Home

About Us

Approach

Created by
Supported by
The Reynolds Foundation

Approach

The Tyranny Tracker uses a unique methodology

developed by HRF’s legal and policy research team

Our qualitative methodology takes a holistic approach that considers the broader context and evolving conditions within each country.

Classifications are determined by coding the situation on the ground across three pillars:

Pillar 1: Electoral Competition

Electoral competition refers to the extent to which the governing authority prevents opposition parties or candidates from competing on an equal footing. This pillar focuses on national-level elections, including those for the executive and legislative branches, and whether electoral conditions allow opposition parties or candidates an equal opportunity to participate in elections. Elections are viewed as a critical component of democratic governance, as they provide institutionalized channels for contestation that enable peaceful transitions of power and reflect the ability of voters to sanction the governing authority.

Pillar 2: Freedom of Dissent

Freedom of dissent refers to the extent to which the governing authority suppresses independent media, political leaders, civil society leaders, organizations, and members of the general public in their ability to dissent. This pillar focuses on political repression of freedoms of expression, press, assembly, and association. “Dissent” is understood broadly as any type of expression that is perceived to challenge the de facto authority. It can take the shape of an intentional pursuit, or be evoked by repressive circumstances. Dissenters can be journalists, activists, and protesters, as well as artists, academics, lawyers, religious leaders, or other people deviating from tyrannical norms or values. The freedom to dissent is viewed as crucial for ensuring diverse political participation.

Pillar 3: Institutional Accountability

Institutional accountability refers to the extent to which the governing authority repressively expands its institutional power. This pillar focuses on the mechanisms through which judicial independence, legislative oversight, and regulatory autonomy are dismantled. Fundamental to addressing governance issues between election cycles, these institutions enable horizontal accountability through their ability to penalize abuse of power by the governing authority. The elimination of answerability and enforcement as the core elements of intra- and inter-institutional accountability is central to this pillar, directing the focus towards the condition of their legal capacity, separation, and autonomy.

The Tyranny Tracker uses three regime types: Democracy, Hybrid Authoritarian regime, and Fully Authoritarian regime. The terminology of “hybrid authoritarian regime” and “fully authoritarian regime” was developed by HRF to capture our understanding of non-democratic regimes.

Fully Authoritarian Regime

Fully authoritarian regimes stifle meaningful electoral competition, basic political freedoms, and independent institutions. Electoral competition is absent or so manipulated that opposition parties and candidates have no realistic chance of winning elections. Freedom of dissent is overtly suppressed, with independent media, civil society, and critics facing systematic retaliation. Institutions are either completely subservient to the regime, functioning as tools to consolidate power and suppress opposition, or retain minimal independence while they are constrained and manipulated to weaken accountability. By eliminating effective opposition, stifling public debate, and dismantling checks on authority, these systems ensure the governing authority’s dominance through coercion, repression, and institutional control.

Hybrid Authoritarian Regime

Hybrid authoritarian political systems create uneven electoral competition, limit dissent, and constrain institutional autonomy. While they may hold elections and allow opposition parties to participate, the electoral process is heavily skewed in favor of the governing authority, making opposition victories unlikely. Freedom of dissent is restricted, with independent media, civil society, and critics facing retaliation such as legal harassment or direct physical coercion. Institutions may retain partial independence but are frequently manipulated or co-opted to serve the governing authority’s interests. Maintaining a façade of democratic practices, governing authorities in these systems undermine core principles of accountability, fairness, and genuine political opposition while consolidating power.

Democracy

Democratic political systems uphold core principles of respect for fundamental freedoms and government accountability through free and fair elections, freedom to dissent, and autonomous institutions. Democratic elections largely ensure competitive participation and accountability. Freedom to dissent is guaranteed through fundamental freedoms of expression, association, and access to diverse information, enabling open criticism and challenges to those in power without fear of retaliation. Democratic institutional frameworks check the power of a governing authority, enabling horizontal accountability and promoting transparency, the rule of law, and respect for human rights.

The Tracker’s Regional Research Fellows apply a standardized list of 45 indicators, as set out below, to each country they analyze. The indicators reflect circumstances and events that HRF’s Tyranny Tracker team has identified as being relevant indicators of authoritarianism based on generally accepted political science parameters and HRF’s expertise on how these regimes operate in practice.

