Finland vs Mauritius: Citizen support for democracy

Finland
1.6
in 2020
Mauritius
1.15
in 2020
Finland rank
11th
Mauritius rank
12th

Citizen support for democracy over time

  • Finland
  • Mauritius
0.511.5199620082020

How they compare

Finland currently reports 1.6 against 1.15 in Mauritius, a difference of 0.45.

That makes Finland's figure about 1.4 times Mauritius's.

The two have swapped places 1 time across 9 shared years of data; in 2012 it was Mauritius ahead.

Finland ranks 11th and Mauritius ranks 12th of 144 countries.

Finland has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.

Head to head by decade

Decade Finland Mauritius Difference Ahead
2010s 1.49 1.35 0.1336 Finland
2020s 1.6 1.15 0.4474 Finland

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher citizen support for democracy, Finland or Mauritius?
Finland, at 1.6 against 1.15 in Mauritius as of 2020.
What is the difference in citizen support for democracy between Finland and Mauritius?
0.45, with Finland ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Finland and Mauritius?
9 years are reported by both, from 2012 to 2020.
How do Finland and Mauritius rank globally for citizen support for democracy?
Finland ranks 11th and Mauritius ranks 12th of 144 countries.
Where does this data come from?
Claassen (2022) – processed by Our World in Data, published as Citizen support for democracy. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

Individual pages

About this data

Indicator
Citizen support for democracy
Source
Claassen (2022) – processed by Our World in Data
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (Our World in Data)
Coverage
144 places, 3,104 data points, 1988–2020
Last refreshed

Central estimate of the average extent to which citizens support a democratic political system and reject autocratic alternatives. It combines responses across more than one thousand nationally-representative surveys on how desirable citizens find democracy, how they evaluate undemocratic alternatives (such as a strong unelected leader, the army, or religious authorities), and how they assess democratic and autocratic political systems relative to another.