HOW FREE ARE YOU REALLY? THE GLOBAL DEMOCRACY SHOCK!

The Great Democracy Check of Nations – Who Lies to Us, Oppresses Us, or Truly Lets Us Live Freely!

An article by

Werner Hoffmann

First of all:

Out of 167 countries, Germany ranks 13th and is classified as a full democracy.

In 2024, the United States ranked 28th and was categorized as a flawed democracy.

It is expected that due to Trump’s activities, the U.S. will drop significantly in the rankings.

Depending on further undemocratic actions, the U.S. could potentially fall as low as 100th place.

What is the Democracy Index?

The Democracy Index, published by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), reveals how democratic a country really is – or if it just pretends to be!

60 questions, 5 categories, 1 truth – each year, the EIU assesses 167 countries based on clear criteria:

   •   Electoral process and pluralism: Are elections fair and free?

   •   Functioning of government: Is the government transparent and accountable?

   •   Political participation: Can citizens participate freely and effectively?

   •   Political culture: Is democracy seen as a given?

   •   Civil liberties: Are freedom of speech, press, and assembly protected?

At the end, each country receives a score between 0 and 10. The higher the score, the more democratic the country. Based on the score, countries fall into one of four categories:

   •   8.01–10.00: Full democracy

   •   6.01–8.00: Flawed democracy

   •   4.01–6.00: Hybrid regime

   •   0.00–4.00: Authoritarian regime

Significant shifts are expected in 2025. Some trends are already emerging.

Rank Country Index Score Classification
1 Norway 9.81 Full democracy
2 New Zealand 9.61 Full democracy
3 Sweden 9.39 Full democracy
4 Iceland 9.38 Full democracy
5 Switzerland 9.32 Full democracy
6 Finland 9.30 Full democracy
7 Denmark 9.28 Full democracy
8 Ireland 9.19 Full democracy
9 Netherlands 9.00 Full democracy
10 Luxembourg 8.88 Full democracy
11 Australia 8.85 Full democracy
12 Taiwan 8.78 Full democracy
13 Germany 8.73 Full democracy
14 Canada 8.69 Full democracy
15 Uruguay 8.67 Full democracy
16 Japan 8.48 Full democracy
17 United Kingdom 8.34 Full democracy
18 Costa Rica 8.29 Full democracy
19 Austria 8.28 Full democracy
20 Mauritius 8.23 Full democracy
21= Estonia 8.13 Full democracy
21= Spain 8.13 Full democracy
23= Czech Republic 8.08 Full democracy
23= Portugal 8.08 Full democracy
25 Greece 8.07 Full democracy
26 France 7.99 Flawed democracy
27 Malta 7.93 Flawed democracy
28 United States 7.85 Flawed democracy
29 Chile 7.83 Flawed democracy
30 Slovenia 7.82 Flawed democracy
31 Israel 7.80 Flawed democracy
32 South Korea 7.75 Flawed democracy
33 Latvia 7.66 Flawed democracy
34 Belgium 7.64 Flawed democracy
35 Botswana 7.63 Flawed democracy
36 Lithuania 7.59 Flawed democracy
37= Cape Verde 7.58 Flawed democracy
37= Italy 7.58 Flawed democracy
39 Poland 7.40 Flawed democracy
40 Cyprus 7.38 Flawed democracy
41 India 7.29 Flawed democracy
42 Slovakia 7.21 Flawed democracy
43 South Africa 7.16 Flawed democracy
44 Malaysia 7.11 Flawed democracy
45 Trinidad and Tobago 7.09 Flawed democracy
46 Timor-Leste 7.03 Flawed democracy
47 Panama 6.84 Flawed democracy
48 Suriname 6.79 Flawed democracy
49 Jamaica 6.74 Flawed democracy
50 Montenegro 6.73 Flawed democracy
Rank Country Index Score Classification
51 Philippines 6.63 Flawed democracy
52 Dominican Republic 6.62 Flawed democracy
53 Mongolia 6.53 Flawed democracy
54= Argentina 6.51 Flawed democracy
54= Hungary 6.51 Flawed democracy
56 Croatia 6.50 Flawed democracy
57 Brazil 6.49 Flawed democracy
58 Namibia 6.48 Flawed democracy
59 Indonesia 6.44 Flawed democracy
60 Colombia 6.35 Flawed democracy
61 Bulgaria 6.34 Flawed democracy
62 North Macedonia 6.28 Flawed democracy
63 Thailand 6.27 Flawed democracy
64 Serbia 6.26 Flawed democracy
65 Ghana 6.24 Flawed democracy
66 Albania 6.20 Flawed democracy
67 Sri Lanka 6.19 Flawed democracy
68 Singapore 6.18 Flawed democracy
69 Guyana 6.11 Flawed democracy
70 Lesotho 6.06 Flawed democracy
71 Moldova 6.04 Flawed democracy
72 Romania 5.99 Hybrid regime
73 Papua New Guinea 5.97 Hybrid regime
74 Senegal 5.93 Hybrid regime
75 Paraguay 5.92 Hybrid regime
76 Malawi 5.85 Hybrid regime
77 Zambia 5.73 Hybrid regime
78 Peru 5.69 Hybrid regime
79 Bhutan 5.65 Hybrid regime
80 Liberia 5.57 Hybrid regime
81 Fiji 5.39 Hybrid regime
82 Armenia 5.35 Hybrid regime
83 Madagascar 5.33 Hybrid regime
84 Mexico 5.32 Hybrid regime
85 Ecuador 5.24 Hybrid regime
86 Tanzania 5.20 Hybrid regime
87 Hong Kong 5.09 Hybrid regime
88 Bosnia and Herzegovina 5.06 Hybrid regime
89 Kenya 5.05 Hybrid regime
90 Honduras 4.98 Hybrid regime
91 Morocco 4.97 Hybrid regime
92 Ukraine 4.90 Hybrid regime
93 Tunisia 4.71 Hybrid regime
94 Georgia 4.70 Hybrid regime
95 El Salvador 4.61 Hybrid regime
96 Nepal 4.60 Hybrid regime
97 Guatemala 4.55 Hybrid regime
98 Uganda 4.49 Hybrid regime
99 Gambia 4.47 Hybrid regime
100= Bangladesh 4.44 Hybrid regime
100= Benin 4.44 Hybrid regime
Rank Country Index Score Classification
101 Not listed (skipped)
102 Sierra Leone 4.32 Hybrid regime
103= Bolivia 4.26 Hybrid regime
103= Turkey 4.26 Hybrid regime
105 Ivory Coast 4.22 Hybrid regime
106 Nigeria 4.16 Hybrid regime
107 Angola 4.05 Hybrid regime
108 Mauritania 3.96 Authoritarian regime
109 Lebanon 3.56 Authoritarian regime
110 Algeria 3.55 Authoritarian regime
111 Kyrgyzstan 3.52 Authoritarian regime
112 Palestine 3.44 Authoritarian regime
113 Mozambique 3.38 Authoritarian regime
114 Rwanda 3.34 Authoritarian regime
115 Jordan 3.28 Authoritarian regime
116 Ethiopia 3.24 Authoritarian regime
117 Qatar 3.17 Authoritarian regime
118 Kazakhstan 3.08 Authoritarian regime
119 United Arab Emirates 3.07 Authoritarian regime
120 Oman 3.05 Authoritarian regime
121 Togo 2.99 Authoritarian regime
122 Zimbabwe 2.98 Authoritarian regime
123 Cambodia 2.94 Authoritarian regime
124= Comoros 2.84 Authoritarian regime
124= Pakistan 2.84 Authoritarian regime
126= Azerbaijan 2.80 Authoritarian regime
126= Iraq 2.80 Authoritarian regime
128= Republic of Congo (Brazzaville) 2.79 Authoritarian regime
128= Egypt 2.79 Authoritarian regime
130 Kuwait 2.78 Authoritarian regime
131 Haiti 2.74 Authoritarian regime
132 Djibouti 2.70 Authoritarian regime
133 Vietnam 2.62 Authoritarian regime
134 Eswatini 2.60 Authoritarian regime
135 Cuba 2.58 Authoritarian regime
136 Cameroon 2.56 Authoritarian regime
137 Burkina Faso 2.55 Authoritarian regime
138 Bahrain 2.45 Authoritarian regime
139 Mali 2.40 Authoritarian regime
140 Libya 2.31 Authoritarian regime
141 Niger 2.26 Authoritarian regime
142 Venezuela 2.25 Authoritarian regime
143 Gabon 2.18 Authoritarian regime
144 Burundi 2.13 Authoritarian regime
145 China 2.11 Authoritarian regime
146 Uzbekistan 2.10 Authoritarian regime
147 Nicaragua 2.09 Authoritarian regime
148 Saudi Arabia 2.08 Authoritarian regime
149 Guinea 2.04 Authoritarian regime
150= Guinea-Bissau 2.03 Authoritarian regime
150= Russia 2.03 Authoritarian regime
Rank Country Index Score Classification
151 Not listed (skipped)
152 Belarus 1.99 Authoritarian regime
153 Eritrea 1.97 Authoritarian regime
154 Iran 1.96 Authoritarian regime
155 Yemen 1.95 Authoritarian regime
156= Democratic Republic of Congo 1.92 Authoritarian regime
156= Equatorial Guinea 1.92 Authoritarian regime
158 Chad 1.89 Authoritarian regime
159 Tajikistan 1.83 Authoritarian regime
160 Laos 1.71 Authoritarian regime
161 Turkmenistan 1.66 Authoritarian regime
162 Sudan 1.46 Authoritarian regime
163 Syria 1.32 Authoritarian regime
164 Central African Republic 1.18 Authoritarian regime
165 North Korea 1.08 Authoritarian regime
166 Myanmar 0.96 Authoritarian regime
167 Afghanistan 0.25 Authoritarian regime

