Politics & Government
Democratic Backsliding and the Role of Constitutional Courts
Quick fact
In Hungary, after Fidesz won a supermajority in 2010, the government quickly changed the constitution to pack the Constitutional Court with loyalists. By 2013, the court had become a reliable ally, enabling further erosion of checks and balances. This pattern, known as 'autocratic legalism', shows how courts can be turned from guardians into accomplices.
Why this is interesting
Imagine a country where elections still happen, but the political game is rigged from the inside—not by soldiers, but by judges in robes. How can democracy die while everyone is just following the law?
Read the full explanation
Understanding Democratic Backsliding and the Role of Constitutional Courts
Democratic backsliding is the gradual weakening of democratic institutions, often by elected leaders. It happens in small steps: curbing media freedom, harassing civil society, and, crucially, manipulating the judiciary. Constitutional courts stand as guardians of the constitution—they review laws and actions to ensure they don't violate fundamental rights and principles. In healthy democracies, they deter overreach. But autocrats have learned to play the long game. They use legal maneuvers—like amending the constitution to expand the court and fill it with loyalists—to turn the court from a check into a tool. The process is insidious because it often follows electoral mandates and judicial procedures, making it hard for citizens to see the danger until it's too late.
A deeper explanation
The mechanism is strategic and legal. Autocrats first secure a supermajority in parliament. Then they pass constitutional amendments that alter the court's structure—for instance, by raising the number of judges—and appoint loyalists. They may also restrict the court's jurisdiction or intimidate existing judges. The court, thus packed, legitimizes subsequent government actions, including changes to election rules and civil liberties. Meanwhile, the government frames these moves as 'reforms' or 'illiberal democracy,' borrowing legal language to sanitize them. The court's role is dual: it can be an obstacle if it resists, or it can become a rubber stamp that launders the regime's actions as constitutional. The concept matters because it reveals the hidden vulnerability: democracy depends not only on elections but on independent institutions. When courts lose that independence, the rule of law decays, and democratic backsliding accelerates—sometimes to the point of no return.