2025 country profile

How democratic is
Cuba?

Cuba scores 26.6 out of 100 and ranks 151 of 179 in our independent 2025 democracy measure. Its lowest-scoring test is public participation. 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

26.6out of 100Far from the standard

2025 rank151 of 179

10-year change+0.7

25-year change+3.0

Source-bound range20.3–31.4

Weakest areaParticipation

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

SCORE HISTORY

Cuba, 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

Corruption concerns lacked independent avenues for scrutiny

Freedom House describes evidence of kleptocratic practices around a military-owned conglomerate and a lack of impartial investigations or fair trials to address allegations. The democratic mechanism is weakened accountability: claims about powerful institutions cannot be reliably tested when investigators and courts lack independence.

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 Cuba rose 0.7 points, from 25.9 to 26.6 between 2015 and 2025. 3 of the five areas improved while 2 worsened, so the headline combines competing movements. Participation contributed the largest upward push in the score calculation. The latest year moved in the opposite direction (−0.6), so the longer trend is not the whole story.

Read the political context ↓

Largest influence on the calculation

Participation

The evidence rates opportunities to participate through civic organizations, direct democracy, and local or regional institutions more favorably.

Area score: 10.5 → 13.4
Approx. contribution to overall change: +0.8 points

Moving in the other direction

Political equality

The evidence rates the distribution of political influence, rights, and access across social groups less favorably.

Area score: 79.5 → 73.7
Approx. contribution to overall change: −0.8 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.

2015–2016−1.0 points
The overall score fell from 25.9 to 24.9. Public reasoning supplied the largest downward contribution to that year’s calculated change.
2017–2018+2.0 points
The overall score rose from 25.2 to 27.2. Public reasoning supplied the largest upward contribution to that year’s calculated change.
2018–2019+1.3 points
The overall score rose from 27.2 to 28.5. Participation supplied the largest upward contribution to that year’s calculated change.

Highest published score in this window: 28.5 in 2019. 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
Participation	10.5	13.4	+2.9	+0.8
Political equality	79.5	73.7	−5.8	−0.8
Public reasoning	25.7	28.6	+2.9	+0.5
Elections	16.8	17.6	+0.8	+0.2
Rights and checks	15.0	14.6	−0.4	−0.1

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?

