Advertisement

Hague Journal on the Rule of Law

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 37–61 | Cite as

Constitutional Markers of Authoritarianism

  • Gábor Attila TóthEmail author
Article

Abstract

After many waves of democratisation a new type of constitutional transformation has become the focus of scholarly attention. Some researchers claim that the current erosion of constitutionalism can be understood better if the phenomenon is compared to the twentieth century dictatorships. Many others argue that what is happening today is a self-destruction of liberal democracy through democratic procedures and under the formal rule of law. This article aims to contribute to the understanding of the new system, and offers another approach. It shows that in a normative sense democracy today is the only legitimate constitutional system. That is why a key attribute of contemporary authoritarianism, a sui generis system between constitutional democracy and dictatorship, is a pretence of democracy. The article suggests that mechanisms of pretence can be identified with the help of constitutional markers, which allow a reliable distinction between constitutional democracy and authoritarianism. Constitutional markers can be revealed on two levels: first, by a systematic account of the constitutional text and practice and second, by exploring the deep structure of the false justification of the system.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Versions of this paper were presented at the workshops “Beyond the Liberal Constitution”, Wolfson College, University of Oxford; “Constitutionalism, Dissent, and Resistance”, Humboldt University and Princeton University, Berlin; “Resurgence of Executive Primary in the Age of Populism”, Academia Sinica, Taipei; and at the GlobCon Colloquium of the WZB Berlin Social Science Center. I wish to thank Teodor Papuc for his research, and János Kis, Kriszta Kovács and Mattias Kumm for their helpful comments.

References

  1. Albright M (2018) Fascism: a warning. Harper, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Arendt H (2004) The origins of totalitarianism. Schocken, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Aristotle (2009) Politics (transl. Barker E, rev. Stalley F). Oxford UP, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Baker CE (2011) Autonomy and hate speech. In: Hare I, Weinstein J (eds) Extreme speech and democracy. Oxford UP, Oxford, pp 139–157Google Scholar
  5. Barendt A (1998) An introduction to constitutional law. Oxford UP, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. Bunce VJ, Wolchik SL (2011) Defeating authoritarian leaders in postcommunist countries. Cambridge UP, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Churchill W (1947) Speech on the Parliament Bill, House of Commons, 11 November 1947. https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1947/nov/11/parliament-bill. Accessed 20 July 2018
  8. Corrales J (2015) The Authoritarian Resurgence: autocratic Legalism in Venezuela. J Democr 26(2):37–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Diamond L (2002) Thinking about hybrid regimes. J Democr 13(2):21–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Diamond L (2015) Facing up to the democratic recession. J Democr 26(1):141–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Diamond L, Plattner MF, Walker C (eds) (2016) Authoritarianism goes global: the challenge to democracy. Johns Hopkins UP, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  12. Dworkin R (1977) Taking rights seriously. Harvard UP, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. Dworkin R (1996) Freedom’s law: the moral reading of the American constitution. Harvard UP, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Dworkin R (1998) Law’s empire. Hart, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Dworkin R (2004) Hart’s postscript and the character of political philosophy. Oxf J Legal Stud 24(1):1–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dworkin R (2011) Justice for Hedgehogs. Belknap Harvard UP, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  17. Dworkin R (2012) What is democracy? In: Tóth GA (ed) Constitution for a disunited nation: on Hungary’s 2011 fundamental law. CEU Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Dyzenhaus D (2006) The constitution of law: legality in a time of emergency 2006. Cambridge UP, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dyzenhaus D (2012) State of emergency. In: Sajó A, Rosenfeld M (eds) Oxford handbook of comparative constitutional law. Oxford UP, Oxford, pp 442–461Google Scholar
  20. Ely JH (1980) Democracy and distrust: a theory of judicial review. Harvard UP, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  21. Freedom House (2016) Freedom in the world report 2016: anxious dictators, wavering democracies: global freedom under pressure. https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-2016. Accessed 20 July 2018
  22. Freedom House (2017) Freedom in the world report 2017: populists and autocrats: the dual threat to global democracy. https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-2017. Accessed 20 July 2018
  23. Gallie WB (1956) Essentially contested concepts. Proc Aristot Soc 56:167–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ginsburg T, Huq A (2018) How to lose a constitutional democracy. 65. UCLA Law Rev 65:78 (80–169) Google Scholar
  25. Ginsburg T, Simpser A (eds) (2014) Constitutions in authoritarian regimes. Cambridge UP, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  26. Grimm D (2002) Die Zukunft der Verfassung. Suhrkamp, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  27. Grimm D (2012) Types of constitutions. In: Sajó A, Rosenfeld M (eds) Oxford handbook of comparative constitutional law. Oxford UP, Oxford, pp 98–132Google Scholar
  28. Hart HLA (1994) The concept of law, 2nd edn. Clarendon, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  29. Hirschl R (2007) Towards juristocracy: the origins and consequences of the new constitutionalism. Harvard UP, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  30. Huntington S (1991) The third wave: democratization in the late twentieth century. University of Oklahoma Press, NormanGoogle Scholar
  31. Kant I (1983) Perpetual peace and other essays on politics, history, and morals (transl. Humphrey T). Hackett, IndianapolisGoogle Scholar
  32. Karl TL (1995) The hybrid regimes of central America. J Democr 6(3):72–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kelsen H (1976) Wesen und Entwicklung der Staatsgerichtsbarkeit. In: Häberle P (ed) Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, DarmstadtGoogle Scholar
  34. Kelsen H (2000) On the essence and value of democracy. In: Jacobson A, Schlink B (eds) Weimar: a jurisprudence of crisis (Cooper B transl.). University of California Press, Oakland, p 84Google Scholar
  35. Kis J (2003) Constitutional democracy. CEU Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Kornai J (2017) The system paradigm revisited: clarification and additions in the light of experiences in the post-socialist region. Revue D’Études Comparatives Est-Ouest 48(1–2):239–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Körösényi A (2005) Political representation in leader democracy. Gov Oppos 40(3):358–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kumm M (2007) Institutionalising socratic contestation: the rationalist human rights paradigm, legitimate authority and the point of judicial review. Eur J Legal Stud 1(2):1–32Google Scholar
  39. Kurylo B (2016) Russia and Carl Schmitt: the hybridity of resistance in the globalised world. Palgrave Commun 2:16096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Landau D (2013) Abusive constitutionalism. UC Davis. Law Rev 47:189Google Scholar
  41. Landau D (2018) Populist constitutions. Univ Chic Law Rev 85:521Google Scholar