A Transatlantic Turning Point: J.D. Vance and the Future of German-American Relations

Werner Hoffmann
– Demokratie der Mitte, weil Extremflügel das Land zerstören -.

By Werner Hoffmann

– Democracy of the center, because extreme wings destroy the country. –

———-

for narration

YouTube player
A Transatlantic Turning Point: J.D. Vance and the Future of German-American Relations. https://youtu.be/bj2tqu_vXhM?si=A89sqMfuw2sNDDRb

The Munich Security Conference 2025 marks a historic turning point in transatlantic relations.

With his speech, U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance sent an unmistakable signal:

The days of close political coordination between the U.S. and Europe may soon be over.

More than that—his remarks raise fundamental questions about the future of Western democracies.

An Attack on European Democratic Principles

Vance used his appearance before an international audience to deliver sharp criticism of European governments.

In his view, freedom of speech on the continent is increasingly being restricted—an assertion that has been met with strong opposition in Germany and other EU countries.

In Europe, the protection of democratic principles is considered essential.

Combating targeted disinformation or extremist influence is not an attack on democracy but rather its safeguard.

However, the most explosive part of his speech concerned Germany’s political landscape.

Vance urged established parties to reconsider their stance on the AfD and to stop excluding the party from governmental responsibility.

In doing so, he crossed a diplomatic boundary, as there is a broad consensus in Germany that cooperation with extremist forces is out of the question.

Interestingly, after the event, Vance met privately with Alice Weidel at another location. What was discussed between Vance and Weidel remains unknown.

Sharp Reactions from Germany

Berlin’s response was swift.

Both the German government and opposition representatives firmly rejected Vance’s statements.

Bavarian Minister-President Markus Söder made it clear that only German parties and voters decide on political coalitions:

“We will not be dictated to here.”

Similarly, government spokesman Steffen Hebestreit stated that direct interference in German election campaigns was inappropriate.

Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock emphasized that it is solely up to German voters to determine their government.

The sharpness of the reactions illustrates how much Vance’s words were perceived as an affront.

Not only because they question the sovereignty of European democracies, but also because they hint at a fundamental break with the traditional transatlantic relationship.

Under Trump and Vance, the U.S. no longer seems to position itself primarily as a reliable partner for Europe but rather as a force seeking to redraw political lines—even if this means directly influencing European domestic politics.

A Turning Point for the Transatlantic Partnership?

J.D. Vance’s speech could go down in history as a turning point.

It not only reveals a shift in the U.S.’s self-perception under Trump but also highlights new tensions between Washington and Europe’s capitals.

The fundamental values that have shaped transatlantic cooperation for decades—democracy, the rule of law, and a shared security policy—are apparently being reinterpreted by the new U.S. administration.

For Europe, this presents a clear challenge:

The era of unconditional American support seems to be over.

Germany and its European partners must position themselves more strongly as independent geopolitical players in order to defend their democratic principles and security interests.

The words of German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier at the security conference take on special significance in this context:

“Diplomacy is not a cage fight.”

The coming years will show whether Europe remains true to this principle—and whether the U.S. remains a reliable partner in defending Western values.

My Comment:

The statements and behavior of the new Trump & Vance administration make it clear to me that the U.S. does not want a strong Europe but rather a Trump-loyal following and would prefer to see the EU fragmented as an independent entity.

It is no coincidence that Vance, Trump, and Musk support right-wing populist movements and that they are trying to tear down the barrier against the “largely far-right AfD” in Germany.

Vance’s statements go beyond all diplomatic norms.

Trump will soon realize that he is overplaying his hand!

Trump is attempting to overturn the entire world order—without regard for the existing value system.

Under Trump, the only rule that should apply is the law of the strongest.

And for this, he is using the oligarchy of American billionaires, who also have the greatest control over the media.

Trump, Vance, and Musk do not support right-wing populist organizations because they do not see democracy in Germany and the EU.

No, the real reasons are:

   •   The European Union, with over 450 million inhabitants, is too strong.

   •   The EU should revert to fossil energy and become even more dependent on U.S. gas, oil, etc.

   •   The success of renewable energy in the EU—especially in Germany—bothers the U.S. just as much as it bothers Russia.

Trump is not just causing disruption in the EU—he is shaking up the world at an alarming pace!

Today—The Trump Problem

Regardless of whether it’s Trump’s idea to:

   •   Buy Gaza and turn it into “Dubai 2 on the Mediterranean” as a real estate deal through third parties,

   •   Take over Greenland—by force if necessary—using geopolitical security as a pretext, while the real goal is seizing natural resources,

   •   Incorporate Canada as the 51st state,

   •   Take control of the Panama Canal,

   •   Increase tariffs on imports from Mexico, Canada, and China,

   •   Impose blanket tariffs on steel and aluminum imports,

Trump coldly executes his deals everywhere.

His strategy—demand 10 steps, settle for 2—is one of his success formulas.

His second success strategy is to never admit a mistake. And if caught lying, he simply adds another lie on top.

These will not be his last actions.

Even the so-called Russia-Ukraine peace negotiations will be used by Trump for his own advantage—as his deal.

Rare earth minerals in Ukraine would certainly appeal to Trump.

A Matter of Time Before Attacked Nations Unite

Attempts to weaken the European Union through division will likely only lead to greater unity.

And if certain disruptive elements—such as Hungary—try to harm the EU, this might even result in the formation of a new EU2 with global democratic allies.

Why shouldn’t:

   •   All EU member states (450 million people),

   •   Other democratic European countries (e.g., the UK, Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein),

   •   Canada,

   •   Australia,

   •   New Zealand,

   •   Japan,

   •   India,

   •   South America,

   •   etc.

form a stronger import-export alliance?

In total, these countries have a combined population of 2.55 billion people!

None of these nations actually need the U.S.

The U.S. has just 340 million inhabitants.

If these nations stand together, Trump would be forced to back down in many areas.

Trump can only act the way he does toward the rest of the world if these countries allow it.

error

Gefällt Dir der Blog-Demokratie? Einfach weiterempfehlen