Cambodia vs Equatorial Guinea: Electoral democracy
Cambodia
1
in 2025
Equatorial Guinea
1
in 2025
Cambodia rank
87th
Equatorial Guinea rank
87th
Electoral democracy over time
- Cambodia
- Equatorial Guinea
How they compare
Cambodia currently reports 1 against 1 in Equatorial Guinea, a difference of 0.
The two have swapped places 4 times across 119 shared years of data; in 1900 it was Equatorial Guinea ahead.
Cambodia ranks 87th and Equatorial Guinea ranks 87th of 176 countries.
Across the 13 decades both report, Cambodia averaged higher in 4 and Equatorial Guinea in 1.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Cambodia | Equatorial Guinea | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1900s | 0 | 0 | 0 | — |
| 1910s | 0 | 0 | 0 | — |
| 1920s | 0 | 0 | 0 | — |
| 1930s | 0 | 0 | 0 | — |
| 1940s | 0 | 0 | 0 | — |
| 1950s | 0.5 | 0 | 0.5 | Cambodia |
| 1960s | 1 | 0.2 | 0.8 | Cambodia |
| 1970s | 0.3333 | 0.6667 | 0.3333 | Equatorial Guinea |
| 1980s | 0.9 | 0 | 0.9 | Cambodia |
| 1990s | 1 | 0.6 | 0.4 | Cambodia |
| 2000s | 1 | 1 | 0 | — |
| 2010s | 1 | 1 | 0 | — |
| 2020s | 1 | 1 | 0 | — |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher electoral democracy, Cambodia or Equatorial Guinea?
- Cambodia, at 1 against 1 in Equatorial Guinea as of 2025.
- What is the difference in electoral democracy between Cambodia and Equatorial Guinea?
- 0, with Cambodia ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Cambodia and Equatorial Guinea?
- 119 years are reported by both, from 1900 to 2025.
- How do Cambodia and Equatorial Guinea rank globally for electoral democracy?
- Cambodia ranks 87th and Equatorial Guinea ranks 87th of 176 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- V-Dem (2026) – processed by Our World in Data, published as Electoral democracy. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
Identifies the political regime of a country using the Regimes of the World classification by political scientists Anna Lührmann, Marcus Tannenberg and Staffan Lindberg.