History
Political uses of constitutional amendments in hybrid regimes
Quick fact
In 2020, Russia’s constitutional amendments reset presidential term limits, allowing Vladimir Putin to potentially stay in power until 2036—while the change was approved in a national vote that was criticized as a formality.
Why this is interesting
You’ve heard of leaders who change the rules to stay in power. But did you know that in many countries, they use the very constitution—the highest law—to do it, and the world often says “it’s legal”?
Read the full explanation
Understanding Political uses of constitutional amendments in hybrid regimes
Think of a constitution as the rulebook of a country. Normally, changing it is hard—it requires wide agreement. But in hybrid regimes (systems that mix elections with authoritarian control), leaders manipulate this process. They may pack courts with loyalists, control media to sway public opinion, and use the amendment process to remove legal barriers. For instance, they might remove term limits so they can run again, or shift power from parliament to the presidency. Each step keeps the formal wording of the constitution intact, but changes the spirit entirely. The result is that the law itself becomes a tool for concentrating power rather than limiting it.
A deeper explanation
This mechanism—called 'authoritarian legalism'—works because it exploits the legitimacy of legality. Instead of breaking the law, leaders rewrite it. By following formal procedures (like parliamentary votes or referenda), they claim democratic approval. This deceives domestic audiences and defuses international criticism. The underlying principle is that the rule of law depends on shared norms, not just rules on paper. When those norms erode, amendments become weapons: they dismantle judicial independence, centralize executive authority, and tilt electoral playing fields. The result is a slow, legalistic hollowing out of democracy—making it difficult for the public to see the danger until it’s too late.