Research Fellows are asked to find prominent examples of these indicators and argue why, based on their findings, these indicators are met for the country they are analyzing. Fellows use a variety of resources to conduct this analysis, including HRF’s own in-house research and extensive human rights network, as well as information published by globally recognized or well-regarded local or international news sources and NGOs.

None of these indicators are necessarily in and of themselves enough to find that a regime is hybrid authoritarian or fully authoritarian. Fellows are asked to use the complete list of indicators to evaluate whether the thresholds for a democracy, hybrid authoritarian regime, or fully authoritarian regime are met.

Tyranny Tracker Indicators:

Electoral Competition

1. Are national-level elections, such as parliamentary or presidential elections, absent in the country/territory?

2. Has the governing authority unfairly barred a real, mainstream opposition party or candidate from competing in elections, including indirectly through judicial prosecution that leads to disqualification?

2.1. Has a non-state actor, with ties to the governing authority, contributed to the unfair barring of a real, mainstream opposition party or candidate from competing in elections, by exerting influence in favor of the governing authority?

3. Has the governing authority unfairly and significantly hindered a real, mainstream opposition party or candidate’s electoral campaign?

3.1. Has a non-state actor, with ties to the governing authority, contributed to the hindrance of a real, mainstream opposition party or candidate’s electoral campaign, including through violence or disinformation?

4. Has the governing authority engaged in significant electoral law manipulation, voting irregularities or electoral fraud?

4.1. Has a non-state actor, with ties to the governing authority, contributed to significant voting irregularities or electoral fraud?

5. Did the governing authority enjoy significant and unfair campaign advantages that seriously undermined the real, mainstream opposition’s ability to compete?

5.1. Has a non-state actor, with ties to the governing authority, contributed to the governing authority enjoying significant and unfair campaign advantages that seriously undermined the real, mainstream opposition’s ability to compete, including by engaging in slander or misinformation?

6. Has the governing authority seriously undermined independent electoral oversight?

6.1. Has a non-state actor, with ties to the governing authority, contributed to seriously undermining independent electoral oversight, including by blocking or threatening election monitors?

7. Did the real, mainstream opposition threaten to or ultimately boycott the elections, as a way of protesting the lack of a free and fair electoral competition?

8. Did the governing authority skew the electoral playing field so much so that it generally wins elections with a very high vote share, typically more than 70% of the vote?

9. Was a democratically-elected governing authority who is governing democratically (i.e. has not yet eroded into a hybrid or a fully authoritarian governing authority), overthrown through a coup d’état (whether military-led or civilian-led)?

10. Has the military effectively negated electoral results and taken over the government for itself?

11. Has the governing authority systematically disenfranchised specific groups of voters?

Freedom of Dissent

1. Has the governing authority unfairly shut down or taken measures that led to the shut down of a major independent, dissenting organization?

1.1. Has a non-state actor, with ties to the governing authority, contributed to the unfair shutdown of a major independent, dissenting organization, including by directly or indirectly pressuring a dissenting organization into shutting down?

2. Has the governing authority heavily manipulated media coverage in its favor?

2.1. Has a non-state actor, with ties to the governing authority, contributed to heavily  manipulating media coverage in favor of the governing authority?

3. Has the governing authority seriously intimidated independent, dissenting media, political leaders, civil society leaders, organizations, or members of the general public, or otherwise seriously and unfairly obstructed their work?

3.1. Has a non-state actor, with ties to the governing authority, contributed to seriously intimidating independent, dissenting media, political leaders, civil society leaders, organizations, or members of the general public, or otherwise seriously and unfairly obstructed their work?

4. Has the governing authority seriously and unfairly repressed protests or gatherings?

4.1. Has a non-state actor, with ties to the governing authority, contributed to seriously and unfairly repressing protests, including through organized disruptions, intimidation, or violence?

5. Has the governing authority seriously and unfairly censored dissenting speech?

6. Has the governing authority killed or forcibly disappeared dissidents, or attempted to commit these crimes?

6.1. Has a non-state actor, with ties to the governing authority, contributed to the killing or enforced disappearance of dissidents, or attempted to commit these crimes?

