Cameroon vs Equatorial Guinea: Distribution of Democracy Index

Cameroon
5
in 2018
Equatorial Guinea
4
in 2018
Cameroon rank
144th
Equatorial Guinea rank
146th

Distribution of Democracy Index over time

  • Cameroon
  • Equatorial Guinea
051015196019892018

How they compare

Cameroon currently reports 5 against 4 in Equatorial Guinea, a difference of 1.

That makes Cameroon's figure about 1.2 times Equatorial Guinea's.

The two have swapped places 3 times across 51 shared years of data; in 1968 it was Equatorial Guinea ahead.

Cameroon ranks 144th and Equatorial Guinea ranks 146th of 167 countries.

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

Head to head by decade

Decade Cameroon Equatorial Guinea Difference Ahead
1960s 3 7.5 4.5 Equatorial Guinea
1970s 2.2 3 0.8 Equatorial Guinea
1980s 2.2 3 0.8 Equatorial Guinea
1990s 5.4 4 1.4 Cameroon
2000s 5 4 1 Cameroon
2010s 5 4 1 Cameroon

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher distribution of democracy index, Cameroon or Equatorial Guinea?
Cameroon, at 5 against 4 in Equatorial Guinea as of 2018.
What is the difference in distribution of democracy index between Cameroon and Equatorial Guinea?
1, with Cameroon ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Cameroon and Equatorial Guinea?
51 years are reported by both, from 1968 to 2018.
How do Cameroon and Equatorial Guinea rank globally for distribution of democracy index?
Cameroon ranks 144th 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).