Turkmenistan vs Zimbabwe: Meaningful democratic electoral institutions

Turkmenistan
0
in 2025
Zimbabwe
0
in 2025
Turkmenistan rank
87th
Zimbabwe rank
87th

Meaningful democratic electoral institutions over time

  • Turkmenistan
  • Zimbabwe
00.20.40.60.81189619602025

How they compare

Turkmenistan currently reports 0 against 0 in Zimbabwe, a difference of 0.

Across all 125 years both countries report, Zimbabwe has been ahead every year.

Turkmenistan ranks 87th and Zimbabwe ranks 87th of 176 countries.

Head to head by decade

Decade Turkmenistan Zimbabwe Difference Ahead
1900s 0 0 0 β€”
1910s 0 0 0 β€”
1920s 0 0 0 β€”
1930s 0 0 0 β€”
1940s 0 0 0 β€”
1950s 0 0 0 β€”
1960s 0 0 0 β€”
1970s 0 0 0 β€”
1980s 0 0 0 β€”
1990s 0 0 0 β€”
2000s 0 0 0 β€”
2010s 0 0 0 β€”
2020s 0 0 0 β€”

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher meaningful democratic electoral institutions, Turkmenistan or Zimbabwe?
Turkmenistan, at 0 against 0 in Zimbabwe as of 2025.
What is the difference in meaningful democratic electoral institutions between Turkmenistan and Zimbabwe?
0, with Turkmenistan ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Turkmenistan and Zimbabwe?
125 years are reported by both, from 1900 to 2025.
How do Turkmenistan and Zimbabwe rank globally for meaningful democratic electoral institutions?
Turkmenistan ranks 87th and Zimbabwe ranks 87th of 176 countries.
Where does this data come from?
V-Dem (2026) – processed by Our World in Data, published as Meaningful democratic electoral institutions. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

Individual pages

About this data

Indicator
Meaningful democratic electoral institutions
Source
V-Dem (2026) – processed by Our World in Data
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (Our World in Data)
Coverage
176 places, 29,649 data points, 1789–2025
Last refreshed

Central estimate of whether the country is meaningfully an electoral democracy. This includes the extent to which political leaders are elected under comprehensive suffrage in free and fair elections, and freedoms of association and expression are guaranteed.