Belarus vs Equatorial Guinea: Distribution of Democracy Index

Belarus
3
in 2018
Equatorial Guinea
4
in 2018
Belarus rank
149th
Equatorial Guinea rank
146th

Distribution of Democracy Index over time

  • Belarus
  • Equatorial Guinea
05101520180019092018

How they compare

Equatorial Guinea currently reports 4 against 3 in Belarus, a difference of 1.

That makes Equatorial Guinea's figure about 1.3 times Belarus's.

The two have swapped places 2 times across 51 shared years of data; in 1968 it was Equatorial Guinea ahead.

Belarus ranks 149th and Equatorial Guinea ranks 146th of 167 countries.

Across the 6 decades both report, Belarus averaged higher in 2 and Equatorial Guinea in 3.

Head to head by decade

Decade Belarus Equatorial Guinea Difference Ahead
1960s 3 7.5 4.5 Equatorial Guinea
1970s 3 3 0
1980s 3.4 3 0.4 Belarus
1990s 9.8 4 5.8 Belarus
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, Belarus or Equatorial Guinea?
Equatorial Guinea, at 4 against 3 in Belarus as of 2018.
What is the difference in distribution of democracy index between Belarus and Equatorial Guinea?
1, with Equatorial Guinea ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Belarus and Equatorial Guinea?
51 years are reported by both, from 1968 to 2018.
How do Belarus and Equatorial Guinea rank globally for distribution of democracy index?
Belarus 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

Indicator
Distribution of Democracy Index
Source
Polity 5 (2020) – processed by Our World in Data
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (Our World in Data)
Coverage
168 places, 18,366 data points, 1800–2018
Last refreshed

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).