FREEDOM IN THE WORLD 2011: THE AUTHORITARIAN CHALLENGE TO DEMOCRACY

Freedom in the World 2011

Table of Independent Countries
Country Afghanistan Albania* Algeria Andorra* Angola Antigua and Barbuda* Argentina* Armenia Australia* Austria* Azerbaijan Bahamas* Bahrain Bangladesh* Barbados* Belarus Belgium* Belize* Benin* Bhutan Bolivia* Bosnia and Herzegovina* Botswana* Brazil* Brunei Bulgaria* Burkina Faso Burma Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada* Cape Verde* Central African Republic Chad Chile* China Colombia* Comoros* Freedom Status Not Free Partly Free Not Free Free Not Free Free Free Partly Free Free Free Not Free Free Not Free Partly Free Free Not Free Free Free Free Partly Free Partly Free Partly Free Free Free Not Free Free Partly Free Not Free Partly Free Not Free Not Free Free Free Partly Free Not Free Free Not Free Partly Free Partly Free PR 6 3 6 1 6 3 2 6 1 1 6 1 6 3 1 7 1 1 2 4 3 4 3 2 6 2 5 7 5 6 6 1 1 5 7 1 7 3 3 CL 6 3 5 1 5 2 2 4 1 1 5 1 5 4 1 6 1 2 2 5 3 3 2 2 5 2 3 7 5 5 6 1 1 5 6 1 6 4 4 Trend Arrow

FREEDOM IN THE WORLD 2011: THE AUTHORITARIAN CHALLENGE TO DEMOCRACY

Country Congo (Brazzaville) Congo (Kinshasa) Costa Rica* Cte dIvoire Croatia* Cuba Cyprus* Czech Republic* Denmark* Djibouti Dominica* Dominican Republic* East Timor* Ecuador* Egypt El Salvador* Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia* Ethiopia Fiji Finland* France* Gabon The Gambia Georgia Germany* Ghana* Greece* Grenada* Guatemala* Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana* Haiti Honduras Hungary* Iceland* India* Indonesia* Iran Iraq

Freedom Status Not Free Not Free Free Not Free Free Not Free Free Free Free Not Free Free Free Partly Free Partly Free Not Free Free Not Free Not Free Free Not Free Partly Free Free Free Not Free Partly Free Partly Free Free Free Free Free Partly Free Partly Free Partly Free Free Partly Free Partly Free Free Free Free Free Not Free Not Free

PR 6 6 1 7 1 7 1 1 1 6 1 2 3 3 6 2 7 7 1 6 6 1 1 6 5 4 1 1 1 1 4 5 4 2 4 4 1 1 2 2 6 5

CL 5 6 1 6 2 6 1 1 1 5 1 2 4 3 5 3 7 7 1 6 4 1 1 5 5 3 1 2 2 2 4 5 4 3 5 4 1 1 3 3 6 6

Trend Arrow

FREEDOM IN THE WORLD 2011: THE AUTHORITARIAN CHALLENGE TO DEMOCRACY

Country Ireland* Israel* Italy* Jamaica* Japan* Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati* Kosovo Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Laos Latvia* Lebanon Lesotho* Liberia* Libya Liechtenstein* Lithuania* Luxembourg* Macedonia* Madagascar Malawi* Malaysia Maldives* Mali* Malta* Marshall Islands* Mauritania Mauritius* Mexico* Micronesia* Moldova* Monaco* Mongolia* Montenegro* Morocco Mozambique Namibia* Nauru* Nepal Netherlands*

Freedom Status Free Free Free Free Free Not Free Not Free Partly Free Free Partly Free Partly Free Partly Free Not Free Free Partly Free Partly Free Partly Free Not Free Free Free Free Partly Free Partly Free Partly Free Partly Free Partly Free Free Free Free Not Free Free Partly Free Free Partly Free Free Free Free Partly Free Partly Free Free Free Partly Free Free

