Angola vs Chad: Justified Political Positions Score

Angola
-0.236
in 2025
Chad
-0.186
in 2025
Angola rank
134th
Chad rank
132nd

Justified Political Positions Score over time

  • Angola
  • Chad
-3-2-10190019622025

How they compare

Chad currently reports -0.186 against -0.236 in Angola, a difference of 0.05.

The two have swapped places 4 times across 106 shared years of data; in 1920 it was Chad ahead.

Angola ranks 134th and Chad ranks 132nd of 175 countries.

Across the 11 decades both report, Angola averaged higher in 2 and Chad in 9.

Head to head by decade

Decade Angola Chad Difference Ahead
1920s -3.15 -2.23 0.924 Chad
1930s -3.15 -2.23 0.924 Chad
1940s -3.15 -1.56 1.59 Chad
1950s -3.15 -1.34 1.81 Chad
1960s -2.71 -0.383 2.33 Chad
1970s -1.39 -0.8111 0.5829 Chad
1980s -1 -1.56 0.555 Angola
1990s -1.12 -0.5085 0.616 Chad
2000s -0.7355 -0.424 0.3115 Chad
2010s -0.4562 -0.3757 0.0805 Chad
2020s -0.1633 -0.186 0.0227 Angola

Averages of every year both report within each decade.

Frequently asked questions

Which has higher justified political positions score, Angola or Chad?
Chad, at -0.186 against -0.236 in Angola as of 2025.
What is the difference in justified political positions score between Angola and Chad?
0.05, with Chad ahead.
How many years of comparable data are there for Angola and Chad?
106 years are reported by both, from 1920 to 2025.
How do Angola and Chad rank globally for justified political positions score?
Angola ranks 134th and Chad ranks 132nd of 175 countries.
Where does this data come from?
V-Dem (2026) – processed by Our World in Data, published as Justified Political Positions Score. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.

Individual pages

About this data

Indicator
Justified Political Positions Score
Source
V-Dem (2026) – processed by Our World in Data
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (Our World in Data)
Coverage
175 places, 20,802 data points, 1900–2025
Last refreshed

Central estimate of the extent to which political elites provide complex, nuanced, and complete justifications for their views when considering important policy changes.