7. Has the governing authority engaged in or enabled transnational repression against dissidents abroad, including through surveillance or other forms of intimidation?

7.1. Has a non-state actor, with ties to the governing authority, contributed to the governing authority’s transnational repression of dissidents abroad?

8. Has the governing authority systematically and disproportionally undermined marginalized groups’ ability to dissent?

Institutional Accountability

1. Have courts frequently and unfairly failed to check, or enabled the governing authority’s attempts to significantly undermine electoral competition or make the electoral process significantly skewed in its favor?

1.1. Has a non-state actor, with ties to the governing authority, contributed to the courts’ failure to check the governing authority’s attempts to significantly undermine electoral competition or make the electoral process significantly skewed in its favor?


2. Have courts frequently and unfairly failed to check, or enabled the governing authority’s attempts to repress criticism or retaliate against those who express open opposition to its most prominent, widely publicized policies?

3. Have members of the judicial branch, who act contrary to governing authority interests, or who are perceived as a threat to the governing authority, frequently faced governing authority retaliation?

3.1. Has a non-state actor, with ties to the governing authority, contributed to the governing authority’s retaliation against members of the judicial branch who rule contrary to governing authority interests or who are perceived as a threat to the governing authority?

4. Has the governing authority seriously undermined institutional independence, to the point where cases or issues challenging the governing authority are no longer brought or are frequently dismissed?

5. Has the governing authority directed certain cases, such as politically-sensitive cases, to separate, governing authority-controlled courts, such as governing authority-controlled military courts or a governing authority-controlled constitutional tribunal?

6. Have judicial, legislative, or executive institutions frequently and unfairly failed to hold governing authority officials accountable or, conversely, are they pressured or incentivized by the governing authority to hold governing authority officials accountable to uphold a certain image of governing authority legitimacy?

7. Has the governing authority subjected judicial institutions to reforms that abolish or seriously weaken their independence or operational effectiveness?

8. Has the governing authority subjected legislative institutions to reforms that abolish or seriously weaken their independence or operational effectiveness?

9. Has the governing authority subjected executive institutions to reforms that abolish or seriously weaken their independence or operational effectiveness?

10. Has the governing authority subjected independent institutions to reforms that abolish or seriously weaken their independence or operational effectiveness?

Based on their research using the list of indicators, the Tyranny Tracker’s Regional Research Fellows assess the situation with regard to the three pillars in the country they are analyzing and determine the applicable threshold. For each pillar, there are three thresholds that reflect the range of the pillar being largely present, the pillar being weakened, and the pillar being absent.

These thresholds determine the classification of a country as a democracy, hybrid authoritarian regime, or fully authoritarian regime. The Research Fellows’ analysis is discussed and reviewed by HRF’s Regional Heads, Methodology and Research Experts, Director of Policy and Research, Chief Legal and Policy Officer, and Chief Advocacy Officer, and, in close-call cases, by external experts within HRF’s community.

Electoral Competition Thresholds

  • “Largely present” when national elections are largely free and fair
  • “Weak” when electoral competition is significantly skewed in favor of the regime, to the point where the real, mainstream political opposition has an unlikely but realistic chance to win
  • “Absent” when national elections are absent, rendering moot any assessment of electoral competition, or are a sham, to the point where the real, mainstream political opposition does not have a realistic chance to meaningfully compete and possibly win

Freedom of Dissent Thresholds

  • “Largely present” when independent media, political leaders, civil society leaders, organizations, and regular people are largely free to openly criticize or challenge the government
  • “Weak” when independent media, political leaders, civil society leaders, organizations, and/or regular people are seriously and unfairly hindered in their ability to openly criticize or challenge the regime
  • “Absent” when independent media, political leaders, civil society leaders, organizations, and regular people face overt and systematic retaliation if they openly criticize or challenge the regime

