2025 country profile

How democratic is
Laos?

Laos scores 27.9 out of 100 and ranks 147 of 179 in our independent 2025 democracy measure. Its lowest-scoring test is free and fair elections. 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

27.9out of 100Far from the standard

2025 rank147 of 179

10-year change+4.1

25-year change+4.7

Source-bound range20.4–33.3

Weakest areaElections

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

SCORE HISTORY

Laos, 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.

2024 context · Freedom House assessment

Forced labor exposed gaps in practical rights protection

Freedom House describes workers being coerced into online-fraud operations and subjected to severe abuse, with weak enforcement against trafficking. This concerns protection from exploitation and access to remedies. It is not evidence of electoral liberalization in a system that continues to prohibit organized political opposition.

Read the country report · Freedom in the World 2025

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 Laos rose 4.1 points, from 23.8 to 27.9 between 2015 and 2025. All five areas improved. Elections 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

Elections

The evidence rates electoral choice, voting rights, political organization, and the space for open debate more favorably.

Area score: 9.0 → 13.5
Approx. contribution to overall change: +1.4 points

Another important influence

Participation

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

Area score: 34.7 → 39.6
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.

2016–2017+1.7 points
The overall score rose from 24.5 to 26.2. Elections supplied the largest upward contribution to that year’s calculated change.
2018–2019+1.6 points
The overall score rose from 26.3 to 27.9. Rights and checks supplied the largest upward contribution to that year’s calculated change.
2022–2023+0.7 points
The overall score rose from 27.9 to 28.6. Public reasoning supplied the largest upward contribution to that year’s calculated change.

Highest published score in this window: 28.6 in 2023. 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
Elections	9.0	13.5	+4.5	+1.4
Participation	34.7	39.6	+4.9	+0.8
Public reasoning	15.2	18.2	+3.0	+0.7
Rights and checks	32.2	36.4	+4.2	+0.7
Political equality	35.4	38.0	+2.6	+0.4

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?

