2025 country profile

How democratic is
Burma/Myanmar?

Burma/Myanmar scores 10.8 out of 100 and ranks 176 of 179 in our independent 2025 democracy measure. Its lowest-scoring test is rights and checks on power. Explore the evidence and history below.

Democracys.org beta estimate, derived from V-Dem v16. A measure of political institutions and conditions—not a percentage of democracy or a judgment of people.

Printable country brief Compare this country

DEMOCRACYS SCORE

10.8out of 100Far from the standard

2025 rank176 of 179

10-year change−34.0

25-year change−0.2

Source-bound range5.5–14.0

Weakest areaRights & checks

The source-bound range is an uncertainty guide, not a confidence interval for this combined score. How to read the range →

SCORE HISTORY

Burma/Myanmar, 1975–2025

The shaded area is a plain-language uncertainty guide. Treat small score differences cautiously.

About uncertainty

BEYOND THE NUMBERS

What changed on the ground?

A documented development to help interpret the institutions behind the score.

2025 context · Freedom House assessment

Election rules excluded genuine opposition

Junta-imposed legislation prevented meaningful opposition participation in elections, while minority voters and constituencies were excluded. Freedom House also describes severe restrictions on unions. Holding a vote under these conditions does not provide the same evidence of democratic choice as an open, inclusive contest.

Read the country report · Freedom in the World 2026

AI-assisted source summary · not independently expert-reviewed

What this context does—and does not—explain

This is a selected development, not a complete political history. Its date may differ from the selected comparison period. It is not evidence that one event caused a particular number of points, and it may describe progress even when this index declines.

The scores use V-Dem. The narrative summarizes a separate assessment by Freedom House, whose definitions and coverage differ. Neither organization endorses this website. The summary is AI-assisted, source-linked, and has not received independent country-expert review. Source checked October 5, 2026.

Why democracy measures can disagree →

UNDERSTAND THE CHANGE

What drove the score?

2015–2025 · the measured story

The score for Burma/Myanmar fell 34.0 points, from 44.8 to 10.8 between 2015 and 2025. All five areas declined. Public reasoning contributed the largest downward push in the score calculation.

Read the political context ↓

Largest influence on the calculation

Public reasoning

The evidence rates public justification, consultation, and engagement with opposing arguments less favorably.

Area score: 65.4 → 11.8
Approx. contribution to overall change: −9.3 points

Another important influence

Rights and checks

The evidence points toward weaker civil liberties, equality before the law, or constraints on executive power.

Area score: 36.4 → 4.0
Approx. contribution to overall change: −8.3 points

These contributions explain the calculation—not the causes. The five area scores combine several indicators; they do not identify which individual law, election, or event changed.

When did the biggest shifts appear?

The largest year-to-year movements within this period. These are changes in annual estimates, not precise dates of political events.

2015–2016+4.5 points
The overall score rose from 44.8 to 49.3. Rights and checks supplied the largest upward contribution to that year’s calculated change.
2020–2021−38.7 points
The overall score fell from 52.8 to 14.1. Public reasoning supplied the largest downward contribution to that year’s calculated change.
2021–2022−2.1 points
The overall score fell from 14.1 to 12.0. Participation supplied the largest downward contribution to that year’s calculated change.

Highest published score in this window: 52.8 in 2020. Small differences may fall within the source’s uncertainty.

See all five areas and how contributions are calculated

Changes in inputs versus contributions to the overall score
Area	2015	2025	Input change	Approx. contribution
Public reasoning	65.4	11.8	−53.6	−9.3
Rights and checks	36.4	4.0	−32.4	−8.3
Elections	37.0	8.0	−29.0	−6.5
Participation	46.1	13.9	−32.2	−6.0
Political equality	42.0	20.0	−22.0	−4.0

We change the five inputs from their starting to ending values in every possible order, then average each area’s effect on the formula. This distributes the formula’s interactions (a Shapley allocation). It is a mathematical attribution, not a causal estimate.

Inputs and published scores are rounded, so contributions are approximate and may not add exactly to the displayed total. No significance test is implied. Read the full scoring method →

BENEATH THE SCORE

Five dimensions of democracy

The headline score cannot show where a political system is strong or constrained. These five tests can. Each has equal weight in the beta standard.

Free and fair elections

Can people choose their leaders through broad voting rights, honest elections, free political groups, and open public debate?