Institutional Accountability Thresholds

  • “Largely present” when institutions largely serve as a check on the government, especially in its ability to:
    • repress criticism or retaliate against those who express open opposition to its most prominent, widely-publicized policies, and/or
    • significantly undermine electoral competition or make the electoral process significantly skewed in its favor
  • “Weak” when institutions frequently and unfairly side with the regime when reviewing challenges to regime policies or interests, especially its policies to:
    • repress criticism or retaliate against those who express open opposition to its most prominent, widely publicized policies, and/or
    • significantly undermine electoral competition or make the electoral process significantly skewed in its favor
  • “Absent” when institutions fail to serve as a check on the regime, in a way that allows it to:
    • repress criticism or retaliate against those who express open opposition to its most prominent, widely publicized policies, and/or
    • significantly undermine electoral competition or make the electoral process significantly skewed in its favor

Using our thresholds, Research Fellows classify a country into our three regime types as follows:

  • Fully Authoritarian
    • when elections are weak but dissent and accountability are absent, illustrating a regime that maintains limited contestation under tightly controlled conditions.
    • when electoral competition is absent and the other two pillars are weak, showing a regime that preserves an authoritarian core with minimal openness.
    • when dissent is weak but both electoral competition and institutional accountability are absent, indicating a regime that maintains comprehensive control over politics and institutions, with limited space for criticism.
    • when electoral competition and dissent are absent, and institutional accountability is weak, showing a near-total consolidation of power with only nominal checks.
    • when all three pillars are absent, signaling total suppression of political competition, dissent, and institutional oversight.
  • Hybrid Authoritarian
    • when elections are largely present, but both dissent and accountability are weak, indicating a façade of democracy overshadowed by growing authoritarian control.
    • when all three pillars are weak, creating a system with minimal democratic features and no effective checks on power.
    • when both electoral competition and freedom of dissent are weak, and institutional accountability is absent, revealing a regime that maintains limited openness with significant authoritarian control that lacks institutional restraint.
    • when electoral competition and institutional accountability are weak, and freedom of dissent is absent, reflecting a system with limited pluralism and heavy repression of dissent.
  • Democratic
    • when electoral competition, freedom of dissent, and institutional accountability are all largely present, indicating a robust democratic system with strong protections and checks in place.
    • when electoral competition and freedom of dissent are largely present, while institutional accountability is weak, suggesting a functioning democracy with some institutional shortcomings.
    • when electoral competition and institutional accountability are largely present, but freedom of dissent is weak, showing early signs of erosion while retaining a democratic foundation.

Non-State Actors

Non-state actors are individuals, groups, or organizations that participate in political, economic, and social activities without formally representing the domestic government under assessment. The defining criterion of a non-state actor is the absence of direct state affiliation, authority, or mandate with the government being coded. This includes NGOs, multinational corporations, international organizations, terrorist groups, religious groups, ethnic groups, and civil society organizations. Depending on the context, autocratizing non-state actors can engage in the worsening of democratic standards through cooperation with state actors.

Autocratizing cooperation consists of non-state actor activities that aid state actors’ autocratization mechanisms. With ties to the governing authority, non-state actors can accelerate the autocratization processes by intimidating opposition candidates; hindering campaign efforts of the opposition; orchestrating voting irregularities; pressuring dissenting organizations; repressing protests; engaging in transnational repression; or intimidating or retaliating against judges.

The inclusion of non-state actors in HRF’s reports follows a sub-indicator framework that ties the actions of non-state actors to the repressive strategies of state actors. In this way, the Tyranny Tracker acknowledges the use of non-state entities as repressive extensions of the state that contribute to skewing elections, suppressing dissent, and dismantling institutional accountability.

Territories

Territories are included in HRF’s reports through the engagement in a deductive analysis with a categorical logic structure. They appear as subsections in HRF’s full reports, describing the democratic standards of citizens under the rule of a non-state actor that has de facto authority.

Territories are viewed (and named) based on the actors that hold the de facto authority within. With this, HRF ensures that the data provided in its reports accurately depicts citizens’ circumstances, as the de facto authority directly affects the actual conditions of citizens of a territory. What type of territory the country will be classified as depends on the type of authority that one of the actor sides (state and non-state) has.

What is de facto authority?

  • Control over territory
    • The actor exercises effective control over a specific geographic area, managing its security, resources, and administrative functions.
  • Governing institutions
    • The actor sets up institutions for policing, tax collection, public services, as well as a judicial system.
  • Public order and enforcement of laws
    • The actor enforces laws, rules, or customs within the controlled territory.
  • Provision of public services
    • The actor provides basic services to the population, such as education, healthcare or infrastructure maintenance.

