Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Constitutional Markers of Authoritarianism

  • Article
  • Published:
Hague Journal on the Rule of Law Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

Notes

  1. Montesquieu (1999) at 129.

  2. Montesquieu (1989) Book XI Chapter 6 at 157.

  3. Kant (1983) at 107, 114.

  4. Aristotle (2009) Book III. Chapter 7. 1279a, 97–100.

  5. Montesquieu (1989) Book III Chapter 2 at 21.

  6. Dworkin (2011) at 321.

  7. Kant (1983) at 114–115.

  8. Kelsen (2000) at 84–109. See also Murphy (2014) at 65–67.

  9. Churchill (1947).

  10. Schmitt (2005) at 50–52.

  11. Schmitt (1985) at 30–32.

  12. Freedom House (2016, 2017). See in detail, Tóth (2017a).

  13. Huntington (1991). See also Rustow (1970).

  14. Karl (1995), Bunce and Wolchik (2011), Diamond (2002).

  15. Merkel (2004), Merkel et al. (2003).

  16. Zakaria (1997).

  17. Mudde and Kaltwasser (2017) at 179–94. See also, Mudde and Kaltwasser (2013).

  18. Körösényi (2005).

  19. Lendvai (2017) at 177–188.

  20. Landau (2013).

  21. Tushnet (2015).

  22. Landau (2018).

  23. Corrales (2015), Scheppele (2018).

  24. Ottaway (2003).

  25. Levitsky and Way (2002) at 51. Levitsky and Way (2010).

  26. Schedler (2013). See also, Schedler (ed) (2006).

  27. Varol (2015).

  28. The Constitution of the Russian Federation, Article 1 and Article 80/2.

  29. Tsygankov (2014) at 130–140.

  30. Van Herpen (2014) at 57. See also, Kurylo (2016) at 4.

  31. Kornai (2017) at 290.

  32. Hart (1994) at 4.

  33. Hart (1994) at 4, 126.

  34. Diamond (2015).

  35. Ginsburg and Huq (2018).

  36. Sadurski (2018a) at Sect. 3.

  37. Freedom House (2016, 2017).

  38. Gallie (1956).

  39. Dworkin (2004) at 9.

  40. Linz (2000).

  41. Kis (2003) at ix–x.

  42. This approach is slightly different from my Authoritarianism, see Tóth (2017b).

  43. Arendt (2004).

  44. Tóth (2017a, b).

  45. Dworkin (1996) at 15–35. See also, Dworkin (2012) at 25–34.

  46. Schmitt (2014) at 112–131. Schmitt (1985) at 28–32.

  47. But see, Albright (2018). See also, Diamond et al. eds. (2016), Levitsky and Ziblatt (2018).

  48. Sadurski (2018b).

  49. Loewenstein (1957) at 148–149.

  50. Sartori (1962) at 861.

  51. Grimm (2002) at 31. Grimm (2012) at 104. See also Ginsburg and Simpser (2014).

  52. Barendt (1998) at 6.

  53. Sartori (1962) at 861.

  54. Loewenstein (1957) at 149–150.

  55. Sartori (1962) at 861.

  56. See in detail Tóth (2012).

  57. Schedler (2013) at 54–61.

  58. Varol (2015) at 1689.

  59. Linz (1978), Lipset and Lakin (2004) at 38–48.

  60. Müller (2018).

  61. Kelsen (1976) and Schmitt (1996).

  62. Ely (1980) and Dworkin (1977). Dworkin (1998) and Waldron (1999) and a partly revised view, Waldron (2006). See also the last word from Dworkin (2012) 483–485.