PR 1 1 1 2 1 6 6 4 1 5 4 5 7 2 5 3 3 7 1 1 1 3 6 3 4 3 2 1 1 6 1 3 1 3 2 2 3 5 4 2 1 4 1

CL 1 2 2 3 2 5 5 3 1 4 5 5 6 2 3 3 4 7 1 1 1 3 4 4 4 4 3 1 1 5 2 3 1 3 1 2 2 4 3 2 1 4 1

Trend Arrow

FREEDOM IN THE WORLD 2011: THE AUTHORITARIAN CHALLENGE TO DEMOCRACY

Country Freedom Status New Zealand* Free Nicaragua* Partly Free Niger Partly Free Nigeria Partly Free North Korea Not Free Norway* Free Oman Not Free Pakistan Partly Free Palau* Free Panama* Free Papua New Guinea* Partly Free Paraguay* Partly Free Peru* Free Philippines* Partly Free Poland* Free Portugal* Free Qatar Not Free Romania* Free Russia Not Free Rwanda Not Free Saint Kitts and Nevis* Free Saint Lucia* Free Saint Vincent and Grenadines* Free Samoa* Free San Marino* Free So Tom and Prncipe* Free Saudi Arabia Not Free Senegal* Partly Free Serbia* Free Seychelles* Partly Free Sierra Leone* Partly Free Singapore Partly Free Slovakia* Free Slovenia* Free Solomon Islands Partly Free Somalia Not Free South Africa* Free South Korea* Free Spain* Free Sri Lanka Partly Free Sudan Not Free Suriname* Free Swaziland Not Free

PR 1 4 5 4 7 1 6 4 1 1 4 3 2 3 1 1 6 2 6 6 1 1 1 2 1 2 7 3 2 3 3 5 1 1 4 7 2 1 1 5 7 2 7

CL 1 4 4 4 7 1 5 5 1 2 3 3 3 3 1 1 5 2 5 5 1 1 1 2 1 2 6 3 2 3 3 4 1 1 3 7 2 2 1 4 7 2 5

Trend Arrow

FREEDOM IN THE WORLD 2011: THE AUTHORITARIAN CHALLENGE TO DEMOCRACY

Country Sweden* Switzerland* Syria Taiwan* Tajikistan Tanzania* Thailand Togo Tonga* Trinidad and Tobago* Tunisia Turkey* Turkmenistan Tuvalu* Uganda Ukraine* United Arab Emirates United Kingdom* United States* Uruguay* Uzbekistan Vanuatu* Venezuela Vietnam Yemen Zambia* Zimbabwe

Freedom Status Free Free Not Free Free Not Free Partly Free Partly Free Partly Free Partly Free Free Not Free Partly Free Not Free Free Partly Free Partly Free Not Free Free Free Free Not Free Free Partly Free Not Free Not Free Partly Free Not Free

PR 1 1 7 1 6 3 5 5 3 2 7 3 7 1 5 3 6 1 1 1 7 2 5 7 6 3 6

CL 1 1 6 2 5 3 4 4 3 2 5 3 7 1 4 3 5 1 1 1 7 2 5 5 5 4 6

Trend Arrow

PR and CL stand for political rights and civil liberties, respectively; 1 represents the most free and 7 the least free rating. up or down indicates an improvement or decline in ratings or status since the last survey. up or down indicates a trend of positive or negative changes that took place but were not sufficient to result in a change in political rights or civil liberties ratings. * indicates a countrys status as an electoral democracy. NOTE: The ratings reflect global events from January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010.