Pillars / Regime Types

Classifications are determined by coding the situation on the ground across three pillars:

Pillar 1: Electoral Competition

Electoral competition refers to the extent to which the governing authority prevents opposition parties or candidates from competing on an equal footing. This pillar focuses on national-level elections, including those for the executive and legislative branches, and whether electoral conditions allow opposition parties or candidates an equal opportunity to participate in elections. Elections are viewed as a critical component of democratic governance, as they provide institutionalized channels for contestation that enable peaceful transitions of power and reflect the ability of voters to sanction the governing authority.

Pillar 2: Freedom of Dissent

Freedom of dissent refers to the extent to which the governing authority suppresses independent media, political leaders, civil society leaders, organizations, and members of the general public in their ability to dissent. This pillar focuses on political repression of freedoms of expression, press, assembly, and association. “Dissent” is understood broadly as any type of expression that is perceived to challenge the de facto authority. It can take the shape of an intentional pursuit, or be evoked by repressive circumstances. Dissenters can be journalists, activists, and protesters, as well as artists, academics, lawyers, religious leaders, or other people deviating from tyrannical norms or values. The freedom to dissent is viewed as crucial for ensuring diverse political participation.

Pillar 3: Institutional Accountability

Institutional accountability refers to the extent to which the governing authority repressively expands its institutional power. This pillar focuses on the mechanisms through which judicial independence, legislative oversight, and regulatory autonomy are dismantled. Fundamental to addressing governance issues between election cycles, these institutions enable horizontal accountability through their ability to penalize abuse of power by the governing authority. The elimination of answerability and enforcement as the core elements of intra- and inter-institutional accountability is central to this pillar, directing the focus towards the condition of their legal capacity, separation, and autonomy.

The Tyranny Tracker uses three regime types: Democracy, Hybrid Authoritarian regime, and Fully Authoritarian regime. The terminology of “hybrid authoritarian regime” and “fully authoritarian regime” was developed by HRF to capture our understanding of non-democratic regimes.

Fully Authoritarian Regime

Fully authoritarian regimes stifle meaningful electoral competition, basic political freedoms, and independent institutions. Electoral competition is absent or so manipulated that opposition parties and candidates have no realistic chance of winning elections. Freedom of dissent is overtly suppressed, with independent media, civil society, and critics facing systematic retaliation. Institutions are either completely subservient to the regime, functioning as tools to consolidate power and suppress opposition, or retain minimal independence while they are constrained and manipulated to weaken accountability. By eliminating effective opposition, stifling public debate, and dismantling checks on authority, these systems ensure the governing authority’s dominance through coercion, repression, and institutional control.

Hybrid Authoritarian Regime

Hybrid authoritarian political systems create uneven electoral competition, limit dissent, and constrain institutional autonomy. While they may hold elections and allow opposition parties to participate, the electoral process is heavily skewed in favor of the governing authority, making opposition victories unlikely. Freedom of dissent is restricted, with independent media, civil society, and critics facing retaliation such as legal harassment or direct physical coercion. Institutions may retain partial independence but are frequently manipulated or co-opted to serve the governing authority’s interests. Maintaining a façade of democratic practices, governing authorities in these systems undermine core principles of accountability, fairness, and genuine political opposition while consolidating power.

Democracy

Democratic political systems uphold core principles of respect for fundamental freedoms and government accountability through free and fair elections, freedom to dissent, and autonomous institutions. Democratic elections largely ensure competitive participation and accountability. Freedom to dissent is guaranteed through fundamental freedoms of expression, association, and access to diverse information, enabling open criticism and challenges to those in power without fear of retaliation. Democratic institutional frameworks check the power of a governing authority, enabling horizontal accountability and promoting transparency, the rule of law, and respect for human rights.

Our List of Indicators

The Tracker’s Regional Research Fellows apply a standardized list of 45 indicators, as set out below, to each country they analyze. The indicators reflect circumstances and events that HRF’s Tyranny Tracker team has identified as being relevant indicators of authoritarianism based on generally accepted political science parameters and HRF’s expertise on how these regimes operate in practice.

