On 26 February 2026 the Human Rights Foundation (HRF) launched its research project, the Tyranny Tracker, a qualitative index that classifies the world’s countries and territories as democratic, hybrid authoritarian, or fully authoritarian. This political regime assessment tool is now available to the public at a moment when tyranny is on the rise worldwide.
According to HRF’s Tyranny Tracker, 75% of the world’s population lives under authoritarianism despite representing only 92 countries, or less than half of all countries in the world — a number that is partly explained by the hybrid authoritarian regimes of India, Indonesia, Pakistan, and the Philippines, and by the fully authoritarian regimes of China, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Russia, and Vietnam, which rule over some of the world’s most populous countries.
The Tyranny Tracker classifies countries using a methodology consisting of 45 indicators categorized into three thematic pillars: electoral competition, freedom of dissent, and institutional accountability. The methodology is informed by academic literature and HRF’s 20 years of experience advocating on behalf of dissidents from countries ruled by authoritarian regimes. The research draws on a range of sources, including media, data collected by HRF’s in-house research team, an extensive human rights network, and expert advice.
Published today in the Journal of Democracy, a piece from HRF’s lead researchers Javier El-Hage, Malaak Jamal, and Alvaro Piaggio, explores what sets the Tyranny Tracker apart from other indexes, and how readers can use the tool to inform their work.
“The Tyranny Tracker is a culmination of years of HRF’s internal research to identify patterns of authoritarianism worldwide and decide which regimes to prioritize as targets of our advocacy work,” said Malaak Jamal, HRF’s director of policy and research.
The Tyranny Tracker uses three classifications for the governments ruling countries around the world: Democratic governments are characterized by largely free and fair elections, freedom to criticize the government, and an independent judiciary capable of being an effective check on government abuse. While many of these governments currently face real challenges in resisting the autocratic tendencies of democratically elected leaders emboldened by increased political polarization globally, they continue to maintain the mechanisms of self-correction that allow democracies to survive and evolve, as opposing political parties regularly and peacefully transfer power. Hybrid authoritarian regimes are typically the result of the severe erosion of institutions by an initially democratically elected government, and represent a step in the process of authoritarian consolidation. While these authoritarian regimes maintain a façade of democracy through regular elections, their autocratic actions heavily skew elections in favor of the incumbent to the point that an opposition victory and peaceful transfer of power are highly unlikely. Fully authoritarian regimes systematically stifle meaningful electoral competition and the basic freedom to dissent, all the while tightly controlling a judicial branch, which lacks any ability to serve as a check on government abuse. These authoritarian regimes regularly rig elections (when they hold them at all), shut down critical media outlets and organizations, and target political opponents and dissenters with arrests and killings, making the chance of a nonviolent transition to democracy as a result of elections little more than a theoretical possibility.
“HRF’s new tool aims to contribute to the healthy competition and complementarity among existing democracy indexes by great institutions, such as Freedom House, V-Dem, International IDEA, or the Economist Intelligence Unit, that already do a great job documenting the situation of authoritarianism worldwide in a quantitative way. The Tyranny Tracker, on its part, is methodologically different as it follows a simple yet structurally cohesive and qualitative analysis process, carried out by HRF’s regional policy and advocacy researchers and experts, resulting in limited yet materially significant differences in country classifications,” said Javier El-Hage, HRF’s chief legal and policy officer.
Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards 