It looks like the key metrics they use are Electoral Competition, Freedom of Dissent, and Institutional Accountability.

The Tracker’s Regional Research Fellows apply a standardized list of 45 indicators, as set out below, to each country they analyze. The indicators reflect circumstances and events that HRF’s Tyranny Tracker team has identified as being relevant indicators of authoritarianism based on generally accepted political science parameters and HRF’s expertise on how these regimes operate in practice.

Research Fellows are asked to find prominent examples of these indicators and argue why, based on their findings, these indicators are met for the country they are analyzing. Fellows use a variety of resources to conduct this analysis, including HRF’s own in-house research and extensive human rights network, as well as information published by globally recognized or well-regarded local or international news sources and NGOs.

None of these indicators are necessarily in and of themselves enough to find that a regime is hybrid authoritarian or fully authoritarian. Fellows are asked to use the complete list of indicators to evaluate whether the thresholds for a democracy, hybrid authoritarian regime, or fully authoritarian regime are met.

Tyranny Tracker Indicators:

Electoral Competition

Are national-level elections, such as parliamentary or presidential elections, absent in the country/territory?

Has the governing authority unfairly barred a real, mainstream opposition party or candidate from competing in elections, including indirectly through judicial prosecution that leads to disqualification?

2.1. Has a non-state actor, with ties to the governing authority, contributed to the unfair barring of a real, mainstream opposition party or candidate from competing in elections, by exerting influence in favor of the governing authority?

Has the governing authority unfairly and significantly hindered a real, mainstream opposition party or candidate’s electoral campaign?

3.1. Has a non-state actor, with ties to the governing authority, contributed to the hindrance of a real, mainstream opposition party or candidate’s electoral campaign, including through violence or disinformation?

Has the governing authority engaged in significant electoral law manipulation, voting irregularities or electoral fraud?

4.1. Has a non-state actor, with ties to the governing authority, contributed to significant voting irregularities or electoral fraud?

Did the governing authority enjoy significant and unfair campaign advantages that seriously undermined the real, mainstream opposition’s ability to compete?

5.1. Has a non-state actor, with ties to the governing authority, contributed to the governing authority enjoying significant and unfair campaign advantages that seriously undermined the real, mainstream opposition’s ability to compete, including by engaging in slander or misinformation?

Has the governing authority seriously undermined independent electoral oversight?

6.1. Has a non-state actor, with ties to the governing authority, contributed to seriously undermining independent electoral oversight, including by blocking or threatening election monitors?

Did the real, mainstream opposition threaten to or ultimately boycott the elections, as a way of protesting the lack of a free and fair electoral competition?

Did the governing authority skew the electoral playing field so much so that it generally wins elections with a very high vote share, typically more than 70% of the vote?

Was a democratically-elected governing authority who is governing democratically (i.e. has not yet eroded into a hybrid or a fully authoritarian governing authority), overthrown through a coup d’état (whether military-led or civilian-led)?

Has the military effectively negated electoral results and taken over the government for itself?

Has the governing authority systematically disenfranchised specific groups of voters?

Freedom of Dissent

Has the governing authority unfairly shut down or taken measures that led to the shut down of a major independent, dissenting organization?

1.1. Has a non-state actor, with ties to the governing authority, contributed to the unfair shutdown of a major independent, dissenting organization, including by directly or indirectly pressuring a dissenting organization into shutting down?

Has the governing authority heavily manipulated media coverage in its favor?

2.1. Has a non-state actor, with ties to the governing authority, contributed to heavily manipulating media coverage in favor of the governing authority?

Has the governing authority seriously intimidated independent, dissenting media, political leaders, civil society leaders, organizations, or members of the general public, or otherwise seriously and unfairly obstructed their work?

3.1. Has a non-state actor, with ties to the governing authority, contributed to seriously intimidating independent, dissenting media, political leaders, civil society leaders, organizations, or members of the general public, or otherwise seriously and unfairly obstructed their work?

Has the governing authority seriously and unfairly repressed protests or gatherings?

4.1. Has a non-state actor, with ties to the governing authority, contributed to seriously and unfairly repressing protests, including through organized disruptions, intimidation, or violence?

Has the governing authority seriously and unfairly censored dissenting speech?

Has the governing authority killed or forcibly disappeared dissidents, or attempted to commit these crimes?

6.1. Has a non-state actor, with ties to the governing authority, contributed to the killing or enforced disappearance of dissidents, or attempted to commit these crimes?

Has the governing authority engaged in or enabled transnational repression against dissidents abroad, including through surveillance or other forms of intimidation?

7.1. Has a non-state actor, with ties to the governing authority, contributed to the governing authority’s transnational repression of dissidents abroad?

Has the governing authority systematically and disproportionally undermined marginalized groups’ ability to dissent?

Institutional Accountability

Have courts frequently and unfairly failed to check, or enabled the governing authority’s attempts to significantly undermine electoral competition or make the electoral process significantly skewed in its favor?

1.1. Has a non-state actor, with ties to the governing authority, contributed to the courts’ failure to check the governing authority’s attempts to significantly undermine electoral competition or make the electoral process significantly skewed in its favor?

Have courts frequently and unfairly failed to check, or enabled the governing authority’s attempts to repress criticism or retaliate against those who express open opposition to its most prominent, widely publicized policies?

Have members of the judicial branch, who act contrary to governing authority interests, or who are perceived as a threat to the governing authority, frequently faced governing authority retaliation?

3.1. Has a non-state actor, with ties to the governing authority, contributed to the governing authority’s retaliation against members of the judicial branch who rule contrary to governing authority interests or who are perceived as a threat to the governing authority?

Has the governing authority seriously undermined institutional independence, to the point where cases or issues challenging the governing authority are no longer brought or are frequently dismissed?

Has the governing authority directed certain cases, such as politically-sensitive cases, to separate, governing authority-controlled courts, such as governing authority-controlled military courts or a governing authority-controlled constitutional tribunal?

Have judicial, legislative, or executive institutions frequently and unfairly failed to hold governing authority officials accountable or, conversely, are they pressured or incentivized by the governing authority to hold governing authority officials accountable to uphold a certain image of governing authority legitimacy?

Has the governing authority subjected judicial institutions to reforms that abolish or seriously weaken their independence or operational effectiveness?

Has the governing authority subjected legislative institutions to reforms that abolish or seriously weaken their independence or operational effectiveness?

Has the governing authority subjected executive institutions to reforms that abolish or seriously weaken their independence or operational effectiveness?

Has the governing authority subjected independent institutions to reforms that abolish or seriously weaken their independence or operational effectiveness?