FREEDOM IN THE WORLD 2011: THE AUTHORITARIAN CHALLENGE TO DEMOCRACY

Table of Related Territories

Territory Hong Kong Puerto Rico Freedom Status Partly Free Free PR 5 1 CL 2 1 Trend Arrow

Table of Disputed Territories

Territory Abkhazia Gaza Strip Indian Kashmir Nagorno-Karabakh Northern Cyprus Pakistani Kashmir Somaliland South Ossetia Tibet Transnistria West Bank Western Sahara Freedom Status Partly Free Not Free Partly Free Not Free Free Not Free Partly Free Not Free Not Free Not Free Not Free Not Free PR 5 6 4 6 2 6 4 7 7 6 6 7 CL 5 6 5 5 2 5 5 6 7 6 5 6 Trend Arrow

FREEDOM IN THE WORLD 2011: THE AUTHORITARIAN CHALLENGE TO DEMOCRACY

Status and Ratings Changes, Trend Arrow Explanations

Status Changes
Improvements Guineas political rights rating improved from 7 to 5, its civil liberties rating from 6 to 5, and its status from Not Free to Partly Free due to a transition from military to civilian rule, credible presidential elections held in November 2010, and heightened observance of freedoms of expression and association. Kyrgyzstans political rights rating improved from 6 to 5 and its status from Not Free to Partly Free due to the adoption of a new constitution designed to dismantle the superpresidential system, and genuinely competitive, multiparty parliamentary elections held in October 2010. Declines Djiboutis political rights rating declined from 5 to 6 and its status from Partly Free to Not Free due to constitutional changes that will allow President Ismael Omar Guelleh to run for a third term in office. Ethiopias political rights rating declined from 5 to 6, its civil liberties rating from 5 to 6, and its status from Partly Free to Not Free due to national elections that were thoroughly tainted by intimidation of opposition supporters and candidates as well as a clampdown on independent media and nongovernmental organizations. Mexicos political rights rating declined from 2 to 3 and its status from Free to Partly Free due to the targeting of local officials by organized crime groups and the governments inability to protect citizens rights in the face of criminal violence. Nagorno-Karabakhs political rights rating declined from 5 to 6 and its status from Partly Free to Not Free due to the complete absence of opposition candidates in the May 2010 parliamentary elections. Ukraines civil liberties rating declined from 2 to 3 and its status from Free to Partly Free due to deteriorating media freedom, secret service pressure on universities to keep students from participating in protests, government hostility toward opposition gatherings and foreign nongovernmental organizations, and an increase in presidential influence over the judiciary.

Guinea

Kyrgyzstan

Djibouti

Ethiopia

Mexico NagornoKarabakh

Ukraine

Ratings Changes
Improvements Georgias civil liberties rating improved from 4 to 3 due to a reduction in the political instability the country confronted in the aftermath of the 2008 Russian invasion, as well as greater media diversity, including the launch of satellite broadcasts by the opposition television station Maestro. Kenyas civil liberties rating improved from 4 to 3 due to the reduced threat of ethnic and political violence demonstrated by a peaceful constitutional referendum held in August 2010. Moldovas civil liberties rating improved from 4 to 3 due to a more balanced and diverse media environment, a reduction in government hostility toward civil society groups, and a lack of interference with political gatherings ahead of the November 2010 parliamentary elections. Nigerias political rights rating improved from 5 to 4 due to increasing efforts at electoral reform, greater opposition leverage to demand transparent elections, and the emergence of a diverse slate of presidential candidates within the ruling Peoples Democratic Party.

Georgia

Kenya

Moldova

Nigeria

FREEDOM IN THE WORLD 2011: THE AUTHORITARIAN CHALLENGE TO DEMOCRACY

Philippines St. Vincent and the Grenadines Somaliland Tanzania Tonga

The Philippines political rights rating improved from 4 to 3 due to comparatively peaceful and credible presidential and legislative elections held in May 2010. St. Vincent and the Grenadines political rights rating improved from 2 to 1 due to the oppositions ability to challenge the ruling party and gain a significant number of seats in the December 2010 parliamentary elections. Somalilands political rights rating improved from 5 to 4 due to the successful conduct of a long-delayed presidential election and the peaceful transfer of power from the incumbent president to his leading rival. Tanzanias political rights rating improved from 4 to 3 due to the more open and competitive nature of national elections held in October 2010. Tongas political rights rating improved from 5 to 3 due to free and fair parliamentary elections held in November 2010, in which for the first time a majority of seats were filled through universal suffrage and won by prodemocracy candidates.

Burundi

Cte dIvoire

Indian Kashmir Kuwait

Latvia

Sri Lanka

Venezuela

Declines Burundis political rights rating declined from 4 to 5 due to arrests and intimidation by the government and ruling party during local, parliamentary, and presidential election campaigns. Cte dIvoires political rights rating declined from 6 to 7 and its civil liberties rating declined from 5 to 6 due to incumbent president Laurent Gbagbos refusal to step down or recognize the November 2010 electoral victory of opposition presidential candidate Alassane Ouattara, as well as political violence that stemmed from the postelection standoff, including state security forces targeting of ethnic minority groups that supported Ouattara. Indian Kashmirs civil liberties rating declined from 4 to 5 due to a surge in state violence against protesters opposed to Indian rule, including the enforcement of onerous curfews and use of live ammunition that caused over 100 civilian deaths in a three-month period. Kuwaits civil liberties rating declined from 4 to 5 due to restrictions on freedom of expression including the legal harassment of critical journalists, as well as a ban on public rallies in September 2010. Latvias civil liberties rating declined from 1 to 2 due to negative developments for press freedom, including threats to editorial independence following the sale of an influential newspaper under less-than-transparent circumstances. Sri Lankas political rights rating declined from 4 to 5 due to the misuse of state resources before and during the 2010 presidential and parliamentary elections, the arrest and prosecution of opposition presidential candidate Sarath Fonseka, and an increasing concentration of power in the executive branch and the presidents family. Venezuelas civil liberties rating declined from 4 to 5 due to a raft of legislation that granted President Hugo Chvez wide-ranging decree powers, tightened restrictions on civil society and the media, and attempted to vitiate opposition gains in September 2010 parliamentary elections.

Trend Arrows
Up Colombia received an upward trend arrow due to an improved equilibrium between the Colombia three branches of government and the end of surveillance operations that had targeted both civil society and government figures. Down Afghanistan received a downward trend arrow due to fraudulent parliamentary elections in Afghanistan September 2010.

FREEDOM IN THE WORLD 2011: THE AUTHORITARIAN CHALLENGE TO DEMOCRACY

Bahrain

Bahrain received a downward trend arrow due to an intensified crackdown on members of the Shiite Muslim majority in 2010, including assaults and arrests of dozens of activists and journalists, as well as reports of widespread torture of political prisoners. Cambodia received a downward trend arrow due to the governments consolidation of control over all aspects of the electoral process, its increased intimidation of civil society, and its apparent influence over the tribunal trying former members of the Khmer Rouge. Egypt received a downward trend arrow due to extensive restrictions on opposition candidates and reform advocates during the 2010 parliamentary elections, as well as a widespread crackdown on the media that resulted in increased self-censorship. Fiji received a downward trend arrow due to the replacement of additional magistrates with appointees who support the legitimacy and actions of the current military regime. France received a downward trend arrow due to a continued pattern of political and societal discrimination against ethnic minorities, manifested in policies including a government-sponsored debate about national identity, the passage of a ban on facial coverings in public places, and the systematic deportation of some 8,000 Roma. Guinea-Bissau received a downward trend arrow due to the militarys interference in the countrys politics and the civilian presidents increasingly apparent willingness to acquiesce to its demands. Haiti received a downward trend arrow due to evidence of massive fraud in November 2010 elections, as well as disregard for electoral laws and lack of transparency in the operation of the Provisional Electoral Council. Hungary received a downward trend arrow due to the governments efforts to consolidate control over the countrys independent institutions, including the creation of a new media council dominated by the ruling party that has the ability to impose large fines on broadcast, print, and online media outlets. Iran received a downward trend arrow due to the rising economic and political clout of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, extensive efforts by the government to restrict freedom of assembly, and the sentencing of the entire leadership of the Bahai community to lengthy prison terms. Madagascar received a downward trend arrow due to de facto president Andry Rajoelinas attempt to unilaterally impose an electoral process in violation of internationally mediated agreements with the main opposition parties. Rwanda received a downward trend arrow due to a severe crackdown on opposition politicians, journalists, and civil society activists in the run-up to a deeply flawed August 2010 presidential election. Swaziland received a downward trend arrow due to a major crackdown on oppositionist and prodemocracy groups before and during organized demonstrations in September 2010. Thailand received a downward trend arrow due to the use of violence in putting down street protests in April and May 2010, and the coercive use of lse-majest laws and emergency powers to limit freedom of expression and personal autonomy. Zambia received a downward trend arrow due to political violence against the opposition and civil society groups, as well as the judiciarys failure to demonstrate substantial independence in key decisions throughout the year.