Research Fellows are asked to find prominent examples of these indicators and argue why, based on their findings, these indicators are met for the country they are analyzing. Fellows use a variety of resources to conduct this analysis, including HRF’s own in-house research and extensive human rights network, as well as information published by globally recognized or well-regarded local or international news sources and NGOs.

None of these indicators are necessarily in and of themselves enough to find that a regime is hybrid authoritarian or fully authoritarian. Fellows are asked to use the complete list of indicators to evaluate whether the thresholds for a democracy, hybrid authoritarian regime, or fully authoritarian regime are met.

Tyranny Tracker Indicators:

Electoral Competition

1. Are national-level elections, such as parliamentary or presidential elections, absent in the country/territory?

2. Has the governing authority unfairly barred a real, mainstream opposition party or candidate from competing in elections, including indirectly through judicial prosecution that leads to disqualification?

2.1. Has a non-state actor, with ties to the governing authority, contributed to the unfair barring of a real, mainstream opposition party or candidate from competing in elections, by exerting influence in favor of the governing authority?

3. Has the governing authority unfairly and significantly hindered a real, mainstream opposition party or candidate’s electoral campaign?

3.1. Has a non-state actor, with ties to the governing authority, contributed to the hindrance of a real, mainstream opposition party or candidate’s electoral campaign, including through violence or disinformation?

4. Has the governing authority engaged in significant electoral law manipulation, voting irregularities or electoral fraud?

4.1. Has a non-state actor, with ties to the governing authority, contributed to significant voting irregularities or electoral fraud?

5. Did the governing authority enjoy significant and unfair campaign advantages that seriously undermined the real, mainstream opposition’s ability to compete?

5.1. Has a non-state actor, with ties to the governing authority, contributed to the governing authority enjoying significant and unfair campaign advantages that seriously undermined the real, mainstream opposition’s ability to compete, including by engaging in slander or misinformation?

6. Has the governing authority seriously undermined independent electoral oversight?

6.1. Has a non-state actor, with ties to the governing authority, contributed to seriously undermining independent electoral oversight, including by blocking or threatening election monitors?

7. Did the real, mainstream opposition threaten to or ultimately boycott the elections, as a way of protesting the lack of a free and fair electoral competition?

8. Did the governing authority skew the electoral playing field so much so that it generally wins elections with a very high vote share, typically more than 70% of the vote?

9. Was a democratically-elected governing authority who is governing democratically (i.e. has not yet eroded into a hybrid or a fully authoritarian governing authority), overthrown through a coup d’état (whether military-led or civilian-led)?

10. Has the military effectively negated electoral results and taken over the government for itself?

11. Has the governing authority systematically disenfranchised specific groups of voters?

Freedom of Dissent

1. Has the governing authority unfairly shut down or taken measures that led to the shut down of a major independent, dissenting organization?

1.1. Has a non-state actor, with ties to the governing authority, contributed to the unfair shutdown of a major independent, dissenting organization, including by directly or indirectly pressuring a dissenting organization into shutting down?

2. Has the governing authority heavily manipulated media coverage in its favor?

2.1. Has a non-state actor, with ties to the governing authority, contributed to heavily  manipulating media coverage in favor of the governing authority?

3. Has the governing authority seriously intimidated independent, dissenting media, political leaders, civil society leaders, organizations, or members of the general public, or otherwise seriously and unfairly obstructed their work?

3.1. Has a non-state actor, with ties to the governing authority, contributed to seriously intimidating independent, dissenting media, political leaders, civil society leaders, organizations, or members of the general public, or otherwise seriously and unfairly obstructed their work?

4. Has the governing authority seriously and unfairly repressed protests or gatherings?

4.1. Has a non-state actor, with ties to the governing authority, contributed to seriously and unfairly repressing protests, including through organized disruptions, intimidation, or violence?

5. Has the governing authority seriously and unfairly censored dissenting speech?

6. Has the governing authority killed or forcibly disappeared dissidents, or attempted to commit these crimes?

6.1. Has a non-state actor, with ties to the governing authority, contributed to the killing or enforced disappearance of dissidents, or attempted to commit these crimes?

7. Has the governing authority engaged in or enabled transnational repression against dissidents abroad, including through surveillance or other forms of intimidation?

