Central African Republic vs Uganda: Institutionalized autocracy
Institutionalized autocracy over time
- Central African Republic
- Uganda
How they compare
Central African Republic currently reports 2 against 2 in Uganda, a difference of 0.
The two have swapped places 3 times across 50 shared years of data; in 1962 it was Central African Republic ahead.
Central African Republic ranks 14th and Uganda ranks 14th of 51 countries.
Across the 6 decades both report, Central African Republic averaged higher in 3 and Uganda in 2.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Central African Republic | Uganda | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1960s | 7 | -8.62 | 15.62 | Central African Republic |
| 1970s | 7 | -0.3 | 7.3 | Central African Republic |
| 1980s | 7 | -4.4 | 11.4 | Central African Republic |
| 1990s | 1.9 | 4.9 | 3 | Uganda |
| 2000s | 1.4 | 3 | 1.6 | Uganda |
| 2010s | 2 | 2 | 0 | — |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher institutionalized autocracy, Central African Republic or Uganda?
- Central African Republic, at 2 against 2 in Uganda as of 2011.
- What is the difference in institutionalized autocracy between Central African Republic and Uganda?
- 0, with Central African Republic ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Central African Republic and Uganda?
- 50 years are reported by both, from 1962 to 2011.
- How do Central African Republic and Uganda rank globally for institutionalized autocracy?
- Central African Republic ranks 14th and Uganda ranks 14th of 51 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- Center for Systemic Peace, www.systemicpeace.org/polity/polity4.htm, published as Institutionalized autocracy. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
Democracy is conceived as three essential, interdependent elements. One is the presence of institutions and procedures through which citizens can express effective preferences about alternative policies and leaders. Second is the existence of institutionalized constraints on the exercise of power by the executive. Third is the guarantee of civil liberties to all citizens in their daily lives and in acts of political participation. Other aspects of plural democracy, such as the rule of law, systems of checks and balances, freedom of the press, and so on are means to, or specific manifestations of, these general principles. We do not include coded data on civil liberties.