Cambodia

Egypt Fiji

France

GuineaBissau Haiti

Hungary

Iran

Madagascar

Rwanda

Swaziland

Thailand

Zambia

FREEDOM IN THE WORLD 2011: THE AUTHORITARIAN CHALLENGE TO DEMOCRACY

Global Data
Country Breakdown by Status

Population Breakdown by Status

Global Trends in Freedom

Year Under Review 2010 2000 1990 1980 Free Countries Number Percentage 87 45 86 45 65 40 51 31 Partly Free Countries Number Percentage 60 31 58 30 50 30 51 31 Not Free Countries Number Percentage 47 24 48 25 50 30 60 37

FREEDOM IN THE WORLD 2011: THE AUTHORITARIAN CHALLENGE TO DEMOCRACY

Regional Data
Americas
Free Status by Country Status by Population
0% 20%

Partly Free

Not Free

69%

29%

3%

71%

28%

1%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Asia-Pacific
Free Status by Country Status by Population
0%

Partly Free

Not Free

41%

38%

21%

43%

16%

41%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Central and Eastern Europe/Former Soviet Union

Free Status by Country Status by Population
0%

Partly Free

Not Free

45%

31%

24%

28%

18%

54%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

FREEDOM IN THE WORLD 2011: THE AUTHORITARIAN CHALLENGE TO DEMOCRACY

Middle East and North Africa

Free Status by Country Partly Free Not Free

6%

17%

78%

Status by 2% 10% Population

0% 20% 40%

88%

60%

80%

100%

Sub-Saharan Africa
Free Status by Country Status by Population
0%

Partly Free

Not Free

19%

46%

35%

12%

51%

37%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Western Europe
Free Status by Country Partly Free

96%

4%

Status by Population
0% 20%

85%

15%

40%

60%

80%

100%

FREEDOM IN THE WORLD 2011: THE AUTHORITARIAN CHALLENGE TO DEMOCRACY

World Population in 2010 According to Combined Average of Political Rights and Civil Liberties Ratings
1,600 1,400

Population (in millions)

1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7

Free

Partly Free

Not Free

Combined Average of Political Rights and Civil Liberties Ratings

Key to Political Rights and Civil Liberties Ratings and Status

Political Rights (PR) Aggregate Score 3640 3035 2429 1823 1217 611 05 PR Rating 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Civil Liberties (CL) Aggregate Score 5360 4452 3543 2634 1725 816 07 CL Rating 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Combined Average of the PR and CL Ratings 1.0 to 2.5 3.0 to 5.0 5.5 to 7.0

Country Status Free Partly Free Not Free

For more information, please see methodology summary on page 30.