13.5

Rights and checks on power

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

36.4

Public participation

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

39.6

Public reasoning

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

18.2

Political equality

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

38.0

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

Laos score table

Download Laos CSV

Year	Score	Source-bound range	Elections	Rights & checks	Participation	Reasoning	Equality
2025	27.9	20.4–33.3	13.5	36.4	39.6	18.2	38.0
2024	28.5	21.3–34.4	13.5	39.3	37.8	17.1	42.2
2023	28.6	21.7–34.6	13.2	35.2	38.2	19.2	44.0
2022	27.9	21.0–33.9	13.4	37.9	38.2	16.8	40.4
2021	28.2	20.7–34.0	13.5	34.5	40.4	19.3	39.3
2020	27.9	21.0–33.8	12.6	31.3	37.0	21.7	43.0
2019	27.9	20.9–34.0	12.7	36.9	34.3	22.2	39.1
2018	26.3	19.7–31.4	12.5	29.9	36.4	22.0	35.3
2017	26.2	19.9–31.3	12.4	31.0	35.1	22.0	35.0
2016	24.5	17.9–29.2	9.3	31.2	34.7	18.5	35.4
2015	23.8	17.7–28.5	9.0	32.2	34.7	15.2	35.4
2014	23.7	17.3–28.1	9.1	32.2	34.7	15.2	34.9
2013	23.9	17.7–28.4	9.1	32.3	34.7	15.2	35.8
2012	23.2	17.4–28.0	9.0	31.8	35.6	13.5	34.3
2011	23.2	17.4–28.0	9.0	31.8	35.6	13.5	34.3
2010	23.3	17.5–28.1	9.2	31.9	35.6	13.5	34.3
2009	22.8	17.3–27.5	9.0	31.5	33.3	13.5	34.3
2008	22.7	17.3–27.4	9.0	31.5	32.8	13.5	34.3
2007	22.7	17.1–27.3	8.9	31.5	32.8	13.5	34.3
2006	22.7	17.2–27.4	9.0	31.4	32.8	13.5	34.3
2005	22.6	17.1–27.3	9.0	31.8	32.8	13.5	33.4
2004	23.4	17.8–28.1	9.0	31.8	32.8	13.5	38.1
2003	23.4	17.8–28.0	9.0	31.8	32.7	13.5	38.1
2002	23.3	17.6–27.8	9.0	31.7	32.7	13.5	38.1
2001	23.2	17.7–27.7	8.7	31.7	32.7	13.5	38.1
2000	23.2	17.7–27.7	8.7	31.7	32.7	13.5	38.1
1999	23.2	17.7–27.8	8.7	31.5	32.7	13.5	38.1
1998	23.2	17.7–27.8	8.7	31.4	32.7	13.5	38.1
1997	22.6	16.9–26.9	8.6	31.4	32.7	10.4	39.9
1996	22.5	16.9–26.9	8.5	31.4	32.7	10.4	39.9
1995	22.5	17.2–27.0	8.5	31.3	32.7	10.4	39.7
1994	21.9	16.4–26.1	8.5	31.1	32.7	8.5	39.7
1993	21.9	16.6–26.3	8.5	31.6	32.7	8.5	39.7
1992	21.6	16.4–25.9	8.5	29.7	32.7	8.5	39.7
1991	21.9	16.4–26.2	8.5	31.6	32.7	8.5	39.7
1990	22.9	17.1–27.2	11.6	31.4	32.7	8.5	39.7
1989	22.3	16.6–26.6	11.3	31.4	32.7	8.5	36.4
1988	20.1	14.8–23.8	7.0	26.0	32.7	8.5	36.8
1987	20.5	15.1–24.2	7.0	26.0	32.7	8.5	39.8
1986	20.5	15.2–24.2	6.9	26.0	32.7	8.5	39.8
1985	20.2	14.8–24.0	6.9	24.9	32.7	7.7	40.9
1984	20.3	15.0–24.1	6.9	24.9	32.7	7.7	41.9
1983	20.3	15.0–24.1	6.9	24.9	32.7	7.7	41.9
1982	20.3	15.0–24.1	6.9	24.9	32.7	7.7	41.9
1981	20.3	15.0–24.1	6.9	24.9	32.7	7.7	41.9
1980	20.5	15.1–24.3	6.9	24.9	32.7	7.7	43.1
1979	20.5	15.1–24.3	6.9	24.9	32.7	7.7	43.1
1978	20.5	15.1–24.3	6.9	24.9	32.7	7.7	43.1
1977	20.5	15.1–24.3	6.9	24.9	32.7	7.7	43.1
1976	20.5	15.1–24.3	6.9	25.0	32.7	7.7	43.1
1975	18.3	12.3–23.3	12.7	23.5	21.5	12.3	23.3
1974	24.4	17.6–30.5	23.0	34.3	16.5	31.5	19.2
1973	24.8	18.0–30.9	23.5	34.3	17.6	31.5	19.2
1972	24.6	17.5–30.5	23.4	34.3	17.6	31.5	18.5
1971	24.7	17.5–30.5	23.7	34.3	17.6	31.5	18.5
1970	24.7	17.6–30.5	23.8	34.3	17.6	31.5	18.5
1969	24.7	17.6–30.6	23.8	34.3	17.6	31.5	18.5