8.0

Rights and checks on power

Are basic freedoms protected, laws applied fairly, courts independent, and leaders prevented from abusing power?

4.0

Public participation

Can people shape public life through civic groups, direct voting, and meaningful local and regional government?

13.9

Public reasoning

Do leaders explain decisions, consult the public, answer opposing arguments, and consider the common good?

11.8

Political equality

Do different social groups have equal rights, access, resources, and a real chance to influence political power?

20.0

HOW TO READ THIS PROFILE

Two kinds of evidence.
One clearer picture.

The score breakdown identifies which parts of the measure changed most. The country report adds documented political context. Together they help explain the institutions at stake—but they do not prove that a specific event produced a specific number of points.

Why this score differs from other democracy indices →

What a declining score can—and cannot—tell us about democratic backsliding

A recent improvement can coexist with a long-term decline. Always compare the dates, check the linked source, and consider developments the selected narrative does not cover.

ANNUAL DATA

Burma/Myanmar score table

Download Burma/Myanmar CSV

Year	Score	Source-bound range	Elections	Rights & checks	Participation	Reasoning	Equality
2025	10.8	5.5–14.0	8.0	4.0	13.9	11.8	20.0
2024	11.2	6.4–14.4	8.0	4.1	15.9	11.8	20.1
2023	11.3	6.7–14.8	7.7	4.2	16.1	12.6	19.9
2022	12.0	6.8–15.3	8.7	4.1	16.4	14.4	20.5
2021	14.1	8.7–18.3	10.2	4.8	26.8	13.1	21.1
2020	52.8	45.8–60.7	42.6	49.8	52.0	76.0	46.5
2019	52.1	45.0–60.3	42.1	48.8	51.0	73.2	47.6
2018	51.4	43.7–58.6	39.7	47.8	51.2	74.0	47.4
2017	50.1	42.8–57.6	40.2	45.9	49.6	71.9	45.6
2016	49.3	42.1–56.7	40.2	45.4	48.3	75.6	40.4
2015	44.8	37.4–52.3	37.0	36.4	46.1	65.4	42.0
2014	41.3	33.8–48.9	35.7	32.7	45.2	58.4	37.0
2013	39.9	31.8–46.8	35.5	31.2	44.0	53.3	37.2
2012	38.1	30.6–45.3	30.6	28.9	34.2	59.8	40.6
2011	33.6	26.3–40.2	22.3	28.1	32.8	48.7	38.9
2010	19.4	13.5–24.0	11.9	9.2	27.4	19.1	35.0
2009	11.6	7.3–14.5	9.7	4.5	16.4	7.6	24.9
2008	11.5	6.9–14.1	9.6	4.4	16.4	7.4	24.9
2007	11.0	6.5–13.6	9.6	4.1	14.1	7.4	24.9
2006	11.3	7.0–14.1	9.6	4.5	14.1	7.8	24.9
2005	11.3	7.0–14.1	9.6	4.5	14.1	7.8	24.9
2004	11.3	7.0–14.1	9.6	4.5	14.1	7.8	24.9
2003	11.3	7.0–14.1	9.6	4.5	14.1	7.8	24.9
2002	11.0	6.9–13.8	9.6	4.5	14.1	6.8	24.9
2001	11.0	6.9–13.8	9.6	4.5	14.1	6.8	24.9
2000	11.0	6.9–13.8	9.6	4.5	14.1	6.8	24.9
1999	10.9	6.8–13.7	9.6	4.2	14.1	6.8	24.9
1998	10.9	6.8–13.7	9.6	4.2	14.1	6.8	24.9