  63. Tushnet (1999) and Hirschl (2007) and Kumm (2007).

  64. Dyzenhaus (2012) at 442–461. See also, Dyzenhaus (2006).

  65. Schmitt (2005) at 5. See also, Schmitt (1996).

  66. Baker (2011).

  67. Waldron (2012).

References

  • Albright M (2018) Fascism: a warning. Harper, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Arendt H (2004) The origins of totalitarianism. Schocken, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle (2009) Politics (transl. Barker E, rev. Stalley F). Oxford UP, Oxford

  • Baker CE (2011) Autonomy and hate speech. In: Hare I, Weinstein J (eds) Extreme speech and democracy. Oxford UP, Oxford, pp 139–157

    Google Scholar 

  • Barendt A (1998) An introduction to constitutional law. Oxford UP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunce VJ, Wolchik SL (2011) Defeating authoritarian leaders in postcommunist countries. Cambridge UP, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Corrales J (2015) The Authoritarian Resurgence: autocratic Legalism in Venezuela. J Democr 26(2):37–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond L (2002) Thinking about hybrid regimes. J Democr 13(2):21–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond L (2015) Facing up to the democratic recession. J Democr 26(1):141–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diamond L, Plattner MF, Walker C (eds) (2016) Authoritarianism goes global: the challenge to democracy. Johns Hopkins UP, Baltimore

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin R (1977) Taking rights seriously. Harvard UP, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin R (1996) Freedom’s law: the moral reading of the American constitution. Harvard UP, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin R (1998) Law’s empire. Hart, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin R (2004) Hart’s postscript and the character of political philosophy. Oxf J Legal Stud 24(1):1–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin R (2011) Justice for Hedgehogs. Belknap Harvard UP, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin R (2012) What is democracy? In: Tóth GA (ed) Constitution for a disunited nation: on Hungary’s 2011 fundamental law. CEU Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyzenhaus D (2006) The constitution of law: legality in a time of emergency 2006. Cambridge UP, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dyzenhaus D (2012) State of emergency. In: Sajó A, Rosenfeld M (eds) Oxford handbook of comparative constitutional law. Oxford UP, Oxford, pp 442–461

    Google Scholar 

  • Ely JH (1980) Democracy and distrust: a theory of judicial review. Harvard UP, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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

  • Gallie WB (1956) Essentially contested concepts. Proc Aristot Soc 56:167–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ginsburg T, Huq A (2018) How to lose a constitutional democracy. 65. UCLA Law Rev 65:78 (80–169)

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginsburg T, Simpser A (eds) (2014) Constitutions in authoritarian regimes. Cambridge UP, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimm D (2002) Die Zukunft der Verfassung. Suhrkamp, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimm D (2012) Types of constitutions. In: Sajó A, Rosenfeld M (eds) Oxford handbook of comparative constitutional law. Oxford UP, Oxford, pp 98–132

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart HLA (1994) The concept of law, 2nd edn. Clarendon, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirschl R (2007) Towards juristocracy: the origins and consequences of the new constitutionalism. Harvard UP, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Huntington S (1991) The third wave: democratization in the late twentieth century. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman

    Google Scholar 

  • Kant I (1983) Perpetual peace and other essays on politics, history, and morals (transl. Humphrey T). Hackett, Indianapolis

    Google Scholar 

  • Karl TL (1995) The hybrid regimes of central America. J Democr 6(3):72–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelsen H (1976) Wesen und Entwicklung der Staatsgerichtsbarkeit. In: Häberle P (ed) Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 84

  • Kis J (2003) Constitutional democracy. CEU Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):239–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Körösényi A (2005) Political representation in leader democracy. Gov Oppos 40(3):358–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):1–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurylo B (2016) Russia and Carl Schmitt: the hybridity of resistance in the globalised world. Palgrave Commun 2:16096

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landau D (2013) Abusive constitutionalism. UC Davis. Law Rev 47:189

    Google Scholar 

  • Landau D (2018) Populist constitutions. Univ Chic Law Rev 85:521

    Google Scholar 

  • Lendvai P (2017) Orbán: Hungary’s strongman. Oxford UP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Levitsky S, Way LA (2002) The rise of competitive authoritarianism. J Democr 13(2):51–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitsky S, Way LA (2010) Competitive authoritarianism: hybrid regimes after cold war. Cambridge UP, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Levitsky S, Ziblatt D (2018) How democracies die: what history reveals about our future. Viking/Penguin, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Linz JJ (1978) The breakdown of democratic regimes: crisis, Breakdown and reequilibration. An introduction. Johns Hopkins UP, Baltimore