1968	24.7	17.6–30.6	23.8	34.3	17.6	31.5	18.5
1967	24.7	17.6–30.6	23.8	34.3	17.6	31.5	18.5
1966	23.2	16.4–28.9	16.8	34.3	17.6	31.5	18.5
1965	23.1	16.4–29.1	16.5	34.3	17.6	31.5	18.5
1964	24.2	17.4–30.2	21.9	34.3	17.6	31.5	18.2
1963	24.2	17.6–30.4	21.7	34.6	17.6	31.5	18.2
1962	24.3	17.5–30.3	21.6	34.8	17.6	31.5	18.2
1961	24.2	17.5–30.2	21.5	34.8	17.6	31.5	18.2
1960	25.6	18.4–31.6	27.0	36.1	17.6	31.5	18.2
1959	26.9	19.3–33.0	29.3	37.6	17.6	34.6	18.6
1958	27.8	19.7–33.8	31.3	37.6	19.8	34.6	18.6
1957	26.7	19.3–32.8	26.4	37.6	19.8	34.6	17.9
1956	25.6	18.5–31.8	22.8	35.3	19.8	34.6	17.9
1955	25.6	18.6–31.9	23.1	35.3	19.8	34.6	17.9
1954	23.2	16.2–28.9	21.4	35.7	15.9	32.0	14.8
1953	22.9	16.0–28.1	21.1	36.3	15.7	32.1	13.5
1952	18.4	11.5–23.0	20.3	37.8	6.3	25.6	10.5
1951	18.4	11.5–23.0	20.1	37.8	6.3	25.6	10.5
1950	18.1	11.3–22.7	18.7	37.8	6.3	25.6	10.5
1949	18.2	11.4–22.8	19.4	37.8	6.3	25.6	10.5
1948	18.2	11.4–22.9	19.4	37.9	6.3	25.6	10.5
1947	16.8	10.4–21.3	16.9	31.5	6.3	25.6	10.5
1946	13.6	7.9–17.4	10.4	28.4	5.5	18.3	10.5
1945	11.4	6.2–14.8	6.0	23.4	8.3	14.4	8.2
1944	8.9	4.6–11.7	4.4	24.1	5.0	8.5	7.2
1943	8.7	4.3–11.5	4.0	23.1	5.0	8.5	7.2
1942	8.8	4.5–11.6	4.1	24.1	5.0	8.5	7.2
1941	8.7	4.4–11.6	4.1	23.2	5.0	8.5	7.2
1940	8.5	4.2–11.1	3.5	22.7	5.0	8.5	7.2
1939	9.3	5.0–12.4	3.4	25.0	5.0	9.5	9.3
1938	9.3	5.0–12.4	3.4	25.1	5.0	9.5	9.3
1937	9.3	5.0–12.4	3.4	25.1	5.0	9.5	9.3
1936	9.3	5.0–12.4	3.4	25.1	5.0	9.5	9.3
1935	9.3	5.0–12.4	3.4	25.1	5.0	9.5	9.3
1934	9.3	5.0–12.4	3.4	25.1	5.0	9.5	9.3
1933	9.3	5.0–12.4	3.4	25.1	5.0	9.5	9.3
1932	9.3	5.0–12.4	3.4	25.1	5.0	9.5	9.3
1931	9.3	5.0–12.4	3.4	25.1	5.0	9.5	9.3
1930	9.3	5.0–12.4	3.4	25.1	5.0	9.5	9.3
1929	9.3	5.0–12.4	3.4	25.1	5.0	9.5	9.3
1928	9.3	5.0–12.4	3.4	25.1	5.0	9.5	9.3
1927	9.3	5.0–12.4	3.4	25.1	5.0	9.5	9.3
1926	9.4	5.0–12.3	3.5	25.1	5.0	9.5	9.3
1925	9.4	5.0–12.3	3.5	25.1	5.0	9.5	9.3
1924	9.4	5.0–12.3	3.5	25.1	5.0	9.5	9.3
1923	9.4	5.0–12.3	3.5	25.1	5.0	9.5	9.3
1922	9.4	5.0–12.3	3.5	25.1	5.0	9.5	9.3
1921	9.4	5.0–12.3	3.5	25.1	5.0	9.5	9.3
1920	9.4	5.0–12.3	3.5	25.1	5.0	9.5	9.3
1919	9.4	5.0–12.3	3.5	25.1	5.0	9.5	9.3
1918	9.4	5.0–12.3	3.5	25.1	5.0	9.5	9.3
1917	9.4	5.0–12.4	3.5	25.1	5.0	9.5	9.3
1916	9.4	5.0–12.4	3.5	25.1	5.0	9.5	9.3
1915	9.4	5.0–12.4	3.5	25.1	5.0	9.5	9.3
1914	9.4	5.0–12.4	3.5	25.1	5.0	9.5	9.3
1913	9.4	5.0–12.3	3.5	25.1	5.0	9.5	9.3
1912	9.4	5.0–12.3	3.5	25.1	5.0	9.5	9.3
1911	9.4	5.0–12.3	3.5	25.1	5.0	9.5	9.3
1910	9.4	5.0–12.4	3.5	25.1	5.0	9.5	9.3
1909	9.4	5.0–12.4	3.5	25.1	5.0	9.5	9.3
1908	9.4	5.0–12.4	3.5	25.1	5.0	9.5	9.3
1907	9.4	5.0–12.4	3.5	25.1	5.0	9.5	9.3
1906	9.4	5.0–12.4	3.5	25.1	5.0	9.5	9.3
1905	9.4	5.0–12.4	3.5	25.1	5.0	9.5	9.3
1904	9.4	5.0–12.4	3.5	25.1	5.0	9.5	9.3
1903	9.4	5.0–12.4	3.5	25.1	5.0	9.5	9.3
1902	9.4	5.0–12.4	3.5	25.1	5.0	9.5	9.3
1901	9.4	5.0–12.4	3.5	25.1	5.0	9.5	9.3
1900	9.3	5.0–12.3	3.4	25.1	5.0	9.5	9.3

CITE THIS PROFILE

Source and attribution

Democracys.org (2026), “Laos 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

#145Angola28.4 #146Burkina Faso28.1 #148Cameroon27.8 #149Egypt27.5

All rankings

How democratic isLaos?