7.1. Has a non-state actor, with ties to the governing authority, contributed to the governing authority’s transnational repression of dissidents abroad?

8. Has the governing authority systematically and disproportionally undermined marginalized groups’ ability to dissent?

Institutional Accountability

1. Have courts frequently and unfairly failed to check, or enabled the governing authority’s attempts to significantly undermine electoral competition or make the electoral process significantly skewed in its favor?

1.1. Has a non-state actor, with ties to the governing authority, contributed to the courts’ failure to check the governing authority’s attempts to significantly undermine electoral competition or make the electoral process significantly skewed in its favor?


2. Have courts frequently and unfairly failed to check, or enabled the governing authority’s attempts to repress criticism or retaliate against those who express open opposition to its most prominent, widely publicized policies?

3. Have members of the judicial branch, who act contrary to governing authority interests, or who are perceived as a threat to the governing authority, frequently faced governing authority retaliation?

3.1. Has a non-state actor, with ties to the governing authority, contributed to the governing authority’s retaliation against members of the judicial branch who rule contrary to governing authority interests or who are perceived as a threat to the governing authority?

4. Has the governing authority seriously undermined institutional independence, to the point where cases or issues challenging the governing authority are no longer brought or are frequently dismissed?

5. Has the governing authority directed certain cases, such as politically-sensitive cases, to separate, governing authority-controlled courts, such as governing authority-controlled military courts or a governing authority-controlled constitutional tribunal?

6. Have judicial, legislative, or executive institutions frequently and unfairly failed to hold governing authority officials accountable or, conversely, are they pressured or incentivized by the governing authority to hold governing authority officials accountable to uphold a certain image of governing authority legitimacy?

7. Has the governing authority subjected judicial institutions to reforms that abolish or seriously weaken their independence or operational effectiveness?

8. Has the governing authority subjected legislative institutions to reforms that abolish or seriously weaken their independence or operational effectiveness?

9. Has the governing authority subjected executive institutions to reforms that abolish or seriously weaken their independence or operational effectiveness?

10. Has the governing authority subjected independent institutions to reforms that abolish or seriously weaken their independence or operational effectiveness?

Our Qualitative Thresholds

Based on their research using the list of indicators, the Tyranny Tracker’s Regional Research Fellows assess the situation with regard to the three pillars in the country they are analyzing and determine the applicable threshold. For each pillar, there are three thresholds that reflect the range of the pillar being largely present, the pillar being weakened, and the pillar being absent.

These thresholds determine the classification of a country as a democracy, hybrid authoritarian regime, or fully authoritarian regime. The Research Fellows’ analysis is discussed and reviewed by HRF’s Regional Heads, Methodology and Research Experts, Director of Policy and Research, Chief Legal and Policy Officer, and Chief Advocacy Officer, and, in close-call cases, by external experts within HRF’s community.

Electoral Competition Thresholds

  • “Largely present” when national elections are largely free and fair
  • “Weak” when electoral competition is significantly skewed in favor of the regime, to the point where the real, mainstream political opposition has an unlikely but realistic chance to win
  • “Absent” when national elections are absent, rendering moot any assessment of electoral competition, or are a sham, to the point where the real, mainstream political opposition does not have a realistic chance to meaningfully compete and possibly win

Freedom of Dissent Thresholds

  • “Largely present” when independent media, political leaders, civil society leaders, organizations, and regular people are largely free to openly criticize or challenge the government
  • “Weak” when independent media, political leaders, civil society leaders, organizations, and/or regular people are seriously and unfairly hindered in their ability to openly criticize or challenge the regime
  • “Absent” when independent media, political leaders, civil society leaders, organizations, and regular people face overt and systematic retaliation if they openly criticize or challenge the regime

Institutional Accountability

  • “Largely present” when institutions largely serve as a check on the government, especially in their ability to:
    • repress criticism or retaliate against those who express open opposition to its most prominent, widely-publicized policies, and/or
    • significantly undermine electoral competition or make the electoral process significantly skewed in its favor
  • “Weak” when institutions frequently and unfairly side with the regime when reviewing challenges to regime policies or interests, especially its policies to:
    • repress criticism or retaliate against those who express open opposition to its most prominent, widely publicized policies, and/or
    • significantly undermine electoral competition or make the electoral process significantly skewed in its favor
  • “Absent” when institutions fail to serve as a check on the regime, in a way that allows it to:
    • repress criticism or retaliate against those who express open opposition to its most prominent, widely publicized policies, and/or
    • significantly undermine electoral competition or make the electoral process significantly skewed in its favor