    Google Scholar 

  • Linz JJ (2000) Totalitarian and authoritarian regimes. Lynne Rienner, Boulder

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipset SM, Lakin JM (2004) The democratic century. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman

    Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein K (1957) Political power and the governmental process. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Merkel W (2004) Embedded and defective democracies. Democratization 11(5):33–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merkel W, Puhle HJ et al (2003) Defekte demokratien. Band I: theorie. Taschenbuch, Munich

  • Montesquieu (1989) The spirit of the laws (transl. and eds. Cohler AM, Miller BC, Stone HS). Cambridge UP, Cambridge

  • Montesquieu (1999) Considerations on the Causes of the greatness of the romans and their decline (transl. Lowenthal D). Hackett, London

  • Mudde C, Kaltwasser CR (eds) (2013) Populism in Europe and the Americas: threat or corrective for democracy?. Cambridge UP, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Mudde C, Kaltwasser CR (2017) Populism: a very short introduction. Oxford UP, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Müller JW (2018) Homo orbánicus. N Y Rev Books 65(6). https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2018/04/05/homo-orbanicus-hungary/

  • Murphy L (2014) What makes law: an introduction to the philosophy of law. Cambridge UP, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ottaway M (2003) Democracy challenged: the rise of semi-authoritarianism. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington, D.C.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rustow DA (1970) Transitions to democracy: toward a dynamic model. Comp Politics 2(3):337–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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 

  • Sartori G (1962) Constitutionalism: a preliminary discussion. Am Political Sci Rev 56:853–864

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schedler A (ed) (2006) Electoral authoritarianism: the dynamics of unfree competition. Lynne Rienner, Boulder

    Google Scholar 

  • Schedler A (2013) The politics of uncertainty: sustaining and subverting electoral authoritarianism. Oxford UP, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Scheppele KL (2018) Autocratic Legalism. Univ Chic Law Rev 85:545

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt C (1985) The crisis of parliamentary democracy (transl. Kennedy E). MIT Press, Cambridge

  • Schmitt C (1996) Der Hüter der Verfassung. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt C (2005) Political theology: four chapters on the concept of sovereignty (transl. Schwab G). University of Chicago Press, Chicago

  • Schmitt C (2014) Dictatorship: from the origin of the modern concept of sovereignty to proletarian class struggle (trans. Hoelzl M, Ward G). Polity Press, Cambridge

  • Tóth GA (ed) (2012) Constitution for a disunited nation: on Hungary’s 2011 fundamental law. CEU Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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

  • Tsygankov AP (2014) The strong state in Russia: development and crisis. Oxford UP, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tushnet M (1999) Taking the constitution away from the courts. Princeton, Princeton UP

    Google Scholar 

  • Tushnet M (2015) Authoritarian constitutionalism. Cornell Law Rev 100:391

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Herpen MH (2014) Putin’s wars: the rise of Russia’s new imperialism. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham

    Google Scholar 

  • Varol OO (2015) Stealth authoritarianism. Iowa Law Rev 100:1673–1742

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldron J (1999) Law and disagreement. Clarendon, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Waldron J (2006) The core of the case against judicial review. Yale Law J 115:1346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waldron J (2012) The harm in hate speech. Harvard UP, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zakaria F (1997) The rise of illiberal democracy. Foreign Aff 76(6):22–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Alexander von Humboldt Senior Fellow, Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany

    Gábor Attila Tóth

Authors
  1. Gábor Attila Tóth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gábor Attila Tóth.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tóth, G.A. Constitutional Markers of Authoritarianism. Hague J Rule Law 11, 37–61 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40803-018-0081-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40803-018-0081-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation