South Korea’s democratic standing has declined significantly, dropping ten spots to rank 32nd out of 167 countries for democratic maturity in the latest global rankings. This decline has led to the country’s reclassification from a full democracy to a flawed democracy.
The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), a research division of The Economist, released its Democracy Index 2024 on Thursday, revealing South Korea’s new position at 32nd place. The report attributes this drop to a decline in South Korea’s scores for government function and political culture, following the declaration of martial law and the resulting political gridlock.
The EIU report highlights that the political fallout from President Yoon Suk Yeol’s attempt to declare martial law has sharply intensified polarization and tension both within South Korea’s legislature and among the general public. The report suggests that these divisions will persist into 2025, potentially fueling growing public dissatisfaction with the country’s democratic processes.
South Korea’s overall score dropped to 7.75 out of 10, down from 8.09 (22nd place) in 2023. This marks the end of the country’s four-year streak in the full democracy category, relegating it to flawed democracy status.
Since 2006, the EIU has evaluated the level of democratic development in 167 countries across five areas, assigning a democracy score based on electoral processes, government functioning, political participation, political culture, and civil liberties. Countries that score over 8 points are classified as full democracies, those between 6 and 8 points are flawed democracies, those between 4 and 6 points are hybrid regimes, and those below 4 points are deemed authoritarian regimes.
South Korea’s score of 7.75 represents its lowest since the index was introduced in 2006. The 0.34-point drop is among the nine largest declines globally.
South Korea scored 9.58 for electoral process and pluralism, 7.50 for government functioning, 7.22 for political participation, 5.63 for political culture, and 8.82 for civil liberties across different categories. Notably, the scores for government functioning (down from 8.57) and political culture (down from 6.25) declined compared to the previous year, while the other categories remained unchanged.
North Korea ranked 165th, maintaining its position from the previous year. Its score of 1.08 was unchanged from last year. Only Myanmar (0.96) and Afghanistan (0.25) scored lower than North Korea.
The global average score in 2023 was 5.17, continuing its downward trend and setting a new record low since the EIU began tracking democracy in 2006. This is a marked drop from the highest score of 5.55 in 2015.
The 25 countries classified as full democracies now represent just 6.6% of the world’s population, a sharp decline from 12.5% a decade ago. The EIU report notes that an increasing number of people—now approximately two out of every five globally—are living under authoritarian regimes.
The report highlights a year of numerous elections around the world but also points to troubling incidents: violent, unstable elections in Pakistan; fraudulent elections in Russia under President Vladimir Putin; and the outright cancellation of elections in Burkina Faso, Mali, and Qatar.
For the 16th consecutive year, Norway topped the global rankings with a score of 9.81, followed by New Zealand (9.61), Sweden (9.39), and Iceland (9.38).
No Asian countries made it into the top 10 rankings. With a score of 8.78, Taiwan ranked 12th, down two spots from the previous year. Japan, holding steady at 16th, scored 8.48. China, meanwhile, moved up three spots to 145th place, scoring 2.11, but remains classified as an authoritarian regime.
The United States’ score rose slightly to 7.85, improving by one position to 28th place, but it remains categorized as a flawed democracy. The EIU noted that the U.S. may face even more significant challenges in the coming year. The report cites concerns over President Donald Trump’s potential second term, which began with attempts to undermine the political independence of civil servants and a series of executive orders that raised questions about their legal authority.