The slide from democracy to authoritarianism is often subtle, gradual, and driven from within. The newly launched Tyranny Tracker is a sophisticated tool for classifying political regimes across the spectrum.
By Javier El-Hage, Malaak Jamal, and Alvaro Piaggio
February 2026
Democracy around the world is increasingly undermined not by sudden coups or overt constitutional breakdowns, but by incremental, executive-led measures that hollow out democratic institutions while preserving the veneer of democracy. Courts are packed or pressured, opposition voices are legally harassed rather than outright banned, and electoral competition is tilted just enough to make alternation in power unlikely. Existing democracy indexes, which often aggregate diverse indicators into quantitative composite scores, can struggle to capture the moment when democracies breakdown, sliding into hybrid or fully authoritarian systems. To that end, the Human Rights Foundation (HRF) is launching the Tyranny Tracker.
Regime classification in an era of democratic backsliding requires close attention to executive-led erosion and, above all, to the judiciary’s capacity to function as an effective check on abuses of power. By moving away from aggregated numerical scores and toward qualitative thresholds, the Tyranny Tracker seeks to distinguish more clearly between democracies under pressure and those that have devolved into hybrid authoritarian regimes.
Developed by constitutional-law experts experienced in international human-rights advocacy on behalf of dissidents from authoritarian regimes, as well as policy leads with expertise in political science and international relations, the Tyranny Tracker was designed to assess whether a country meets the qualitative thresholds for authoritarianism or democracy, allowing researchers to take a holistic view of political dynamics.
Tyranny Tracker classifications are entirely qualitative and ultimately determined by experienced regional policy heads who have a background both in researching and working with dissidents in authoritarian regimes in their regions. Given that HRF is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting and protecting human rights in countries ruled by authoritarian regimes, HRF’s regional policy heads are tasked with ensuring that our advocacy work addresses authoritarian regimes — and only authoritarian regimes — across the political spectrum.
HRF also consults with experts specializing in authoritarian systems and democratization who come predominantly from academia but also from among other trusted members of HRF’s community, including dissidents operating on the ground or from exile. As part of this process, HRF ensures that these scholars and consultants have expertise addressing authoritarian regimes across the political spectrum.
The Tyranny Tracker’s methodology emphasizes systematic qualitative evaluation rather than numerical scoring. The Tracker uses a standardized list of 45 indicators organized under three pillars to guide in-depth, context-specific analysis: electoral competition, freedom of dissent, and institutional accountability. Researchers — typically HRF Regional Research Fellows — review primary and secondary source material for evidence of regime behavior that meets the qualitative threshold for authoritarianism or democratic erosion. They identify and document concrete instances of government actions that align with defined indicators, capturing the nature, context, and consequences of those actions in detailed narrative assessments rather than assigning numeric scores.
This coding process involves systematically comparing observed developments against the qualitative criteria embedded in each indicator. Rather than aggregating discrete data points into a composite score or index value, coders interpret whether and how a given action — such as shutting down independent media outlets that serve large audiences, restricting critical expression, disqualifying a popular opposition leader, or manipulating electoral administration — meets the threshold of an indicator.
Because the focus is on holistic interpretation of evidence within political, legal, and institutional contexts, the Tracker avoids reducing complex democratic dynamics to simple numbers in the way that quantitative indexes do. Those indexes typically convert coded information into numerical scores and classifications that can be ranked or compared across countries, whereas the Tyranny Tracker’s qualitative approach centers on rich narrative coding and regime classification based on comprehensive evidence and expert judgment.
As far as its pillars, electoral competition refers to the degree to which opposition parties and candidates can compete on an equal footing in national-level elections, and is evaluated through 17 indicators. Freedom of dissent captures the extent to which independent media, civil society, political figures, and members of the broader public are able to express opposition without fear of retaliation, and is assessed through 16 indicators. Institutional accountability focuses on mechanisms of judicial, legislative, and regulatory oversight, with an emphasis on the judicial branch’s ability to be an effective check on government abuse, and is analyzed through 13 indicators.
HRF places great emphasis on the judiciary because our experience working in countries ruled by authoritarian regimes has shown that democratic erosion and democratic backsliding often start with measures taken against the judiciary and consolidate when judges lose their ability to be an effective check on government abuse. Independent judiciaries serve as the backbone of all democratic processes; hence, the emphasis our analysis places on the extent to which the judiciary serves as a check on government abuse. In other words, it is the judiciary — not the elected legislature — that will have the final say on whether or not elections are conducted in a free and fair manner and whether or not the people have the ability to express dissent widely and openly.
Together, these three pillars and the 45 indicators are used to classify political regimes as democratic, hybrid authoritarian, or fully authoritarian. Democratic political systems largely 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 facilitate the peaceful transfer of power between opposing political factions. Freedom to dissent is guaranteed through the effective protection of the fundamental freedoms of expression, association, and access to diverse information, enabling open criticism and challenges to those in power largely without fear of retaliation. Democratic institutional frameworks, and especially an independent judiciary, check the power of a governing authority, enabling horizontal accountability and promoting transparency, the rule of law, and a significant degree of respect for human rights.
Hybrid authoritarian regimes create uneven electoral competition, limit dissent, and constrain institutional autonomy. While such regimes 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 in the form of legal harassment or direct physical coercion. Institutions may retain the appearance of independence but are frequently manipulated or coopted, with the judiciary ruling consistently in favor of the government in virtually all constitutionally-important cases. While maintaining a façade of democratic practices, governing authorities in these systems undermine core principles of accountability, fairness, and genuine political opposition while consolidating power.
Fully authoritarian regimes stifle meaningful electoral competition, basic political freedoms, and independent institutions. Electoral competition is absent or so manipulated that authentic opposition parties and candidates, when allowed to participate, 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 only the appearance of independence, with the judiciary ruling consistently in favor of the government. 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.
In analyzing government actions that undermine electoral competition and freedom of dissent, the Tyranny Tracker’s research and coding process places particular emphasis on executive-branch measures that systematically manipulate or distort the marketplace of ideas, obstruct access to independent information, and erode key democratic processes. This includes actions such as the forced shut down or takeover of independent media outlets that serve a large share of the public, efforts to restrict or criminalize critical reporting or dissenting viewpoints, and executive orders or directives that interfere with the administration of elections or the ability of opposition parties and candidates to compete on equal footing. By prioritizing evidence of coordinated, systemic abuse of executive authority — especially when such measures interfere with the conduct of largely free and fair elections or substantially restrict the public’s ability to obtain independent news and express dissent — the Tracker highlights patterns of democratic backsliding rooted in powerful, discretionary use of executive power rather than isolated or technocratic policy changes.
Under this framework, democracy-destabilizing actions — such as frequent blasting of the political opposition by a partisan executive, aggressive checks of the executive by an opposition-controlled legislative branch, or aggressive prosecutorial actions of political figures by a powerful judge or attorney general — may be identified and documented as evidence of democratic erosion, but they are not themselves sufficient to classify a government as a “hybrid authoritarian regime.”
The Tyranny Tracker does not have a separate category for eroding or flawed democracies. We classify these countries as democratic, but our country analysis does not paint a rosy and unreal picture of how democracies work. Instead, we document the chaotic nature of the democratic process, characterized by increasingly polarized partisanship and credible foul-calls from the opposition, as well as any aggressive responses by the government authority. We code some actions within this constant power struggle as signs of democratic erosion or backsliding — so long as they don’t meaningfully affect the prospect of a future peaceful transfer of power to the authentic opposition — and then closely monitor developments in the countries in question.
In the Tyranny Tracker’s methodology, each potentially democracy-destabilizing action that occurs in a country is coded against clearly defined qualitative indicators within the three pillars to determine whether it meaningfully undermines democratic norms and institutional checks. To illustrate, the example of the broad indictment assesses situations where prosecutorial power is used not in conformity with rule-of-law norms, but as a coordinated instrument to suppress dissent, obstruct competition, or weaken institutional safeguards. Such cases are evaluated under indicators related to institutional accountability (e.g., genuine legal process and independence of the judiciary), freedom of dissent (e.g., retaliation for political expression), and even electoral competition (e.g. disqualification of a popular political figure), depending on how the act functions in context.
