Countries where free elections and political accountability remain largely absent

Democracy is often reduced to one simple question: Can people vote?

But a ballot box alone does not make a country democratic. The more difficult questions are whether voters have a genuine choice, whether opposition parties can organise freely, whether journalists can question those in power, and, perhaps most importantly, whether governments can actually be held accountable by the people they govern.

As the world marks the International Day of Democracy today (15 September), those questions remain particularly relevant in countries where political competition is severely restricted or virtually absent.

Across the world's political map, democracy exists in very different forms. Some countries hold regular elections but leave little room for genuine competition. Others have no meaningful national elections at all. In still others, political institutions exist on paper but are too weak to challenge the people who control the state.

The result is a broad spectrum of authoritarian rule, from military governments and one-party states to absolute monarchies.

Global democracy assessments show that countries such as Afghanistan, North Korea, Eritrea, Myanmar and Turkmenistan have highly restricted political systems in which citizens have little or no meaningful ability to change their national leadership through competitive elections.

The V-Dem Democracy Report 2026 classifies these countries as closed autocracies, the most restrictive category in its democracy classification. V-Dem evaluates democracy through electoral, liberal, participatory, deliberative and egalitarian dimensions.

At the other end of the spectrum, the Economist Intelligence Unit's Democracy Index 2025 ranks Norway as the world's highest-scoring democracy, followed by New Zealand, Denmark, Iceland and Finland.

The contrast is striking.

In one part of the world, citizens can criticise their leaders, organise politically and expect institutions to scrutinise those in power. In another, even expressing dissent can carry serious consequences.

When the ballot box disappears

Afghanistan offers one of the clearest examples of what happens when an electoral system disappears altogether.

Since the Taliban returned to power in August 2021, Afghanistan has effectively had no competitive national electoral system. The elected republican government was replaced by an Islamic emirate in which the Taliban's supreme leader exercises broad political authority.

According to Freedom House's 2026 assessment, representative bodies have been abolished, while political and civic rights remain severely restricted. The country scored just 8 out of 100 in the organisation's Freedom in the World 2026 report.

For ordinary citizens, the question is no longer simply which political party to vote for. There is no meaningful electoral mechanism through which they can choose the country's national leadership.

That distinction matters.

Democracy is not only about the right to cast a ballot. It is also about having a choice.

An election without a choice

North Korea takes this principle to its extreme.

The country holds elections, but they are not competitive contests for political power. Freedom House describes North Korea as a one-party state led by a dynastic totalitarian dictatorship.

The state controls virtually all media, political dissent is severely punished, and freedom of assembly is not recognised.

North Korea scored only 3 out of 100 in Freedom House's 2026 assessment, including zero for political rights.

This raises a fundamental question about elections themselves: What is the value of voting if voters cannot meaningfully choose who governs them?

An election can exist as a procedure while democracy remains absent as a practice.

Eritrea's missing election

In Eritrea, the problem is even more straightforward.

The country has not held a national election since gaining independence from Ethiopia in 1993.

The People's Front for Democracy and Justice, led by President Isaias Afwerki, remains the country's sole political party. Independent media were shut down in 2001, while arbitrary detention and indefinite national service have remained major concerns.

Eritrea received only 3 out of 100 in Freedom House's 2026 assessment.

More than three decades without a national election is not simply a statistical oddity. It illustrates how political systems can become detached from the people they are supposed to represent.

When elected governments are removed

Myanmar presents a different route to the same destination.

The country had a civilian government and competitive elections before the military seized power in February 2021 and overthrew the elected government led by the National League for Democracy.

The coup demonstrated another vulnerability of democracy: winning an election does not necessarily guarantee that elected institutions will be allowed to complete their mandate.

Freedom House's 2026 assessment says the military has violently suppressed civic dissent and restricted political participation. Myanmar received only 4 out of 100.

For countries emerging from authoritarian rule, the lesson is particularly important. Elections can create democratic institutions, but those institutions also need independent courts, civilian control of the military, a free press and other safeguards to survive.

Elections, but little competition

Turkmenistan shows why the mere existence of elections can be misleading.

The country holds elections, but political competition is tightly controlled. Freedom House describes Turkmenistan as a highly repressive authoritarian state in which political rights and civil liberties are almost completely denied in practice.

