Zanu and UR are too corrupt to be properly considered 'democracies'.....
To be honest, we're talking about a pretty sliding scale at that point. Russia is probably less of a democracy than Zimbabwe. Is Singapore more or less of a democracy than Zimbabwe? Than Russia? What about Turkey, where a large minority is basically disenfranchised? India, where the parties are fragmented, districts are woefully malapportioned, and politics mostly depends on who gives/gets the most handouts? Israel, where enormous swathes of territory and population remain militarily occupied but unintegrated into the political structure? Thailand, where the "wrong party" winning frequently results in a coup that immediately restores "democracy"?
I identify four categories of non-democracies for this purpose:
1. Don't even claim to be democracies (Saudi Arabia, Swaziland, China)
2. Obvious sham democracies (Belarus, Kazakhstan, North Korea)
3. Borderline sham democracies, though this is contentious (Iran)
4. Fledgling democracies where the future of even nominal democracy is far from guaranteed (Burma, Egypt, Palestine, Pakistan)
Only number 3 is really worth debating, and there I can't think of any examples except Iran. Iran is definitely less free in its elections than Venezuela or Russia or Zimbabwe, but it's not clear whether that difference is significant enough to be a clear line. Personally, I'd rather not debate where exactly the line is drawn for this purpose, as we could be here forever.
I suppose coup-prone democracies, mostly in Africa, could be a fifth category, but that leaves you with the tough question of whether that makes Thailand not a democracy as well. Turkey doesn't fall into this category any more as the military has become much weaker, but it might be the future of Egypt and is arguably the present of Pakistan.