  42. Lendvai P (2017) Orbán: Hungary’s strongman. Oxford UP, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  43. Levitsky S, Way LA (2002) The rise of competitive authoritarianism. J Democr 13(2):51–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Levitsky S, Way LA (2010) Competitive authoritarianism: hybrid regimes after cold war. Cambridge UP, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Levitsky S, Ziblatt D (2018) How democracies die: what history reveals about our future. Viking/Penguin, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  46. Linz JJ (1978) The breakdown of democratic regimes: crisis, Breakdown and reequilibration. An introduction. Johns Hopkins UP, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  47. Linz JJ (2000) Totalitarian and authoritarian regimes. Lynne Rienner, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  48. Lipset SM, Lakin JM (2004) The democratic century. University of Oklahoma Press, NormanGoogle Scholar
  49. Loewenstein K (1957) Political power and the governmental process. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  50. Merkel W (2004) Embedded and defective democracies. Democratization 11(5):33–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Merkel W, Puhle HJ et al (2003) Defekte demokratien. Band I: theorie. Taschenbuch, MunichGoogle Scholar
  52. Montesquieu (1989) The spirit of the laws (transl. and eds. Cohler AM, Miller BC, Stone HS). Cambridge UP, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  53. Montesquieu (1999) Considerations on the Causes of the greatness of the romans and their decline (transl. Lowenthal D). Hackett, LondonGoogle Scholar
  54. Mudde C, Kaltwasser CR (eds) (2013) Populism in Europe and the Americas: threat or corrective for democracy?. Cambridge UP, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  55. Mudde C, Kaltwasser CR (2017) Populism: a very short introduction. Oxford UP, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Müller JW (2018) Homo orbánicus. N Y Rev Books 65(6). https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2018/04/05/homo-orbanicus-hungary/
  57. Murphy L (2014) What makes law: an introduction to the philosophy of law. Cambridge UP, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Ottaway M (2003) Democracy challenged: the rise of semi-authoritarianism. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  59. Rustow DA (1970) Transitions to democracy: toward a dynamic model. Comp Politics 2(3):337–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sadurski W (2018) How democracy dies (in Poland): a case-study of anti-constitutional populist backsliding. Sydney Law School Research Paper No. 18/01. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3103491. Accessed 26 Aug 2018
  61. Sadurski W (2018b) Polish constitutional tribunal under PiS: from an activist court, to a paralysed tribunal, to a governmental enabler. Hague J Rule Law.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40803-018-0078-1 (Accessed 26 August 2018) Google Scholar
  62. Sartori G (1962) Constitutionalism: a preliminary discussion. Am Political Sci Rev 56:853–864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Schedler A (ed) (2006) Electoral authoritarianism: the dynamics of unfree competition. Lynne Rienner, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  64. Schedler A (2013) The politics of uncertainty: sustaining and subverting electoral authoritarianism. Oxford UP, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Scheppele KL (2018) Autocratic Legalism. Univ Chic Law Rev 85:545Google Scholar
  66. Schmitt C (1985) The crisis of parliamentary democracy (transl. Kennedy E). MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  67. Schmitt C (1996) Der Hüter der Verfassung. Duncker & Humblot, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Schmitt C (2005) Political theology: four chapters on the concept of sovereignty (transl. Schwab G). University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  69. Schmitt C (2014) Dictatorship: from the origin of the modern concept of sovereignty to proletarian class struggle (trans. Hoelzl M, Ward G). Polity Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  70. Tóth GA (ed) (2012) Constitution for a disunited nation: on Hungary’s 2011 fundamental law. CEU Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  71. Tóth GA (2017a) Authoritarianism. In: Grote R, Lachenmann F, Wolfrum R (eds) Max planck encyclopedia of comparative constitutional law. Oxford UP, Oxford, pp 1–15. http://oxcon.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law-mpeccol/law-mpeccol-e205. Accessed 20 July 2018
  72. Tóth GA (2017b) The authoritarian’s new clothes: tendencies away from constitutional democracy. Centre for Socio-Legal Studies and Wolfson College at the University of Oxford. http://www.fljs.org/content/authoritarians-new-clothes-tendencies-away-constitutional-democracy. Accessed 20 July 2018
  73. Tsygankov AP (2014) The strong state in Russia: development and crisis. Oxford UP, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Tushnet M (1999) Taking the constitution away from the courts. Princeton, Princeton UPGoogle Scholar
  75. Tushnet M (2015) Authoritarian constitutionalism. Cornell Law Rev 100:391Google Scholar
  76. Van Herpen MH (2014) Putin’s wars: the rise of Russia’s new imperialism. Rowman & Littlefield, LanhamGoogle Scholar
  77. Varol OO (2015) Stealth authoritarianism. Iowa Law Rev 100:1673–1742Google Scholar
  78. Waldron J (1999) Law and disagreement. Clarendon, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Waldron J (2006) The core of the case against judicial review. Yale Law J 115:1346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Waldron J (2012) The harm in hate speech. Harvard UP, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Zakaria F (1997) The rise of illiberal democracy. Foreign Aff 76(6):22–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© T.M.C. Asser Press 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Alexander von Humboldt Senior FellowHumboldt UniversityBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations