There is systematic integration of political leadership training and support across parliamentary and party structures in Germany. It is the only country in the index where this occurs across the political spectrum. As a result, Germany ranks first in Dimension 1: Formal Political Leadership Training as well as first overall. The German Bundestag offers onboarding training for both parliamentarians and their staffers. At a political party level, most of Germany’s major political parties offer a broad range of training offerings; ranging from coaching to campaign communications. These are supplemented by offerings from each party’s respective foundation and academies. The German PLI ecosystem is relatively large and growing in innovation and connection, collaborating with and learning from the work of fellow organizations. Generally, Germany shows consistent strength across the four dimensions of the index, showing Germany to be the only index country treating political leadership development as democratic infrastructure.

Australia’s high rank in the index is led by its strong ecosystem (Dimension 3: Political Leadership Ecosystem), particularly considering the high number of leaders being trained and supported. There is a robust, growing and connected network of political leadership incubators and accelerators offering training both for aspiring leaders and those already in office. New MP onboarding is offered by both houses of the Australian parliament and general professional development and support is offered through the Parliamentary Workplace Support Service. There is however very limited evidence of systematic party training. While Australia performed relatively well in Dimension 2: Institutional Environment, it ranks in the bottom three for representativeness of the national parliament (considering gender, ethnicity, religion, and language). Finally, despite a strong ecosystem and strong democracy, trust in government and politicians is low compared to other index countries, suggesting a legitimacy gap.

In 2010, the House of Commons introduced a welcome and orientation package including a buddy system for new MPs. However, in 2015 this was scaled back to an 'on demand' service. Snap elections in 2017 and 2019 and the large number of new MPs after the 2024 election strained these systems further. British political parties focus heavily on candidate preparation rather than ongoing MP development. Evidence of structured leadership development for current MPs across parties remains limited, with smaller parties showing little to no visible formal training activity. There are however notable tailored training offerings, such as campaigning, communications and female leadership. There is also a strong system of party related think tanks as well as the non-partisan Institute for Government that supplement these support offerings. There is a dynamic PLE ecosystem however they report the equal shortest number of months of funded operations, indicating a lack of funding in this space. Despite the maturity of the United Kingdom’s democracy and democratic structures, it ranks in the bottom three for confidence in government, parliament and parties.

Brazil’s leadership development ecosystem presents a dual reality: a sophisticated legal framework backed by dedicated party foundations, contrasted with variability in delivery and a notable gap in ongoing development pathways for sitting legislators, whether from the parliament or political parties. While there is an institutional training infrastructure in its national parliament, this appears focused primarily on staff capacity building rather than support of elected parliamentarians. Brazil scored very high in Dimension 2: Institutional Environment, in large part because there is a high ratio of parliamentary staff to political leaders. However it ranks relatively low on the representativeness of its parliament compared to other index countries. Political leadership incubators in Brazil are growing in size and seeing alumni entering into politics in strong numbers. Brazil shows relatively robust democratic structures on paper, but suffers from low levels of trust in government and politicians.

France shows formal mechanisms to support the onboarding and professional development for elected representatives at the national level. The Assemblée nationale provides compulsory administrative induction for newly elected members as a prerequisite for accreditation and access and the Sénat delivers structured, multi-cycle learning opportunities. While party-based leadership development has historically been limited, recent developments suggest incremental expansion of party-driven education pathways. France scored low compared to other index countries in Dimension 3: Political Leadership Ecosystem. Insights from the two respondents from the Political Leadership Entrepreneur Network indicate a low number of months the organizations can sustain operations with current funding, suggesting a particular need for greater funding in France in this space. Additionally, data was missing for Dimension 4: Public Trust and Perceptions. Its inclusion in subsequent Indexes may shift France’s ranking.

The Philippines ranks number one in Dimension 1: Public Trust and Perceptions, scoring particularly high in confidence in the government. Large scale protests in the country in September 2025 against corruption in the legislative branch of the government raise the question whether this position will be maintained in the future. The Philippines demonstrates strong parliamentary capacity-building infrastructure through the Development Academy of the Philippines (DAP) and its Center for Governance – Policy Research Office. Additionally, robust professional staff in the House Secretariat are available to assist legislators, though utilization is limited. This contrasts sharply with limited systematic training from political parties.

Kenya has established formal parliamentary training programs for current MPs and staff through the Centre for Parliamentary Studies and Training. Unlike other index countries, the CPST publishes training curricula and calendars, showing a commitment to transparency and accessibility. Kenya ranks in the middle of the index countries in Dimension 4: Public Trust and Perception, rating particularly high for confidence in government and parliament. Additional onboarding support is provided through the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association’s Parliamentary Academy, offering induction programs tailored to newly elected Kenyan legislators. While this sits between parliamentary and external provision, it reinforces structured entry pathways into legislative roles. This contrasts to training that remains inconsistent across the country's diverse political party landscape. Where it does exist, women-focused training emerges as a recurring theme across limited party programs. We see innovative and well-designed political leadership incubator programs also focused on women.

Argentina ranked number 10 out of 10 countries in the Formal Political Leadership Training dimension. While parliamentary training infrastructure exists through a parliamentary training institute that reports to the Parliamentary Secretariat of the Honorable Chamber of Deputies, expert interviews reveal that very few deputies participate and there is little awareness among political operatives that this resource exists. While there is a legal requirement that political parties transfer 20% of their budgets to training organizations, there is little evidence of robust offerings for political candidates or current leaders. Argentina is missing data for Dimension 3: Political Leadership Ecosystem, which could alter its index position in future years.

Poland’s parliament has minimal political training infrastructure, with political leadership development concentrated on basic administrative onboarding and highly selective party investment in political education. Newly elected MPs in the Sejm receive short induction run by the Sejm Chancellery covering parliamentary rules/procedures, ethics, security, IT systems, and practical matters. There is no rule making induction compulsory, and no evidence of ongoing professional development beyond initial onboarding. Poland scored highest among the index countries on the representativeness of its parliament, meaning a closer match between Polish leaders and citizens than in the other nine countries. Unfortunately, trust and confidence data does not exist for Poland, which may alter its ranking in future iterations.

Lebanon's political story is one of resilience amid chronic crisis. Decades of sectarian power-sharing have stifled pathways for leadership development. Yet since protests in 2019, a reformist current has been stirring—from parliament to municipalities—pushing for transparency, accountability, and a redefinition of what political leadership means in a fractured state. Lebanon lacks formal onboarding or training programs offered by parliament to MPs. We were advised by experts that training could be deemed disrespectful, leading to inconsistent participation. Externally funded initiatives have existed in the past, but there is no evidence of recent or ongoing training. Political parties training remains limited and largely confined to the informal realm. A small number of parties maintain youth or student networks and women's cross-party alliances have been gaining traction since the 2022 elections. Despite profound challenges—including political resistance to structured training, barriers for women and youth, and limited data collection—recent reform currents and increased civic engagement suggest early signals of change.