Why V-Dem can’t afford selectivity

This article was originally published in Portuguese (https://www.revistaid.com.br/p/por-que-o-v-dem-nao-pode-se-dar-ao) and translated with the aid of AI for this publication.

A critical analysis of how incomplete narratives and strategic silences can inadvertently strengthen new forms of autocracy.

Villa Project and Thiago Padovan (January 20, 2026)

To define as democratic someone who has never called for a coup d’état is a falsification. There are other ways to erode democracy, such as the conquest of hegemony over society through a state controlled by the party. Indeed, it was V-Dem itself that warned about this in the masterful article by Anna Lührmann & Staffan I. Lindberg (2019): “A third wave of autocratization is here: what’s new about it?”

The responsibility of hegemony

The V-Dem Institute has deservedly established itself as the “gold standard” in measuring global democracy. With numerous projects and a network of 4,200 experts, the institute is no longer just an academic observer, but a validator of legitimacy .

Governments, journalists, businesspeople, and others look to these reports to shape their views and make strategic decisions.

Precisely because it occupies this position of intellectual hegemony, the V-Dem bears the burden that its definitions and positions shape reality.

When V-Dem categorizes a political movement, it creates a narrative. And this is where our deep concern lies: that the rigorous scrutiny applied to certain forms of autocracy is not applied, with the same intensity and publicity, to other equally corrosive threats to liberal democracy.

The deafening silence surrounding Iran

In recent weeks, the world has watched in horror as repression and violence escalate in Iran. However, observing the communication channels (LinkedIn and Bluesky) of the Director of V-Dem, Professor Staffan I. Lindberg, we notice a disturbing silence on this topic, in contrast to the (necessary) intense coverage of autocratization, primarily in the US.

When an institution the size of V-Dem focuses its efforts primarily on one aspect of the authoritarian spectrum, it creates a “blind spot.”

Theocratic or illiberal left-wing regimes exploit this vacuum to pose as victims of imperialism or, worse, to operate in the shadows of international criticism. Iranian repression is as destructive as any current populist autocracy, in most cases far worse. The silence, in this case, sounds like a prioritization of democratic tragedies.

The Brazilian case: The dangerous narrative of the “U-Turn”

For two years, we have been warning V-Dem about the disconnect between their data and the reality in Brazil. Classifying Brazil as a case of “Democratic U-turn” is dangerous in political practice.

The fallacy of the “Broad Front”: The report suggested the existence of a “broad front for democracy” and a “decent” performance by the judiciary. As we pointed out in our correspondence to V-Dem, this interpretation ignores the fact that part of the Brazilian judiciary, under the pretext of “defending democracy,” has adopted exceptional measures, censorship, and overreach that would be condemned in any mature liberal democracy, and that this situation has worsened since then.
The shift from illiberal regimes: The departure of a government with autocratic tendencies (Bolsonaro) to another (Lula/PT) that flirts with and aligns itself with dictatorial regimes and controls the state apparatus does not constitute a “return to democracy,” but rather a change in the aesthetics of illiberalism.
The V-Dem’s response: In email exchanges, V-Dem representatives argued that the improvement in approval ratings was “modest” and that the term “U-turn” refers only to halting the decline, not to democratic perfection.

While we respect the methodology, the problem lies in the narrative .

When the V-Dem stamps “U-Turn” on a report, media outlets, governments, and influencers use it as a stamp of approval to continue eroding institutions through other means. Academic nuance is lost, and what remains is political propaganda validated by Gothenburg.

The American collapse is no habeas corpus for other autocrats.

Of course, we must always state clearly that the authoritarian shift in the United States is an event of great magnitude.

We agree with the seriousness that V-Dem attributes to this phenomenon. The escalation is visible and violent:

Cynical foreign policy: Maintaining relations with the authoritarian regime in Venezuela demonstrates that the moral compass has been replaced by opaque interests, far removed from any intention of democratization or legitimate aid to the people of that country.
Resurgent imperialism: Territorial threats, primarily concerning Greenland, combined with economic coercion via tariffs against historical allies of the European Union, paint a picture of aggressive isolationism.
Pro-Russian Alignment: The stance in the Ukraine-Russia conflict has transformed the US into a megaphone for Kremlin narratives, weakening NATO and leaving Europe in a state of existential vulnerability.
Internal chaos: The instrumentalization of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) to create a state of internal terror and social destabilization is a textbook autocratic tactic.

We could continue listing many other actions; however, recognizing American autocratization cannot serve as a smokescreen to ignore what is happening in the “Illiberal International,” as Foreign Affairs magazine recently called it.

The fact that the US is ailing doesn’t make Brazil healthy. On the contrary, the global scenario demands heightened vigilance, as autocrats learn from one another.

Brazil in the “Illiberal International”: The Diplomacy of Complicity

Looking beyond national borders, we see the consolidation of what analysts at Foreign Affairs have called “The Illiberal International,” a network of cooperation where autocracies shield themselves economically and ideologically from liberal democracies.

And it is in foreign policy that the Lula government reveals its true face, far removed from the image of “savior of democracy” that the V-Dem helped to paint.

