What the Democracy Index tells us about Bangladesh

The Democracy Index by the Economic Intelligence Unit (EIU) is out. Out of 167 countries—165 countries and two territories included in the index—Bangladesh now ranks 100th, closer to the lower end of the classification. Bangladesh’s ranking has also seen the steepest decline globally. The country lags behind India (41st) but is well ahead of Pakistan (124th). In fact, Bangladesh shares the 100th position in the Democracy Index with Benin, one of the poorest countries in Africa. Assessing the overall results of the index, it seems that the world’s democracies are struggling.

This year, Norway tops the Democracy Index ranking. Nine of the top 10 countries in the ranking are in Europe, with New Zealand, placed second, being the only exception. Among the worst performers in the ranking are Pakistan, South Korea, Kuwait, Georgia, Qatar, Romania, and Guinea-Bissau. Bangladesh, which ranked 73rd in 2023, dropped to 75th in 2024 and slid down to 100th this year. One insightful exercise 0would be to compare the Democracy Index of these countries with their Human Development Index (HDI), which is a composite index of people’s physical well-being in terms of longevity, knowledge, and standard of living. Even though countries like South Korea, Qatar, Kuwait, and Georgia belong to the very high human development category—implying that they have ensured the physical well-being of their people—their low rankings in the Democracy Index indicate that the voice and autonomy of their people are restricted.

Democracy is not a perfect political system, but it is the best we have. Democracy is intrinsically valuable, like human rights, and given that, it is a moot question to ask whether democracy fosters economic growth. If it facilitates economic growth, well and good. But even if it does not, it is invaluable for its own sake. Democracy has been found to solidify human rights, provide people with voice and autonomy, and facilitate equity. History tells us that famines have never occurred in countries where democracy prevails. The struggle for democracy embodies the spirit of democracy.

Given this broader context, a relevant question is: how critical is the Democracy Index? Should we take it too seriously or should we take it with a grain of salt? Is the Democracy Index a true measure of democracy or is it a statistical gimmick? Regarding the first issue, yes, we should take note of it as it serves as an indication—however imperfect—of the democratic environment of a society. Furthermore, by ranking countries, the Democracy Index encourages healthy competition among nations. At the same time, however, we should take it with a grain of salt, as it has many nuances. Regarding the second issue, it is part of a contemporary, thriving index business that is mushrooming globally. It may not always represent what it claims to measure. In a strict sense, it is not a definitive measure of democracy.

A concept is always broader than its measures. Any measure, however perfect, cannot fully capture a concept. In the case of democracy, it is even more complex as it has intangible and subjective dimensions. Secondly, the Democracy Index is a composite index with five specific dimensions. Because a composite index contains multiple indicators, its robustness and predictive power are limited. Furthermore, the results of a composite index are influenced by the weights assigned to the indicators it includes. The Democracy Index is no exception. It assesses five key factors: electoral process and pluralism, government functioning, political participation, political culture, and citizens’ freedom. As is clear from the list, many of these indicators are not quantitatively measurable, lack robust and credible data, or are highly subjective. All these factors diminish the value of the Democracy Index. We should, therefore, take the index with a grain of salt.

Based on this index, countries have been categorised into four groups: full democracies, flawed democracies, hybrid regimes, and authoritarian regimes. Bangladesh has never been in the “full democracy” category. In 2006, it was in the “flawed democracy” category. Between 2008 and 2024, the country moved to the “hybrid regime” category. A hybrid regime is defined as a system where free and fair elections are often obstructed. In this regime, the ruling party puts opposition parties under pressure, and the judiciary is not independent. The press in a hybrid regime is harassed and oppressed. Some of the major characteristics of a hybrid regime include widespread corruption, a weak legal system, and a weak civil society.

If we disaggregate this year’s Democracy Index for Bangladesh, it is clear that the country has scored the lowest in “government functioning” and “citizens’ freedom.” It has performed best in “electoral process and pluralism.” The disaggregated results highlight two issues. First, they reflect some inherent weaknesses in the Democracy Index’s methodology and the data used to construct it. Anyone familiar with both the election process and pluralism in Bangladesh would likely disagree with the finding that the country has performed well in these two dimensions. Second, the disaggregated results remind us that two major problems of governance and democracy in Bangladesh are government functioning and citizens’ freedom. Since Bangladesh is undergoing a series of reform processes, these issues should be prominent in those reforms.

In the context of Bangladesh, the EIU report concluded that, on the one hand, the interim government is under pressure to hold the national election quickly, but on the other, it is prioritising reforms to restore democratic institutions. This tension could delay the most anticipated election in Bangladesh.

Selim Jahan is former director of the Human Development Report Office under the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and lead author of the Human Development Report.

Views expressed in this article are the author’s own.