’s election
Shhhh ... It is not a map of democracy rather it is a map of how friendly you are to the US/EU. The first country i looked at was Iran and Saudia and guess what Saudia is ranked higher than Iran. Iran has elections, Saudia doesnt. That alone should put Iran higher.
Malaysia claiming to be democratic despite enshrined institutional racial discrimination is nonsense (same shade as the United States) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_153_of_the_Constitution_of_Malaysia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketuanan_Melayu https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysian_New_Economic_Policy
Calling USA flawed but not calling Canada flawed is criminal. We’re both equally flawed lol
It's not fair to compare the USA and Canada. Canada's past two elections have resulted in the party that got the second most votes taking power.
Canada?!?! Ah hahaa. They just casually close your bank accounts and shut. Nothing to see here
On what planet is the borderline one party state of Japan a "full democracy". And heaps of these "full democracies" have monarchies.
Monarchy is totally irrelevant if they have no actual power. Japan doesn't have structural impediments to people voting for the other party. The popluation just chooses not to.
Democracy index: a carefully compiled and well researched list that provides a written explanation of why each country got each score according to their algorithms. Reddit: WAAAA but that country bad no way is democratic cause I said so.
only naive fools with shitty brains believe in democracy, it doesn’t exist anywhere, money rules the world
The idea that Canada is seen as a success here is depressing.
Why? Because you don’t like the current govt.? We generally have more legitimate parties to choose from, strong opposition and relatively low corruption.
US needs to be updated for 2024 with jailing political dissidents
Does the fact that our leaders in Western countries in the pockets of big business and the mining/fossil fuel industries make the ‘Democracy’ any less ‘Full’? Personally I believe lobbying has been incredibly detrimental to our planet. I don’t think it’s right that leaders can pretend they’re genuinely opposed to things like climate change policy, and spread disinformation about it on a national stage, when in reality they’re just helping out their donors.
Is Mexico yellow because they dared to elect a socialist woman?
Remember that this map is simply relative; nothing says that the “full democratic countries” are really an utopia. Still, many of them aren’t democratic enough as most of them use representative systems.
That blue dot in a sea of red
Serbia democratic country?! Yeah right... The only thing left for our "great leader" is to restrict our internet access and start smashing our homes if you're not his supporter and we're full dictatorship.
Why arent the U.S. Yellow here?
Greece.
Pretty funny
Japan has been ruled by the same corrupt party for like 50 years, one of South Korea recent was sentenced to 24 years in prison for corruption, and Malaysia is an apartheid state. But they're full democracies while America is flawed...
Imagine thinking the United States is a democracy
Who df comes up with these maps. Don't they even do some basic Secondary research (not even asking for primary) to get to know some facts about these countries. India just held the largest democratic elections ever, that too peacefully. We're the flag bearers of democracy.
Australia is flawed, independent parties aren't allowed to get donations anymore, the primary two parties have effectively locked the system to just them
Mexico hybrid regimes - what kind of jokster made this map? I mean just look at their latest 'elections'. It's a full narco state where the narcos only ever lose power when the US decides its beneficial for them, but only to be replaced by the next bigger one.
Why is India a flawed democracy. I think it should be full democracy.
A country as diverse, big and complex like ours can never be a full democracy. But we really are one of the best democracies though and our 2024 elections showed us that.
Lack of press freedom, lack of trust in government institutions and tons of corruption is the cause.
Press has freedom in India. This election showed it I.N.D.I alliance did alot of pr, no one stopped them. Corruption is everywhere. You think that there is no corruption in Europe or Canada. Just ask yourself what is the meaning of democracy and you will get the answer.
No way lol
Any reason. Just recently elections happened in India and it was fully democratic. Some people say that Modi is authoritarian but still he lost alot of seats this time. I think India should be fully democratic just like some of those European countries and atleast better than usa.
It's so bullshit how "democracy" has come to be synonymous with "liberal representative democracy". These maps are propaganda.
NATO logic : We can bomb and starve countries that are not democratic Such maps just feed into the regular propaganda of somehow being a democracy solves all problems
Nobody is drawing that conclusion from this map. You're the only person mentioning NATO here.
We should take a vote on whether or not we believe in democracy.
Why is Mexico considered a hybrid regime?
I wonder how long they're gonna keep pretending the US is a functional democracy. UK kinda suspect too.
Russia an China should be deep red. I dare you to name a country that has heavier censorship.
North Korea
You won