FREEDOM IN THE WORLD 2011: THE AUTHORITARIAN CHALLENGE TO DEMOCRACY

Historical Status Breakdown, 19722010

Year Under Review 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 19821983* 19811982** 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 Total Number of Countries 194 194 193 193 193 192 192 192 192 192 192 192 191 191 191 191 191 190 186 183 165 167 167 167 167 167 167 166 165 162 161 158 155 159 158 152 151 151 Free Countries Number 87 89 89 90 90 89 89 88 89 85 86 85 88 81 79 76 76 72 75 76 65 61 60 58 57 56 53 52 54 51 51 47 43 42 40 41 44 44 % 45 46 46 47 47 46 46 46 46 44 45 44 46 42 41 40 40 38 40 42 40 37 36 35 34 34 32 31 33 31 32 30 28 26 25 27 29 29 Partly Free Countries Number % 60 31 58 30 62 32 60 31 58 30 58 30 54 28 55 29 55 29 59 31 58 30 60 31 53 28 57 30 59 31 62 32 61 32 63 33 73 39 65 35 50 30 44 26 39 23 58 35 57 34 56 34 59 35 56 34 47 28 51 31 54 33 56 35 48 31 49 31 53 34 48 32 42 28 38 25 Not Free Countries Number % 47 24 47 24 42 22 43 22 45 23 45 24 49 26 49 25 48 25 48 25 48 25 47 25 50 26 53 28 53 28 53 28 54 28 55 29 38 21 42 23 50 30 62 37 68 41 51 30 53 32 55 33 55 33 58 35 64 39 60 37 56 35 55 35 64 41 68 43 65 41 63 41 65 43 69 46

* This survey covered events that occurred from 1981 through mid-1982. ** This survey covered events that occurred from mid-1982 through late 1983.

FREEDOM IN THE WORLD 2011: THE AUTHORITARIAN CHALLENGE TO DEMOCRACY

Electoral Democracies, 19892010

Year Under Review 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989
*

Total Number of Countries 194 194 193 193 193 192 192 192 192 192 192 192 191 191 191 191 191 190 186 183 165 167

Number of Electoral Democracies 115 116 119 121 123 123 119 117 121 121 120 120 117 117 118 115 113 108 99 89 76 69

Percentage of Electoral Democracies * 59 60 62 63 64 64 62 61 63 63 63 63 61 61 62 60 59 57 53 49 46 41

Percentages are rounded to the nearest whole number.

Electoral Democracy Designation

The numerical benchmark for a country to be listed as an electoral democracy is a subtotal score of 7 or better (out of a possible 12) for the political rights checklist subcategory A (the three questions on Electoral Process), and an overall political rights score of 20 or better (out of a possible 40). The presence of certain irregularities during the electoral process does not automatically disqualify a country from being designated an electoral democracy. A country cannot be an electoral democracy if significant authority for national decisions resides in the hands of an unelected power, whether a monarch or a foreign or international authority. A country is removed from the ranks of electoral democracies if its last national elections were not sufficiently free or fair, or if changes in law significantly eroded the publics opportunity for electoral choice. Freedom Houses term electoral democracy differs from liberal democracy in that the latter also implies the presence of a substantial array of civil liberties. In the survey, all Free countries qualify as both electoral and liberal democracies. By contrast, some Partly Free countries qualify as electoral, but not liberal, democracies. For more information on Freedom in the World scoring and methodology, see page 30.

FREEDOM IN THE WORLD 2011: THE AUTHORITARIAN CHALLENGE TO DEMOCRACY

Gains and Declines in Aggregate Scores, 20022010

The following graph and maps depict gains and declines in aggregate scores between the 2003 and 2011 surveys. Political rights and civil liberties ratings (1 to 7) are determined by the total number of points (up to 100) each country receives on 10 political rights questions and 15 civil liberties questions. This point total is referred to as the countrys aggregate score. Countries receive 0 to 4 points on each question, with 0 representing the smallest degree and 4 the greatest degree of freedom. Many changes in these scores are too small to trigger a change in the political rights or civil liberties ratings, but they can often illustrate long-term trends with greater subtlety. The features below clearly show the five consecutive years of global decline discussed in the introductory essay. For the full Freedom in the World methodology, please visit the Freedom House website (www.freedomhouse.org).