North Korea is rated last among the 167 countries that are covered by the Economist Intelligence Unit's 2010 Democracy index. As one of the 55 states considered "authoritarian" it stands in the company of Zimbabwe, the Central African Republic and Myanmar.

Download the numbers in Excel

North Korea is a de facto hereditary monarchy

The most recent "elections" to the Supreme People's Assembly (the legislature) in March 2009 merely highlighted the lack of democracy in North Korea, confirming the country's score of 0 for the electoral process category. Each constituency boasted only a single approved candidate, who duly received 100% of the votes cast in a near-100% turnout, making a mockery of the concept of competitive selection. The status of the North's "dear leader", Kim Jong-il, as a de facto hereditary monarch has only been reinforced by the intense speculation surrounding his eventual successor; in 2010 his third son, Kim Jong-eun, emerged as his father's designated successor. No effective political opposition exists, and none is expected to emerge under the remaining period of Kim Jong-il's leadership, but it is possible that rival factions could emerge after his death. Kim Jong-il's "military first" policy ensures that the Korean People's Army takes precedence in all matters. Given the secretive and closed nature of the country and the lack of independent media, North Korea's human rights record is difficult to assess. However, anecdotal accounts, mostly from defectors and refugees, suggest a lack of protection of or respect for basic human rights, including freedom of speech and the right to due judicial process. North Korea thus also scores 0 for the civil liberties category.

The government is able to exert relatively effective control

In the government functioning category, North Korea scores respectably compared with other authoritarian regimes. It also outscores several countries that we designate "hybrid regimes", including Iraq and several former members of the Soviet Union, such as the Kyrgyz Republic. This owes much to the fact that Kim Jong-il's authority extends over the whole of the country's territory, and that the doctrine of juche (self-reliance) ensures that foreign powers have no influence over state functions or policies. However, the effectiveness of the state in delivering economic growth and development for its citizens is poor.

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

The category indices are based on the sum of the indicator scores in the category, converted to a 0-10 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 regime:

• 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.