At the same time, the Tracker’s methodology is careful to distinguish between events or actions that contribute to democratic stress and structural patterns that signal systemic authoritarian tendencies, particularly if they do not originate in the executive branch. A single instance of legislative obstruction or a high-profile legal case, even if troubling, may represent a temporary crisis or pressure point if the broader democratic system retains functioning checks and balances and institutional integrity. Only when such actions accumulate, persist, and demonstrably weaken key democratic processes — such as free and fair competition, independent media and dissent, or the independence of oversight institutions — do they collectively support the classification of a government as hybrid authoritarian. This is because the Tyranny Tracker’s coding process emphasizes the contextual role and impact of actions within the political system, rather than treating every high-profile controversy as tantamount to authoritarianism.
The Tyranny Tracker also puts special emphasis on the judiciary’s capacity, and willingness, to serve as an effective check on executive abuses of power, particularly when the executive seeks to repress criticism, retaliate against political opponents, undermine independent media, or otherwise distort electoral competition and democratic accountability. This is not strictly limited to opposition to a government’s flagship policies; rather, it encompasses retaliation against dissent or opposition to government policies more broadly, especially where such retaliation threatens fundamental democratic processes.
To determine actions of democratic erosion or backsliding, as well as the consequences of a coup or attempted coup, the Tracker also uses the international legal framework that evolved around the Organization of American States’ Inter-American Democratic Charter and its “democracy clause.” Under this framework, countries experiencing gradual and ongoing — but not yet deep or systematic — erosion of democratic institutions are still considered democracies. Thus political polarization and populist leaders putting pressure on, say, free speech is not enough to push a democracy over the threshold into hybrid authoritarianism. By contrast, a country that has experienced the sustained and systematic erosion of democracy at the hands of a government — one which has succeeded at skewing electoral competition, stifling political dissent, and undermining judicial independence — would be classified as at least a hybrid authoritarian regime.
In hybrid and fully authoritarian regimes, judicial institutions have become functionally captured, to the point that the chance of the opposition to compete and win an election is either highly unlikely (in hybrid authoritarian regimes) or virtually impossible (in fully authoritarian regimes). The state of the judiciary — that is, whether or not it is independent — is key in making the distinction between democratic and authoritarian regimes. This shift in emphasis has profound implications for how we classify and interpret specific countries.
The core analytical question is whether meaningful institutional constraint remains operative: When the executive engages in actions that may undermine electoral competition, suppress dissent, or weaken oversight institutions, is the legal and constitutional outcome genuinely uncertain? In other words, do courts and other accountability bodies retain both the independence and the practical authority to review executive conduct impartially and, where appropriate, invalidate unlawful or unconstitutional actions? Are executive measures upheld or constrained through an independent judicial process rather than predictably validated regardless of their constitutional implications?
When a country’s constitutional courts reach a point of consistently and predictably validating serious executive abuses — particularly those that impair free electoral competition, freedom of dissent, or institutional accountability — this signals that the judiciary is no longer functioning as a meaningful check on executive authority. Under the Tyranny Tracker’s framework, such a development weighs heavily toward classification as a hybrid authoritarian or fully authoritarian regime — not because courts are symbolically important, but because they represent the institutional backstop of constitutional democracy. If courts systematically defer to or legitimize executive repression, it typically indicates that other mechanisms of oversight — legislative resistance, regulatory independence, or internal executive constraints — have already weakened or failed, and that constitutional limits no longer operate in practice.
Importantly, the existence of a constitutional crisis is neither necessary nor sufficient to identify authoritarianism. Democracies can experience acute constitutional confrontations — often in polarized or unstable political environments — while still preserving independent judicial review and meaningful electoral competition. Conversely, a regime may exhibit authoritarian characteristics without dramatic constitutional breakdown if institutional capture has occurred gradually and predictably. The Tyranny Tracker therefore focuses not on crisis rhetoric but on whether institutional safeguards, particularly judicial review, retain genuine independence and the capacity to produce uncertain and binding outcomes in cases involving abusive executive power.
