Reflection on democracy in a region as heterogeneous as Latin America is always a complex issue that, furthermore, is not free of subjective evaluations. For at least two decades, different intellectual efforts have been articulated, not without controversy, that facilitate the evaluation of political performance through transparent methodological mechanisms and following theoretical supports related to the conceptualization of democracy. The inspiration of the thought of Robert Dahl, Giovanni Sartori, Juan J. Linz, Guillermo O’Donnell, Leonardo Morlino and Larry Diamond, among a wide list, was notable for this.
This has resulted in the development of indices that help in both synchronic and diachronic comparison to advance the understanding of political events and establish hypotheses about them to validate or reject them later. Indices are cognitive shortcuts for complex realities that serve to capture them through tasks of decomposing their content into different dimensions.
In the month of March, two works along this line were published by three institutions of different nature and location, the results of which allow, once again, to take the pulse of Latin American democracy. This is the group formed around the publication The Economist, the Bertelsmann Foundation and the Varieties of Democracy project. This installment addresses the results of the first two, leaving the third for a later time.
The latest update of index of The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) of democracy that integrates 60 indicators grouped in the five categories that include the electoral process, the functioning of the government, political participation, political culture and civil liberties suggests a slight change in the negative trend that had been warned in last year’s edition and that returns to the path of tired democracy: the scores of almost three quarters of the 167 countries collected and that are subject to analysis remained stable or improved during the last year, and the global index increased 0.02 points, one of the largest increases since 2012.
The index rates countries from 1 to 10 according to the state of their democracy and classifies them into four categories, supporting the heterogeneity of Latin American countries: full democracies (Uruguay and Costa Rica) and imperfect democracies (Chile, Panama, Argentina, Brazil, Dominican Republic, Colombia, Paraguay and Peru), and hybrid regimes (Mexico, Bolivia, Ecuador, Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador) and authoritarian regimes (Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua). While Uruguay occupies 12th place in the study, Nicaragua ranks 150th among the 167 countries analyzed.
In the comparison between the 2024 measurement and last year’s measurement, most countries improve, although it is only a few tenths (the exception is Bolivia, which goes from 4.3 to 5.4), Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador and El Salvador maintain the same rating, while Colombia, Honduras, Nicaragua and Venezuela drop a few tenths. In comparison with 2020, the variation is very small for Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba, Guatemala, Honduras, Panama, Paraguay and Uruguay, consequently showing some stability. The greatest decrease was seen in Nicaragua and El Salvador, going from 3.6 to 2.0 and from 5.9 to 4.6 respectively. Colombia (from 7.0 to 6.0), Ecuador (from 6.1 to 5.2), Mexico (from 6.1 to 5.4), Venezuela (from 2.8 to 2.1) and Peru (from 6.5 to 5.9) also fell. Dominican Republic has the greatest progress, going from 6.3 to 6.8.
As for the Bertelsmann Foundation Political Transformation Indexwhich is carried out every two years, integrates five components that measure the degree of state capabilities, the rule of law, political participation, the stability of democratic institutions, and political and social integration. As in the previous case, the measurement is made from 1 to 10.
Uruguay (9.90), Chile (9.25) and Costa Rica (8.90) lead the Latin American list, distancing themselves from a second group of countries made up of Brazil (7.50), Dominican Republic (7.40), Argentina (7.35). Bolivia and Colombia (both with 6.55), Paraguay (6.50), Panama (6.35), Ecuador (6.25), Peru (5.85) and Mexico (5.60) make up a third group of countries. In places of clear deterioration, although with differences, are Honduras (4.75), El Salvador (4.27), Guatemala (4.10), Venezuela (3.07), Cuba (3.05) and Nicaragua (2.92).
The evolution recorded between 2020 and 2026 is more pronounced given the nature of the composition of the index, which integrates components different from those of the EIU. However, there are eight countries (Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Paraguay, Uruguay and Venezuela) whose variation is very small while maintaining a certain stability). R. The Dominican Republic is the only country that registers progress, going from 6.80 to 7.40. On the contrary, the greatest decrease was recorded by El Salvador, which went from 7.20 to 4.27. Notable decreases occur in Nicaragua (-1.11), Ecuador (-0.95), Argentina (-0.80), Panama (-0.70), Cuba (-0.48) and Mexico (-0.45). The smallest decreases occur in Peru (-0.30), Bolivia (-0.25) and Colombia (-0.15).
The scenario, therefore, offers chiaroscuro, the evidence of a stagnation that, however, allows us to move away from catastrophic positions and the always present heterogeneity of the region with very marked differences between the three countries that are at the front (Uruguay, Costa Rica and Chile) and the three that occupy the last places (Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua). A finer perspective from the varieties of democracy will allow for complementary visions. An analysis that I will carry out in a next installment.
*This article was originally published in Latin America 21.