17.6

Rights and checks on power

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

14.6

Public participation

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

13.4

Public reasoning

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

28.6

Political equality

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

73.7

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

Cuba score table

Download Cuba CSV

Year	Score	Source-bound range	Elections	Rights & checks	Participation	Reasoning	Equality
2025	26.6	20.3–31.4	17.6	14.6	13.4	28.6	73.7
2024	27.2	21.0–31.9	17.8	14.0	13.7	29.0	78.3
2023	27.1	20.6–31.7	17.5	13.8	13.7	29.9	77.3
2022	27.4	20.9–31.9	17.8	14.1	13.8	29.7	78.5
2021	27.7	21.4–32.2	17.8	13.9	13.8	29.1	81.6
2020	28.1	21.8–32.9	17.8	15.3	13.8	29.7	81.6
2019	28.5	22.5–33.4	18.1	16.0	14.2	29.9	81.1
2018	27.2	21.2–32.4	17.7	15.9	12.0	29.9	76.9
2017	25.2	19.2–29.9	16.8	15.5	10.4	22.8	77.9
2016	24.9	19.0–29.9	16.9	14.3	10.4	22.8	78.1
2015	25.9	20.1–30.8	16.8	15.0	10.5	25.7	79.5
2014	25.9	20.0–30.8	16.8	15.0	10.5	25.7	79.5
2013	25.9	19.9–30.8	16.8	15.0	10.5	25.7	79.5
2012	26.1	20.1–31.0	16.7	13.3	11.7	26.1	81.3
2011	25.7	19.8–30.5	16.7	12.8	11.8	25.0	81.3
2010	26.1	20.3–31.0	16.7	12.6	13.2	25.0	81.3
2009	26.1	20.1–30.7	16.7	12.5	13.3	25.0	81.4
2008	24.4	18.5–28.7	10.5	12.3	13.3	25.0	81.4
2007	24.2	18.4–28.7	11.3	12.2	13.3	22.7	81.4
2006	23.3	17.5–27.6	11.3	12.2	13.3	17.9	81.7
2005	23.3	17.5–27.6	11.3	12.2	13.3	17.9	81.7
2004	23.2	17.5–27.7	11.4	12.2	13.2	17.9	80.8
2003	23.7	18.1–28.2	11.4	12.2	13.2	17.9	84.8
2002	23.7	17.9–28.0	11.3	12.4	13.2	17.9	84.8
2001	23.7	17.9–28.0	11.3	12.4	13.2	17.9	84.8
2000	23.6	17.9–28.0	11.3	11.9	13.2	17.9	84.8
1999	23.6	17.9–27.9	11.3	11.9	13.2	17.9	84.8
1998	23.5	17.8–27.8	11.3	11.6	13.2	17.9	84.8
1997	23.4	17.8–27.7	10.8	11.6	13.2	17.9	84.8
1996	23.3	17.7–27.7	10.8	11.5	13.2	17.9	84.8
1995	23.3	17.6–27.5	10.8	11.3	13.2	17.9	84.8
1994	23.4	17.8–27.7	10.8	11.3	13.6	17.9	85.3
1993	23.4	17.8–27.6	10.3	11.3	14.0	17.9	85.3
1992	22.5	17.3–26.4	7.1	11.5	14.4	17.9	85.4
1991	22.6	17.3–26.3	7.1	11.2	14.8	17.9	85.4
1990	22.6	17.4–26.4	7.1	11.2	15.2	17.9	85.4
1989	23.6	18.3–27.6	7.1	11.2	15.6	22.6	85.4
1988	23.7	18.4–27.7	7.1	11.2	16.0	22.6	85.4
1987	23.8	18.5–27.7	7.1	11.2	16.4	22.6	85.4
1986	23.7	18.3–27.7	7.1	11.2	16.8	21.7	85.4
1985	23.8	18.5–27.9	7.1	11.1	17.2	21.7	85.4
1984	23.9	18.6–28.0	7.1	11.1	17.6	21.7	85.4
1983	23.9	18.6–28.0	7.1	11.1	18.0	21.7	85.4
1982	24.0	18.7–28.1	7.1	11.1	18.4	21.7	85.4
1981	24.1	18.8–28.2	7.1	11.1	18.8	21.7	85.4
1980	24.2	18.9–28.3	7.1	11.1	19.2	21.7	85.4
1979	24.4	18.9–28.4	6.9	12.0	19.2	21.7	85.4
1978	23.9	18.6–28.0	6.9	11.5	19.2	21.7	82.5
1977	23.9	18.6–28.0	6.9	11.5	19.2	21.7	82.5
1976	23.2	18.0–27.3	6.9	9.0	19.2	21.7	82.5
1975	20.4	15.0–23.9	6.9	8.4	16.9	11.3	82.5
1974	20.4	15.0–23.9	6.9	8.4	16.9	11.3	82.5
1973	20.4	15.0–23.9	6.9	8.4	16.9	11.3	82.5
1972	20.4	15.0–23.9	6.9	8.4	16.9	11.3	82.5
1971	20.4	15.0–24.0	6.9	8.4	16.9	11.3	82.5
1970	19.6	14.4–23.4	6.9	8.4	12.8	11.3	82.5
1969	19.6	14.6–23.6	6.9	8.4	12.8	11.3	82.5
1968	19.4	14.4–23.3	6.9	7.7	12.8	11.3	82.5
1967	19.4	14.5–23.4	6.9	8.0	12.8	11.3	82.5
1966	19.4	14.5–23.4	6.9	8.0	12.8	11.3	82.5
1965	19.4	14.5–23.4	6.9	8.0	12.8	11.3	82.5
1964	19.5	14.2–23.3	6.9	8.6	12.5	11.3	82.5
1963	19.5	14.2–23.3	6.9	8.6	12.5	11.3	82.5
