The Economist Intelligence Unit's 2010 democracy index ranks Afghanistan 150th out of 167 countries rated (down from 138th in the 2008 index). It is thus classified as an "authoritarian" regime, despite having recently conducted democratic (but flawed) elections for both the presidency and legislature (as well as a number of regional bodies). Afghanistan's very low overall score reflects the fact that, despite almost a decade of strong donor support, including financial, military and governance assistance, its government remains extremely weak-which is reflected in an abysmal score for functioning of government of just 0.79 out of 10. The central government's writ is applied only weakly in much of Afghanistan, with powerful local individuals having much greater influence in many areas. In parts of the country security is so fragile that central government influence is hard to detect at all. Particular concern surrounds issues such as tax collection and the enforcement of law (including the eradication of opium poppy cultivation). Disarmament of militias, or their incorporation into national security bodies, remains incomplete. Corruption and misadministration are widespread and extremely serious problems.

Download the numbers in Excel

Electoral processes are severely flawed

Given Afghanistan's recent history, the fact that elections have taken place at all is, in a sense, a positive thing. However, the most recent polls have shown the electoral process to be severely flawed, resulting in the country's score for electoral process falling sharply to 2.50 in the 2010 index, compared with 5.17 in the 2008 index. This was the primary driver of the decline in Afghanistan's overall score (to 2.48, from 3.02 in 2008) and global rank. The 2009 presidential election offered voters a range of choices, but was seriously marred by corruption, vote-rigging and violence on polling day. Around one-third of the ballots in the 2009 presidential election were declared invalid because they were deemed fraudulent. The main challenger to the incumbent, Hamid Karzai, withdrew from the run-off election, leaving Mr Karzai to be declared president by default. Allegations of fraud also tainted provincial council elections in 2009, as well as the parliamentary election in September 2010. The controversy around this last poll rages on, and has prevented a new parliament from being convened.

Civil liberties are better than might be expected

For such a poor country Afghanistan's civil liberties score is relatively good. This is partly the result of strong support for civil liberties among Afghanistan's donors and military backers-a position reflected in the country's new constitution. However, conservative Islamic forces have challenged the current line on civil rights in many areas, such as women's rights. In addition, a combination of intimidation (often violent), weak electoral administration skills, poor education and cultural factors mean that the electoral system does not function freely and fairly. Insurgents also target those associated with the government for assassination in much of the country, especially in the south, deterring participation and freedom of expression. Afghans are in any case growing more disillusioned with their government, after its failure to deliver on early overoptimistic promises of rapid improvements in security and development. Afghanistan's political culture and political participation scores are thus low.

Download the numbers in Excel

Democracy index 2010: Democracy in retreat, a free white paper containing the full index and detailed methodology, can be downloaded from www.eiu.com/DemocracyIndex2010.

Note on methodology

There is no consensus on how to measure democracy and definitions of democracy are contested. Having free and fair competitive elections, and satisfying related aspects of political freedom, is the sine qua non of all definitions. However, our index is based on the view that measures of democracy that reflect the state of political freedom and civil liberties are not "thick" enough: they do not encompass sufficiently some crucial features that determine the quality and substance of democracy. Thus, our index also includes measures of political participation, political culture and functioning of government, which are, at best, marginalised by other measures.

Our index of democracy covers 167 countries and territories. The index, on a 0 to 10 scale, is based on the ratings for 60 indicators grouped in five categories: electoral process and pluralism; civil liberties; the functioning of government; political participation; and political culture. The five categories are inter-related and form a coherent conceptual whole. Each category has a rating on a 0 to 10 scale, and the overall index of democracy is the simple average of the five category indexes.

The category indexes are based on the sum of the indicator scores in the category, converted to a 0 to 10 scale. Adjustments to the category scores are made if countries fall short in the following critical areas for democracy:

• whether national elections are free and fair;
• the security of voters;
• the influence of foreign powers on government; and
• the capability of the civil service to implement policies.

The index values are used to place countries within one of four types of regimes:

• full democracies-scores of 8 to 10;
• flawed democracies-score of 6 to 7.9;
• hybrid regimes-scores of 4 to 5.9;
• authoritarian regimes-scores below 4.