It scored just 1 out of 100 in the 2026 Freedom in the World assessment.

This is perhaps where the discussion about democracy becomes more complicated.

If citizens are allowed to vote but cannot freely organise opposition, access independent information or challenge the ruling establishment, can that vote be considered a genuine expression of popular will?

Democracy requires more than the ritual of voting. It requires choice, competition and consequences.

The power of a single party

In China, elections exist at various levels, but citizens do not have direct, competitive national elections through which they can choose the country's top leadership.

The Chinese Communist Party maintains extensive control over government, media, online speech and civil society. Freedom House gave China 9 out of 100 in its 2026 assessment.

China's political system is also a reminder that authoritarianism does not always look the same.

A country can have sophisticated institutions, an enormous economy, functioning bureaucracies and local elections while still denying citizens a meaningful choice over national political leadership.

Monarchies and political accountability

In Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, the limitations on electoral democracy are rooted in hereditary political systems.

Saudi Arabia does not elect national-level officials, according to Freedom House. The country's political system is centred on the monarchy, while political opposition and dissent remain heavily restricted. Saudi Arabia scored 9 out of 100 in the 2026 assessment.

The UAE permits limited elections for its Federal National Council, but political parties are prohibited and ultimate political authority remains with the country's hereditary rulers.

The UAE scored 18 out of 100 and was classified as "Not Free" by Freedom House.

These systems raise another question: Can effective governance substitute for political accountability?

A government may deliver infrastructure, economic growth or administrative efficiency. But democratic accountability asks a different question: Who can remove the people in power if citizens no longer want them there?

Sudan and the collapse of a transition

Sudan offers perhaps the most tragic illustration of how fragile a democratic transition can be.

The country's transition towards civilian rule was disrupted by a military coup in 2021. Full-scale war between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces then erupted in April 2023.

Freedom House gave Sudan just 1 out of 100 in its 2026 assessment, citing the collapse of civilian political participation amid the continuing conflict.

Here, the issue is not simply that elections are absent. War itself has destroyed much of the institutional environment required for democracy to function.

Syria's uncertain political future

Syria presents a particularly complicated case because its political system has changed dramatically since the fall of Bashar al-Assad's government in December 2024.

The country remains classified as "Not Free" by Freedom House. Its 2026 assessment says political rights remain severely restricted under the transitional authorities, although there have been improvements in some areas of journalism, civil society and private expression compared with the Assad era.

Syria's experience shows that removing an authoritarian ruler does not automatically produce democracy.

The difficult part comes afterwards: building institutions in which power is limited, minorities are protected, elections are credible and governments can be peacefully replaced.

What does democracy really mean?

Perhaps the most important lesson from these countries is that democracy cannot be measured by elections alone.

A functioning democracy requires political competition, civil liberties, an independent judiciary, a free press, transparency, accountability and meaningful participation by citizens.

A government should not merely ask people for their votes. It should also be answerable to them between elections.

That is why the health of a democracy can sometimes be better understood by asking what happens after people vote.

Can a journalist investigate the government without fear?

Can an opposition politician criticise the leader?

Can citizens protest peacefully?

Can courts rule against the government?

Can an election actually remove those in power?

If the answer to these questions is no, the presence of ballot boxes tells only part of the story.

The United Nations also stresses that democracy goes beyond elections, linking it with human rights, the rule of law and meaningful participation in political and civic life.

For me, that is perhaps the most important distinction on this International Day of Democracy: democracy is not simply the freedom to choose a government. It is the existence of institutions and freedoms that allow people to question, challenge and, when necessary, change that government.

Without those safeguards, elections can become a ceremony rather than a mechanism of public power.

And when citizens lose the ability to hold their rulers accountable, democracy may disappear long before the word itself disappears from a country's constitution.

The United Nations observes the International Day of Democracy every 15 September. The day was established by the UN General Assembly in 2007 to promote democratic principles and review the state of democracy around the world.

The global picture remains challenging. Freedom House's 2026 report found that global freedom declined for the 20th consecutive year in 2025, with 54 countries experiencing deterioration in political rights and civil liberties, compared with improvements in 35 countries.

On a day dedicated to democracy, those numbers offer a sobering reminder: having an election is one thing; having the power to change your government is another.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Business Standard.