There are factual elements that dismantle the thesis of a genuinely democratic government in Brazil:

The “Doctrine of Embracing the Dictator”: The current government’s alliance policy cannot be called pragmatism, but rather deliberate preference. The systematic alignment with dictatorships (Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Angola, China, Russia, and Iran) and the commitment to rehabilitating the image of tyrants on the global stage are proof of a deep ideological affinity with authoritarianism.
The false equivalence in Ukraine: By downplaying Russia’s role (aggressor and autocratic) and equating responsibilities with Ukraine (victim of aggression and democratic), Brazil is not defending peace; it is defending the survival of Putin’s autocratic model, validating the law of the strongest. Curiously, this position is similar to Trump’s on this issue.
The silence on Iran: The most recent statement from the Brazilian government regarding the situation in Iran is a case study in omission. By not mentioning who is perpetrating the massacre, the Brazilian government chooses to protect the theocratic regime at the expense of human rights, and especially those of women, often the object of “force” and indignation elsewhere in the world. Iranian women have been forgotten by our government. Failing once again the most basic test of democratic solidarity.
“Image Washing” via BRICS: Brazil’s proactive role in expanding BRICS is not accidental or driven solely by economic and commercial interests; rather, it is a geopolitical validation. By opening the doors to regimes like Iran ‘s , the Brazilian government provided international legitimacy and access to new diplomatic channels for a theocracy. In practice, Brazil helped transform BRICS into a “club of autocrats” where dictatorships gain financial and political momentum to continue oppressing their populations and undermining global democracies without the isolation they deserve.
Alckmin alongside terrorist leaders: We must never forget the fateful photo of the Vice President of Brazil, Geraldo Alckmin, at the inauguration ceremony of the President of Iran, Masud Pezeshkian, alongside terrorist leaders acting on behalf of the Workers’ Party government.
The strange populist chemistry: Ironically, we observe a recent exchange of compliments and a diplomatic “chemistry” between Lula and Trump. If the V-Dem considers Trump an existential threat to democracy (and we agree), how can we explain that the supposed “champion of democracy” in Brazil finds so many points of convergence with him? The answer is this: illiberal populists, whether left or right, speak the same language when it comes to contempt for institutional limits and the global liberal order.

V-Dem needs to decide whether it will continue analyzing Brazil based on what the government says in speeches to the UN, or based on what the government does when shaking hands with the world’s greatest enemies of freedom.

Methodology vs. Perceived Reality

Our criticism is not an attack on the data, but on the interpretation that ignores the volatility of the scenario. V-Dem acknowledges that indicators of political regimes may not immediately reflect the impacts of governmental behaviors, and that measurement error exists. However, the insistence on optimistic narratives about Brazil or the silence about certain autocracies suggests a confirmation bias where governments that “sound” progressive receive the benefit of the doubt that is not granted to others.

The V-Dem needs to pay more attention to these things that can be just as lethal to freedom as military authoritarianism.

The interview with Carta Capital and the analysts’ bubble.

The credibility of a global institution is not built solely on data, but also on the curation of its public interactions . Recently, in one of his very rare direct appearances in the Brazilian media, Professor Lindberg gave an exclusive interview to Carta Capital magazine , under the headline “The US no longer qualifies as a democracy”.

The criticism here does not lie in the content of the analysis about the US, nor in Carta Capital ‘s right to practice its journalism—which has a historical and legitimate editorial line, albeit openly positioned within a specific ideological spectrum. The criticism lies in the strategic choice .

By choosing a vehicle with such a marked political bias to be its almost exclusive mouthpiece in Brazil, V-Dem sends a disastrous signal of partisanship. In a polarized country, where the battle of narratives is fierce, an arbiter of democracy cannot afford to speak only to one side. This suggests two worrying hypotheses:

Strategic disconnect: V-Dem is unaware of the Brazilian media landscape and fails to understand that, by associating itself solely with ideologically niche media outlets, it alienates half the country and the productive sector, who see in these choices confirmation of an alleged leftist bias on the part of the institute.
Ideological bias: Even more serious, this indicates that V-Dem may be “poorly surrounded” locally. If the analysts and advisors who act as intermediaries between Gothenburg and Brazil direct the institute’s director only to media outlets that confirm their own biases, then the very collection of data about the country is compromised.

Whoever filters the media for the director, also filters reality for the report?

For an institution that needs to be heard by conservatives, liberals, and progressives in order to effectively protect democracy, speaking to its “bubble” is not a failure in its mission to defend pluralistic institutions. V-Dem needs to break through the circle of its usual interlocutors.

An invitation to total vigilance.

We make this appeal not as an adversary, but as a critical ally who deeply values the work of V-Dem.

To maintain its relevance and avoid becoming a rhetorical tool for “sham Democrats,” V-Dem and Professor Lindberg need to:

To condemn unequivocally all forms of authoritarianism, including theocratic (Iran) and radical left-wing authoritarianism, with the same vehemence applied to the far-right.
Refining the qualitative analysis of Brazil and other countries, such as South Africa, by listening to a more diverse range of local voices that are not aligned with these narratives.
Avoid celebratory terms (such as “U-turn”) for situations where democratic erosion has merely changed tactics, but has not ceased.

Liberal democracy is fragile and is facing one of its greatest challenges.

Liberal democracy cannot afford to have guardians who choose which threats deserve attention.

We are available to deepen this dialogue, hoping that V-Dem will continue to be a beacon of clarity, and not confusion, in these turbulent times.