The Economist Intelligence Unit's 2010 democracy index ranks Tajikistan 149th out of 167 countries, putting it among the 55 countries considered to be authoritarian regimes. This designation includes three other former Soviet states in Central Asia-Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan-as well as Tajikistan's neighbours to the south and east, Afghanistan and China. Tajikistan ranks above Afghanistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, but below Kazakhstan and China. It also fares badly compared with its northern neighbour, the Kyrgyz Republic, which alone in Central Asia is classed as a hybrid regime.

Download the numbers in Excel

The authoritarian state and corruption bring down the overall score

Tajikistan scores particularly poorly in the government functioning and civil liberties categories. Pervasive corruption, public mistrust of the government and state officials, and the rubber-stamp nature of the legislature contribute to the poor score in the government functioning category. Civil liberties are constrained by a lack of media freedoms, a poorly functioning court system and state interference in religious life. The picture is slightly improved by the high score in the political culture category, which attempts to capture popular attitudes as to the desirability of democratic institutions and practices. Here, Tajikistan scores higher than the other four Central Asian states and higher than some Latin American countries that have much higher overall scores and are classed as flawed democracies.

Unrest will meet force

High levels of poverty and unemployment may foment unrest and increase popular pressure for greater political and economic freedoms. However, the response of the regime to these demands will be minimal. The authorities will continue to claim that they are increasing democratisation and promoting human rights, but such policies will exist more in rhetoric than in practice. The electoral process will remain deeply flawed, and restrictive laws on religious freedoms will continue to be forcibly applied. The regime will meet any perceived threat of social unrest with force.

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.