1997	10.9	6.8–13.7	9.6	4.2	14.1	6.8	24.9
1996	10.9	6.8–13.7	9.6	4.2	14.1	6.8	24.9
1995	10.9	6.8–13.7	9.6	4.2	14.1	6.8	24.9
1994	10.9	6.8–13.7	9.6	4.2	14.1	6.8	24.9
1993	10.9	6.8–13.7	9.6	4.2	14.1	6.8	24.9
1992	11.0	6.8–13.7	9.6	4.2	14.5	6.8	24.9
1991	11.0	6.9–13.8	9.6	4.2	14.8	6.8	24.9
1990	11.5	7.2–14.3	11.5	4.2	15.2	6.8	24.9
1989	11.0	7.1–13.9	9.0	4.3	15.5	6.8	24.3
1988	11.3	7.3–14.3	12.6	4.1	15.5	5.8	24.1
1987	12.6	7.8–15.6	13.8	5.8	15.8	10.7	19.1
1986	12.6	7.9–15.8	13.8	5.8	16.2	10.7	19.1
1985	12.7	8.0–15.9	13.8	5.8	16.5	10.7	19.1
1984	12.8	8.1–15.9	13.8	5.8	16.9	10.7	19.1
1983	12.8	8.2–16.0	13.8	5.8	17.2	10.7	19.1
1982	12.9	8.2–16.0	13.8	5.8	17.6	10.7	19.1
1981	12.9	8.2–16.1	13.7	5.8	17.9	10.7	19.1
1980	13.0	8.3–16.1	13.7	5.8	18.3	10.7	19.1
1979	13.0	8.3–16.1	13.6	5.8	18.3	10.7	19.1
1978	13.0	8.4–16.2	13.6	5.8	18.6	10.7	19.1
1977	13.1	8.4–16.2	13.6	5.8	19.0	10.7	19.1
1976	13.1	8.4–16.2	13.6	5.8	19.0	10.7	19.1
1975	11.7	7.3–14.8	7.4	5.8	19.0	10.7	19.1
1974	11.4	7.1–14.3	7.3	4.7	19.0	10.7	19.1
1973	10.7	6.5–13.4	7.0	4.1	19.5	8.4	19.1
1972	9.8	5.6–12.4	7.0	4.1	13.5	8.4	19.1
1971	9.8	5.6–12.4	7.0	4.1	13.5	8.4	19.1
1970	9.8	5.6–12.4	7.0	4.1	13.5	8.4	19.1
1969	9.8	5.6–12.4	7.0	4.1	13.5	8.4	19.1
1968	9.8	5.6–12.4	7.0	4.1	13.5	8.4	19.1
1967	9.8	5.6–12.4	7.0	4.1	13.5	8.4	19.1
1966	9.8	5.6–12.4	7.0	4.1	13.5	8.4	19.1
1965	9.9	5.7–12.6	7.0	4.6	13.5	8.4	19.1
1964	9.9	6.0–12.9	7.0	4.7	13.5	8.4	19.1
1963	10.7	6.2–13.7	7.7	5.2	13.5	8.4	22.0
1962	22.3	15.8–28.2	13.1	15.5	22.0	38.2	27.0
1961	49.3	40.3–57.1	42.6	55.4	45.3	67.2	38.3
1960	46.6	37.1–54.7	41.9	56.7	34.0	65.9	38.3
1959	46.4	36.9–54.3	40.7	56.6	34.0	65.9	38.3
1958	46.5	37.3–54.8	40.7	56.8	34.0	66.7	38.3
1957	50.3	42.5–59.3	42.4	57.2	46.1	68.0	40.5
1956	50.4	42.4–59.2	42.5	57.2	46.1	68.0	40.5
1955	50.4	42.1–59.0	42.6	57.2	46.1	68.0	40.5
1954	50.4	42.1–59.0	42.6	57.2	46.1	68.0	40.5
1953	50.4	42.1–59.0	42.6	57.2	46.1	68.0	40.5
1952	49.3	41.2–57.6	39.0	55.4	46.1	68.0	40.5
1951	43.2	36.5–50.6	25.5	40.9	46.1	68.0	40.5
1950	42.3	35.7–49.6	22.3	40.9	46.1	68.0	40.5
1949	42.3	35.7–49.6	22.5	40.9	46.1	68.0	40.5
1948	41.6	35.3–49.2	22.1	40.9	43.4	68.0	40.1
1947	35.4	28.2–42.5	19.4	35.8	36.3	52.7	37.3
1946	27.7	20.0–33.7	16.6	35.3	14.8	43.7	34.5
1945	22.3	15.2–28.3	13.0	25.5	12.4	32.6	32.8
1944	18.4	11.8–23.7	9.5	22.1	12.4	21.0	31.1
1943	18.3	11.8–23.6	9.2	22.1	12.4	21.0	31.1
1942	19.5	12.6–24.9	11.4	25.5	12.4	21.0	31.1
1941	24.2	16.9–30.5	21.5	39.0	12.3	25.7	26.4
1940	26.4	18.5–32.5	22.3	39.0	12.5	32.2	30.8
1939	25.8	17.7–31.6	22.3	39.0	10.4	32.2	30.8
1938	25.8	17.7–31.6	22.3	39.0	10.4	32.2	30.8
1937	25.8	17.7–31.6	22.3	39.0	10.4	32.2	30.8
1936	24.5	17.2–30.6	20.8	39.0	10.4	27.0	30.7
1935	24.4	16.9–30.4	20.4	39.0	10.4	27.0	30.8
1934	24.3	16.8–30.3	19.9	39.1	10.4	27.0	30.8
1933	24.3	16.8–30.3	19.9	39.1	10.4	27.0	30.8
1932	24.3	16.8–30.2	19.6	39.1	10.4	27.0	30.8
1931	24.3	16.8–30.2	19.6	39.1	10.4	27.0	30.8
1930	24.3	16.8–30.2	19.6	39.1	10.4	27.0	30.8
1929	24.3	16.8–30.2	19.6	39.1	10.4	27.0	30.8
1928	24.3	16.8–30.3	19.7	39.1	10.4	27.0	30.8
1927	24.3	16.8–30.3	19.7	39.1	10.4	27.0	30.8
1926	24.3	16.8–30.3	19.7	39.1	10.4	27.0	30.8
1925	24.3	16.8–30.3	19.7	39.1	10.4	27.0	30.8
1924	24.3	16.8–30.3	19.7	39.1	10.4	27.0	30.8
1923	24.3	16.8–30.3	19.7	39.1	10.4	27.0	30.8
1922	22.1	15.1–27.8	13.7	34.3	10.4	27.0	30.8
1921	20.1	13.3–25.4	9.5	33.2	9.0	27.0	28.9
1920	19.9	13.3–25.2	9.0	33.2	9.0	27.0	28.9
1919	19.9	13.3–25.2	8.9	33.2	9.0	27.0	28.9
1918	19.9	13.3–25.2	8.9	33.2	9.0	27.0	28.9
1917	19.9	13.3–25.2	8.9	33.2	9.0	27.0	28.9
1916	19.9	13.3–25.2	8.9	33.2	9.0	27.0	28.9
1915	19.9	13.3–25.2	8.9	33.2	9.0	27.0	28.9
1914	19.9	13.3–25.2	8.9	33.2	9.0	27.0	28.9
1913	19.9	13.3–25.2	8.9	33.2	9.0	27.0	28.9
1912	19.9	13.3–25.2	8.9	33.2	9.0	27.0	28.9
1911	19.9	13.3–25.2	8.9	33.2	9.0	27.0	28.9
1910	19.9	13.3–25.2	8.9	33.2	9.0	27.0	28.9
1909	19.9	13.3–25.2	8.9	33.2	9.0	27.0	28.9
1908	19.9	13.3–25.2	8.9	33.2	9.0	27.0	28.9
1907	19.9	13.3–25.2	8.9	33.2	9.0	27.0	28.9
1906	19.9	13.3–25.2	8.9	33.2	9.0	27.0	28.9
1905	19.9	13.3–25.2	8.9	33.2	9.0	27.0	28.9
1904	19.9	13.3–25.2	8.9	33.2	9.0	27.0	28.9
1903	19.9	13.3–25.2	8.9	33.2	9.0	27.0	28.9
1902	19.9	13.3–25.2	8.9	33.2	9.0	27.0	28.9
1901	19.8	13.4–25.2	8.9	33.2	8.9	27.0	28.9
1900	19.8	13.4–25.2	8.9	33.2	8.9	27.0	28.9

CITE THIS PROFILE

Source and attribution

Democracys.org (2026), “Burma/Myanmar Democracy Score, 1900–2025,” Democracys Standard v1.0 beta; derived from Coppedge et al. (2026), V-Dem Country-Year Dataset v16.

Open source DOI

NEARBY IN THE 2025 RANKING

#174Nicaragua11.9 #175Turkmenistan11.7 #177North Korea10.3 #178Eritrea8.8

All rankings

How democratic isBurma/Myanmar?

Burma/Myanmar, 1975–2025

Election rules excluded genuine opposition

Public reasoning

Rights and checks

When did the biggest shifts appear?

Five dimensions of democracy

Free and fair elections

Rights and checks on power

Public participation

Public reasoning

Political equality

Two kinds of evidence.One clearer picture.

Burma/Myanmar score table

Source and attribution

How democratic is
Burma/Myanmar?

Two kinds of evidence.
One clearer picture.