Every year, The Economist Intelligence Unit publishes the Democracy Index, a ranking that assesses the democratic standing of 167 countries around the world.
In the latest index—which was released in early February of this year and covers the 2020 assessment—our country ranked 15th in the world and first among Latin American countries. Along with Costa Rica (20th) and Chile (23rd), Uruguay was one of only three countries in the region with full democracies, according to the study by the London-based magazine.
What is The Economist’s Democracy Index? What factors does it take into account? How does Uruguay fare in the various categories analyzed? How can democracies be improved? These are some of the questions addressed by Dr. Inés Pousadela, who teaches the courses Global Civil Society and Comparative Politics at the Bachelor’s Degree in International Studies at Universidad ORT Uruguay.
-
What is the Democracy Index published by The Economist Intelligence Unit?
First of all, it is important to note that this is a very complex index because it measures democracy, which, by its very nature, cannot be defined by a single criterion. For this reason, The Economist’s index is a composite index: has variables that are broken down into specific indicators that must be examined.
Thus, in each measured area, a specific set of indicators is summarized into a single number. The final score is then calculated as the average of the scores obtained in the various areas. This means that behind each country’s ranking is a number that makes it possible to establish the ranking.
Among the areas being assessed, the primary focus is on the electoral process and pluralism within that process.
There are four categories in this index: full democracy, flawed democracy, hybrid regime, and authoritarian regime. Based on the scores obtained, each country falls into one of these categories.
-
Uruguay, ranked 15th, is classified as a full democracy. How is a full democracy established and strengthened?
Every democracy can be strengthened and improved, and to do so, it is necessary to understand its shortcomings. For example, even a fully developed democracy like Norway’s (with a score of 9.8 out of 10) has shortcomings in the way its government operates that it must strive to improve.
Uruguay ranks first among Latin American countries, which speaks to a strengthened democracy. However, it is clear that there are significant shortcomings in the area of political participation: Uruguay scored ten points in “Electoral process and pluralism,” 9.7 in “Civil liberties,” eight in “Functioning of government,” just over eight points in “Political culture,” and yet only six points in “Political participation.” That is a red flag.
What factors do you consider when assessing political participation? Voter turnout, and the degree of autonomy and voice that minorities have. While Uruguay performs well in this regard, there is one aspect related to the number of women in Parliament, and in that regard, Uruguay lags behind the Latin American average.
-
What aspects of Uruguayan democracy set it apart from those of other countries and make it the top-ranked democracy in the region?
Uruguay is not only the first democracy in Latin America and the Caribbean to appear in the ranking, but it is also one of only three full democracies in the region, along with Chile and Costa Rica.
Specifically, Uruguay stands out from most countries in the region due to its tradition of a democratic, tolerant, and moderate political culture. One factor not considered in the index—because it does not influence whether a democracy is more or less democratic, but does set Uruguay apart from other countries in the region and the world—is how the country maintains a party system structure in which ideological oppositions—right and left—still make sense, even if they are moderate. In this regard, political and partisan identities remain very distinct in Uruguay, which is not the case in other countries.
-
What actions or developments have contributed to the advancement of democracy in Uruguay in recent years?
This index is published annually and specifically tracks data from the previous year. One interesting aspect regarding Uruguay is that it did not experience any major setbacks in a year that, according to The Economist’s analysis, saw significant declines overall.
In that regard, Uruguay is a rather unique case because, while many countries saw their scores drop compared to the previous year, Uruguay not only maintained its score but actually improved it. It is not the only country to have improved, nor was its improvement dramatic, but the trend is real and has been consistent over the decades.
-
The overall average score for the 2020 index was 5.37, the lowest since the indicator was first compiled (in 2006). How should this be interpreted?
The overall average score is 5.37. This is the lowest figure since this index was first introduced. While the year-over-year changes are not measured in whole points but rather in tenths of a point, the overall average score did drop from 5.44 in 2019 to 5.37 in 2020.
One of the main factors behind this decline is linked to the restrictions on individual and civil liberties that were part of the response to the pandemic. In addition, there are other ongoing developments related to the crackdown on demonstrations and large-scale protest movements.
As a result of the slight decline in the index, several countries dropped in ranking. Among these countries are some advanced democracies with a long history and strong track record, such as France, which the 2020 index classifies as a flawed democracy.
-
According to this report, 8.4% of the world’s population lives in a full democracy, 41% in flawed democracies, and 35.6% in countries considered authoritarian. How is this situation expected to evolve in the coming years?
If we look back exactly a century, it is estimated that in 1920 there were only 20 democracies in the world. Around the year 2000, the number of democracies equaled the number of non-democratic regimes. Since then, there have been more democracies than non-democratic regimes every year. Thus, over the long course of history, there has been a positive trend toward democracy.
However, the focus has now shifted elsewhere. When we were transitioning to democracy, we thought it was the solution to all our problems. Today, now that democracies have stood the test of time, we see that they often aren’t what we hoped they would be. So the issue now goes deeper: the debate has become more complex and centers on the quality of existing democracies.
Looking ahead to the long term, I believe we are headed toward a future marked by the struggle for meaningful democracies.