The Tyranny Tracker generally finds that extreme political polarization and its destabilizing consequences are a warning sign of democratic erosion, appearing increasingly in democracies that, while in peril, have not yet become hybrid authoritarian regimes. The tipping point, in our view, comes when polarization is accompanied by sustained and systematic executive-branch-led measures aimed at and succeeding in significantly weakening or abolishing checks and balances — in particular, eliminating the judiciary’s ability to serve as a check on executive abuse — in order to ultimately prevent the peaceful transfer of power through free and fair elections.The Tyranny Tracker currently covers 179 countries and territories. The inaugural edition assesses the democratic health and status of these states based on research conducted in 2025. HRF is continually monitoring developments, including elections, in each one and will reassess country classifications on an annual basis or whenever merited. The Tyranny Tracker’s aim is to be more responsive to genuine institutional change and to establish a distinctive approach that recognizes democratic openings earlier rather than waiting for prolonged consolidation or, alternatively, democratic backsliding. The country summaries cover not only the developments of the past year but also any relevant context over a longer time frame to allow a wider audience to understand the current circumstances in each country.
Thailand and Singapore: Misreading “Flawed Democracies”
Consider Thailand and Singapore. The Economist Intelligence Unit has classified both as “flawed democracies.” Under the Tyranny Tracker’s methodology, however, both would be better understood as hybrid authoritarian regimes.
Thailand’s recent political history — military coups, constitutional rewrites, and the recurring disqualification of opposition leaders — illustrates the problem with emphasizing foremost the competitiveness of a country’s elections in assessing its regime type. Under the Tyranny Tracker’s methodology, hybrid authoritarian regimes may hold competitive elections, but their outcomes are significantly skewed in favor of the regime to the point where the genuine, mainstream political opposition has little chance of winning. Although Thailand holds elections, its constitutional framework places military-aligned elites at a great advantage, while not providing guarantees that election results will ultimately be respected. The judiciary has repeatedly dissolved opposition parties and validated interventions that entrench executive or military dominance.
In Thailand, judicial review does not function as an autonomous check on government abuse, but merely as a stabilizing force to the governing order. Thailand is a quintessential case in which the judiciary frequently and unfairly sides with the executive when reviewing challenges to its policies or interests. Thus, the Tyranny Tracker classifies Thailand as a hybrid authoritarian regime where institutional checks are structurally compromised.
Singapore presents a subtler, but equally important, case. Frequently lauded for technocratic governance, rule-bound administration, and regular elections, Singapore has often been grouped with flawed democracies by the Economist Intelligence Unit. The Tyranny Tracker, however, classifies Singapore as a hybrid authoritarian regime.
This assessment turns on the distinction between administrative rule-of-law performance and constitutional independence. While Singapore’s courts may be perceived as efficient, politically sensitive cases involving defamation actions against opposition figures, public-assembly restrictions, or speech regulation reveal a consistent pattern: The courts rarely, if ever, rule against executive preferences.
Singapore holds elections and allows opposition parties, but the political field is tightly managed. Legal tools — such as defamation suits, regulatory controls, and media governance — shape electoral competition in ways that significantly skew competition in favor of the ruling establishment.
Under the Tyranny Tracker’s framework, Singapore’s political system is not fully authoritarian, devoid of contestation; rather, it is a hybrid authoritarian regime characterized by managed electoral competition and structurally constrained judicial review. The electoral playing field is significantly tilted in favor of the regime, to the point where the mainstream opposition has little chance of succeeding at the polls, and courts rarely check regime attempts to undermine electoral competition.
Mexico: Hybrid Authoritarian Regime or a Democracy Under Pressure?
At first glance, Mexico exhibits troubling indicators: public attacks on judges from the executive, ongoing reforms to the judiciary, and serious security challenges that strain institutional capacity. Quantitative metrics that aggregate institutional weakness and security-related rights may therefore tend to downgrade Mexico to a hybrid authoritarian regime or some similar classification of nondemocratic regime.
However, the Tyranny Tracker’s methodology tackles a narrower and more decisive question: Are courts able to check the executive’s attempts to repress criticism or retaliate against those who express open opposition to its most prominent, widely publicized policies, in a way that allows elections to remain largely free and fair?
In Mexico, despite political pressure, the Supreme Court has repeatedly issued rulings that constrain executive initiatives, even as the governing coalition has advanced reforms affecting judicial selection and the governance of judicial bodies. Autonomous institutions continue to litigate against federal encroachments, and the outcomes of such litigation remain uncertain rather than predetermined. The judiciary’s capacity to function as an effective check — though increasingly strained — remains operational.