1962	19.4	14.1–23.2	6.9	8.2	12.5	11.3	82.5
1961	20.7	15.3–24.6	7.0	9.0	12.5	16.0	82.7
1960	23.3	17.3–27.8	8.8	9.6	12.5	25.9	82.7
1959	36.6	29.5–42.9	15.0	18.6	39.2	47.6	79.2
1958	28.3	20.1–34.2	27.7	33.6	49.3	14.8	21.6
1957	27.9	19.7–33.6	27.7	33.6	49.3	14.8	20.0
1956	29.6	21.5–35.9	28.1	33.6	49.3	21.3	20.0
1955	29.4	21.3–35.6	27.1	33.6	49.3	21.3	20.0
1954	26.9	19.0–32.8	19.4	33.6	43.8	21.3	20.0
1953	27.0	19.2–33.1	19.1	33.5	43.5	22.3	20.0
1952	45.0	39.0–51.4	25.4	53.1	52.5	86.9	21.5
1951	52.0	45.4–59.3	40.8	61.9	55.5	86.9	25.5
1950	53.1	45.9–60.1	41.8	64.4	55.5	86.9	26.8
1949	53.3	46.2–60.4	42.4	64.7	55.5	86.9	26.8
1948	53.3	46.1–60.5	42.7	64.6	55.5	86.9	26.8
1947	53.4	46.1–60.5	43.0	64.6	55.5	86.9	26.8
1946	53.3	46.1–60.5	42.8	64.6	55.5	86.9	26.8
1945	53.3	46.0–60.3	42.6	64.7	55.5	86.9	26.8
1944	53.3	46.0–60.3	42.7	64.7	55.5	86.9	26.8
1943	53.1	45.9–60.1	41.8	64.7	55.5	86.9	26.8
1942	53.4	46.2–60.5	41.9	64.7	55.5	86.9	27.8
1941	53.6	46.4–60.6	42.6	64.7	55.5	86.9	27.8
1940	52.4	45.6–59.5	38.8	64.7	55.3	86.9	26.8
1939	43.5	35.8–52.1	35.3	51.6	51.9	56.9	26.1
1938	43.3	35.6–51.8	34.7	51.6	51.9	56.9	26.1
1937	43.3	35.7–51.9	34.7	51.6	51.9	56.9	26.1
1936	42.5	35.1–51.0	30.9	51.6	51.9	56.9	26.1
1935	39.3	32.5–47.3	18.6	51.8	51.9	56.9	26.1
1934	39.2	32.2–47.0	18.6	51.5	52.0	56.9	25.9
1933	28.9	21.3–35.6	25.2	43.5	47.2	11.9	24.9
1932	29.0	20.7–35.2	27.3	44.1	45.8	11.9	23.7
1931	28.8	20.7–35.1	27.3	43.0	45.8	11.9	23.7
1930	29.0	20.9–35.4	27.8	43.4	45.8	11.9	23.7
1929	28.9	20.9–35.3	27.9	43.4	45.8	11.9	23.0
1928	29.8	21.6–36.2	29.3	46.7	45.9	12.3	23.0
1927	36.8	28.9–44.5	29.9	52.3	49.0	34.1	23.0
1926	37.3	29.6–44.9	30.1	52.5	51.2	34.1	23.0
1925	41.9	34.2–49.3	31.0	52.6	51.8	56.6	23.3
1924	43.2	35.9–50.5	31.1	52.9	51.8	63.9	23.3
1923	43.2	35.9–50.5	31.1	52.9	51.8	63.9	23.3
1922	43.3	35.9–50.6	31.7	52.9	51.6	63.9	23.3
1921	43.2	36.1–51.0	31.9	52.3	51.6	63.9	23.3
1920	43.3	35.9–50.6	31.9	52.5	51.6	63.9	23.3
1919	43.4	36.2–51.0	31.9	53.5	51.6	63.9	23.3
1918	43.2	36.1–50.8	31.1	53.5	51.6	63.9	23.3
1917	43.2	36.1–50.7	30.9	53.5	51.6	63.9	23.3
1916	43.4	36.2–51.0	31.9	53.5	51.6	63.9	23.3
1915	43.6	36.5–51.2	32.1	53.9	51.6	63.9	23.3
1914	43.4	36.4–51.0	31.5	53.9	51.6	63.9	23.3
1913	43.4	36.4–51.0	31.4	53.9	51.6	63.9	23.3
1912	43.3	35.9–50.6	31.5	53.1	51.6	63.9	23.3
1911	43.4	36.1–51.0	31.7	53.6	51.6	63.9	23.3
1910	43.3	36.1–50.8	31.1	53.6	51.6	63.9	23.3
1909	42.7	35.8–50.4	30.7	53.2	49.4	63.9	23.3
1908	39.9	33.4–47.1	19.8	53.2	49.4	63.9	23.3
1907	39.7	33.3–47.0	19.3	53.2	49.4	63.9	23.3
1906	41.9	34.6–49.0	28.2	53.1	48.5	63.9	23.3
1905	43.1	35.9–50.6	32.1	53.8	49.2	63.9	23.3
1904	43.2	36.0–50.7	32.5	53.8	49.2	63.9	23.3
1903	43.4	35.9–51.3	34.3	53.8	49.2	63.9	22.7
1902	41.9	34.7–49.7	30.7	53.4	47.6	63.5	21.8

CITE THIS PROFILE

Source and attribution

Democracys.org (2026), “Cuba Democracy Score, 1902–2025,” 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

#149Egypt27.5 #150Syria27.4 #152Central African Republic26.2 #153El Salvador25.7

All rankings

How democratic isCuba?

Cuba, 1975–2025

Corruption concerns lacked independent avenues for scrutiny

Participation

Political equality

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.

Cuba score table

Source and attribution

How democratic is
Cuba?

Two kinds of evidence.
One clearer picture.