Azerbaijan vs Equatorial Guinea: Distribution of Democracy Index
Azerbaijan
3
in 2018
Equatorial Guinea
4
in 2018
Azerbaijan rank
149th
Equatorial Guinea rank
146th
Distribution of Democracy Index over time
- Azerbaijan
- Equatorial Guinea
How they compare
Equatorial Guinea currently reports 4 against 3 in Azerbaijan, a difference of 1.
That makes Equatorial Guinea's figure about 1.3 times Azerbaijan's.
The two have swapped places 2 times across 51 shared years of data; in 1968 it was Equatorial Guinea ahead.
Azerbaijan ranks 149th and Equatorial Guinea ranks 146th of 167 countries.
Across the 6 decades both report, Azerbaijan averaged higher in 2 and Equatorial Guinea in 3.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Azerbaijan | Equatorial Guinea | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1960s | 3 | 7.5 | 4.5 | Equatorial Guinea |
| 1970s | 3 | 3 | 0 | — |
| 1980s | 3.4 | 3 | 0.4 | Azerbaijan |
| 1990s | 6 | 4 | 2 | Azerbaijan |
| 2000s | 3 | 4 | 1 | Equatorial Guinea |
| 2010s | 3 | 4 | 1 | Equatorial Guinea |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher distribution of democracy index, Azerbaijan or Equatorial Guinea?
- Equatorial Guinea, at 4 against 3 in Azerbaijan as of 2018.
- What is the difference in distribution of democracy index between Azerbaijan and Equatorial Guinea?
- 1, with Equatorial Guinea ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Azerbaijan and Equatorial Guinea?
- 51 years are reported by both, from 1968 to 2018.
- How do Azerbaijan and Equatorial Guinea rank globally for distribution of democracy index?
- Azerbaijan ranks 149th and Equatorial Guinea ranks 146th of 167 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- Polity 5 (2020) – processed by Our World in Data, published as Distribution of Democracy Index. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
It combines information on the extent to which open, multi-party, and competitive elections choose a chief executive who faces comprehensive institutional constraints, and political participation is competitive. It ranges from 0 to 20 (fully democratic).