Using our thresholds, Research Fellows classify a country into our three regime types as follows:

  • Fully Authoritarian
    • when elections are weak but dissent and accountability are absent, illustrating a regime that maintains limited contestation under tightly controlled conditions.
    • when electoral competition is absent and the other two pillars are weak, showing a regime that preserves an authoritarian core with minimal openness.
    • when dissent is weak but both electoral competition and institutional accountability are absent, indicating a regime that maintains comprehensive control over politics and institutions, with limited space for criticism.
    • when electoral competition and dissent are absent, and institutional accountability is weak, showing a near-total consolidation of power with only nominal checks.
    • when all three pillars are absent, signaling total suppression of political competition, dissent, and institutional oversight.
  • Hybrid Authoritarian
    • when elections are largely present, but both dissent and accountability are weak, indicating a façade of democracy overshadowed by growing authoritarian control.
    • when all three pillars are weak, creating a system with minimal democratic features and no effective checks on power.
    • when both electoral competition and freedom of dissent are weak, and institutional accountability is absent, revealing a regime that maintains limited openness with significant authoritarian control that lacks institutional restraint.
    • when electoral competition and institutional accountability are weak, and freedom of dissent is absent, reflecting a system with limited pluralism and heavy repression of dissent.
  • Democratic
    • when electoral competition, freedom of dissent, and institutional accountability are all largely present, indicating a robust democratic system with strong protections and checks in place.
    • when electoral competition and freedom of dissent are largely present, while institutional accountability is weak, suggesting a functioning democracy with some institutional shortcomings.
    • when electoral competition and institutional accountability are largely present, but freedom of dissent is weak, showing early signs of erosion while retaining a democratic foundation.

Scope

Non-State Actors

Non-state actors are individuals, groups, or organizations that participate in political, economic, and social activities without formally representing the domestic government under assessment. The defining criterion of a non-state actor is the absence of direct state affiliation, authority, or mandate with the government being coded. This includes NGOs, multinational corporations, international organizations, terrorist groups, religious groups, ethnic groups, and civil society organizations. Depending on the context, autocratizing non-state actors can engage in the worsening of democratic standards through cooperation with state actors.

Autocratizing cooperation consists of non-state actor activities that aid state actors’ autocratization mechanisms. With ties to the governing authority, non-state actors can accelerate the autocratization processes by intimidating opposition candidates; hindering campaign efforts of the opposition; orchestrating voting irregularities; pressuring dissenting organizations; repressing protests; engaging in transnational repression; or intimidating or retaliating against judges.

The inclusion of non-state actors in HRF’s reports follows a sub-indicator framework that ties the actions of non-state actors to the repressive strategies of state actors. In this way, the Tyranny Tracker acknowledges the use of non-state entities as repressive extensions of the state that contribute to skewing elections, suppressing dissent, and dismantling institutional accountability.

Territories

Territories are included in HRF’s reports through the engagement in a deductive analysis with a categorical logic structure. They appear as subsections in HRF’s full reports, describing the democratic standards of citizens under the rule of a non-state actor that has de facto authority.

Territories are viewed (and named) based on the actors that hold the de facto authority within. With this, HRF ensures that the data provided in its reports accurately depicts citizens’ circumstances, as the de facto authority directly affects the actual conditions of citizens of a territory. What type of territory the country will be classified as depends on the type of authority that one of the actor sides (state and non-state) has.

What is de facto authority?

  • Control over territory
    • The actor exercises effective control over a specific geographic area, managing its security, resources, and administrative functions.
  • Governing institutions
    • The actor sets up institutions for policing, tax collection, public services, as well as a judicial system.
  • Public order and enforcement of laws
    • The actor enforces laws, rules, or customs within the controlled territory.
  • Provision of public services
    • The actor provides basic services to the population, such as education, healthcare or infrastructure maintenance.