The more consequential development is the shift toward the popular election of judges, a reform that reconfigures the institutional foundations of judicial independence by tying judicial advancement to electoral politics. While framed as democratization, the reform risks transforming courts from guardians of constitutional limits into institutions more responsive to prevailing political forces. It is precisely because Mexico’s judiciary continues to function as a meaningful check that we do not classify the country as hybrid authoritarian. If, as many predict, these reforms weaken judicial independence to the point where courts can no longer reliably constrain executive authority, then that institutional shift would be the decisive factor in any future reclassification.
Thus, Mexico is better understood as a democracy under pressure rather than a hybrid authoritarian regime. The distinction matters. Labeling it as a form of authoritarian regime risks conflating institutional friction, erosion of democracy (in the form of pressure on judicial independence), and political polarization with structural authoritarian consolidation. The Tyranny Tracker’s institutional accountability pillar, which elevates the importance of judicial independence, clarifies that Mexico’s constitutional order, while highly contested, retains meaningful mechanisms of executive accountability, allowing for a future peaceful transfer of power through largely free and fair elections.
Ukraine: State of Emergency Powers Under Democracy
Ukraine presents yet another interpretive challenge. Since Russian president Vladimir Putin’s unprovoked full-scale military invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the country has operated under a state of emergency. Emergency measures, restrictions on certain political activities, and executive centralization could make it seem as if Ukraine has crossed the threshold into authoritarianism.
Traditional indexes, which track civil-liberties and political-rights indicators, face difficulty distinguishing a state of emergency, which can warrant the adoption of emergency powers by the executive that temporarily set aside normal constitutional constraints such as the holding of national elections or laws governing the media. The Tyranny Tracker’s methodology again shifts the analytical lens.
The central question becomes whether executive measures systematically and permanently erode institutional checks, and whether courts are structurally subordinated to executive will. In Ukraine, while wartime necessities have expanded executive authority, there remains institutional contestation, parliamentary oversight, and an ongoing commitment to constitutional restoration after hostilities. Crucially, judicial outcomes in politically sensitive cases are not predetermined by executive preference. The constitutional system, though strained, continues to function as a site of uncertainty and legal contestation.
Under the Tyranny Tracker framework, Ukraine emerges as a democracy operating under extraordinary emergency conditions rather than conflating defensive emergency governance with authoritarian consolidation.
A Novel Tool for Scholars and Policymakers
In Thailand and Singapore, though both hold elections and maintain elements of institutional formality, high courts consistently and predictably rule in favor of entrenched powers, undermining the fairness of elections, dismantling the opposition, and weakening accountability. By contrast, both Mexico and Ukraine — despite tremendous adversities, which are particularly acute in the case of wartime Ukraine — retain meaningful judicial oversight in which outcomes remain uncertain and executive initiatives can be successfully contested.
Competitive elections alone are an insufficient proxy for democracy if institutional accountability has been structurally compromised. When the judiciary ceases to be an effective check on executive abuse, whether it be electoral tampering or repressing dissent, a country can no longer credibly claim the title of democracy. Conversely, antidemocratic actions or power grabs by a legislature or judiciary, for example, or the executive assertion of emergency powers, despite creating real and serious constitutional crisis, would not by themselves amount to authoritarian consolidation, particularly if the courts remain capable of constraining executive overreach.
By centering on executive-judicial dynamics, the Tyranny Tracker recalibrates how scholars and policymakers can assess regime type. In doing so, it offers a novel tool for identifying when an eroding democracy has crossed the threshold into authoritarian rule.
Javier El-Hage is HRF’s chief legal and policy officer, where he co-leads the organization’s impact litigation and research programs. Malaak Jamal is HRF’s director of policy and research. Alvaro Piaggio is HRF’s senior policy officer.
Copyright © 2026 National Endowment for Democracy
Image credit: Contributor/Getty Images
|
FURTHER READING |
||
![](https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/GettyImages-1991166743-scaled.jpg")
Global Freedom Is in Decline, But What About Democracy?
|
Polishing Off Populism in Authoritarian ThailandThailand’s current crisis may finally end the cycle of populism and polarization that has crippled its democratic aspirations. But it is also revealing that there are far worse forces undermining Thai democracy. |
Can Claudia Sheinbaum Emerge from AMLO’s Shadow?She was just elected Mexico’s first woman president in a landslide. The future of Mexico’s democracy rests on whether she can break from her predecessor’s ways and carve her own democratic path. |