The International Liberty Index Foundation is a League of Nations-sanctioned NGO centered on recording and comparing global survey and analytical data to produce comprehensive data for a number of metrics centered around the spread of political freedoms and systems, corruption in governments and societies, social values and norms, and civil rights. Originally founded in 1958 in Cartadania in conjunction with the Organization for Democracy International, the ILIF originally managed a League-sanctioned set of indexes: the the Democracy Index, the Civil Rights Index, and the Perceived Corruption Index. Individually, each is scored to a maximum value of 10, the highest of which sets the year's benchmark. Scores for these indices are also available comparatively between years to show the improvement of benchmark-setters year by year. These are typically shown compiled into a single score in the form of the Liberty Index, a norm-referenced scoring system which provides a relative, simple view of a country's overall social and political freedoms.
Over time, the ILIF has expanded to cover a number of analytical metrics, absorbing several related NGOs such as the Poverty Tracking Organization. As a result, the ILIF published a number of datasets on global GDP and wellbeing metrics which are used by the League of Nations and other international bodies through annual publications.
Each is calculated relative to the global community yearly, with one nation scoring a 10 and setting the benchmark for the year. In addition, the ILIF manages a Global Liberty Index marking fluctuations in the quality of Index Benchmark Nations as well as a Composite Index.
Countries by Wealth
Countries by Education and Health
Mean Years Schooling
Composite Liberty Index
Aggregate scores from each decade since 1960 and every five years since 2010 are shown below, and scores as well as individual indexes can be viewed in full on the International Liberty Index Foundation's website.
|Algoquona||-||-||-||-||-||2.35||2.34||2.34||4.88||Algoquona was subject to regime change in 2025 as part of the Final War of the Deluge.|
|Caphiria||7.93||7.95||8.00||8.13||8.02||8.40||8.33||8.44||Scores extremely well in perceived corruption index and mediocre in other categories.|
|Carna||9.98||9.99||9.94||10.00||9.86||10.00||10.00||9.98||Consistent top competitor in all categories.|
|Cartadania||9.85||9.84||9.46||9.97||10.00||9.96||9.98||10.00||9.99||Consistent top competitor in all categories.|
|Duōmachāha||4.23||5.02||4.89||4.67||5.81||5.83||5.96||6.12||5.93||The Duama Sovereign Socialist Republics was replaced by the People's Republic of Duōmachāha in 1994.|
|Faneria||4.33||4.22||5.67||6.40||6.73||6.94||6.88||6.91||7.03||Composite score reduced by effective one-party state status. Score rising due to increasing liberalization.|
|Hollona and Diorisia|
|Iriquona||-||-||-||-||4.33||2.04||2.10||2.16||Composite score reduced by arbitrary court system and lack of enfranchisement.|
|Oyashima||6.78||3.65||In 2022, Oyashima's government suffered a coup related to civil infighting between the Danehong and Mutsutorine ethnicities.|
|Pankara||-||-||-||(1.88)||-||Pankara has made efforts to prevent accurate Index reporting since 2019.|
|Sabnaki||2.98||3.10||3.21||3.30||3.32||3.31||4.83||Beginning in 2024, Sabnaki began a liberalization campaign as part of a rapprochement with Occidental powers.|
|the Cape||5.68||5.64||4.03||6.38||6.32||6.99||6.98||6.33||6.73||Attempted coup caused a noticeable drop in 2020. Composite score reduced by effective one-party state status.|
|UAE||Composite score reduced by status as a hereditary absolute monarchy.|
|Urcea||10.00||9.98||9.97||9.85||9.87||9.93||9.93||9.94||Extremely good scoring in corruption and democracy indexes as a constitutional monarchy. High scores in civil rights are disputed.|
|Varshan||2.13||2.01||3.46||2.49||0.76||1.27||1.38||1.36||1.98||Consistent low scores in all categories; 2025 defeat in the Final War of the Deluge shows promise for improvements.|
The Liberty Index and other scoring metrics used by the ILIF have often been criticized as unduly favoring Occidental and Coscivian cultures over Alshari, Cronan, and Audonian nations, as well as opposing arguments from liberal nations decrying the institution of supposedly artificially inflating the scores of constitutional monarchies. In some cases, these arguments go so far as to suggest that the ILIF is little but a propaganda front for League donor nations.
In 2002, Varshan attempted unsuccessfully to sue the ILIF into in League courts on a number of accusations amounting to vexatious litigation. Several of these cases remained in limbo until Varshan's expulsion from the League of Nations.