Research framework and broader academic knowledge base
Serbia: documented application of the same framework
Why does an authoritarian government need a constitution, courts, and parliament?
Authoritarian authorities need a constitution, courts and assembly because they cannot make every decision personally and by force. These institutions resolve everyday disputes, regulate business and inheritance, turn political agreements into general rules and give citizens and companies some predictability.
Parliament can include important groups in the division of benefits, and the court can enforce contracts and discipline lower officials. At the same time, the formal procedure of the government gives the appearance of order and legality. Therefore, the institution in the authoritarian system is not necessarily empty, but its real limit becomes visible when the case hits the top of the government. The question is not only whether the court or assembly works, but whether they can make and implement a decision that the authorities do not seriously answer.
The very existence of a court or assembly does not say what they really serve. One should look at when the authorities help, when they resolve the conflict, and when they really stop it.
Works supporting this answer, with their evidence type and an explanation of how they relate to the claim.
comparing several countries or cases
Gandhi, J. (2008), Political Institutions under Dictatorship, Cambridge University Press.
- Contribution to this answer
- Gandhi shows that authoritarian institutions serve the practical needs of the regime: through parliaments, parties and other channels, the government receives information, negotiates with groups and shares concessions that it cannot completely ignore.
comparing several countries or cases
Gandhi, J. i Przeworski, A. (2007), „Authoritarian Institutions and the Survival of Autocrats“, Comparative Political Studies 40(11): 1279–1301.
- Contribution to this answer
- Gandhi and Przeworski show that dictators use political institutions to co-opt the opposition and make controlled agreements. The institution can therefore be useful to the regime even when it does not restrict power in a democratic way.
Historical data and comparison
Moustafa, T. (2007), The Struggle for Constitutional Power: Law, Politics, and Economic Development in Egypt, Cambridge University Press.
- Contribution to this answer
- Moustafa in Egypt shows why the authoritarian regime can want courts with real but limited autonomy: it needs them for economy, administrative disputes and legitimacy, even when it doesn’t want to let the courts jeopardize the political leadership.
comparing several countries or cases
Ginsburg, T. i Moustafa, T. (ur.) (2008), Rule by Law: The Politics of Courts in Authoritarian Regimes, Cambridge University Press.
- Contribution to this answer
- Ginsburg and Moustafa show that autocracy courts can resolve real disputes at the same time, support governance and legitimacy, and sometimes open up a space for legal resistance that the regime has not fully controlled.
comparing several countries or cases
Ginsburg, T. i Simpser, A. (ur.) (2014), Constitutions in Authoritarian Regimes, Cambridge University Press.
- Contribution to this answer
- Ginsburg and Simpser show that constitutions in autocracy can coordinate elites, signal rules, organize power and provide legitimacy. The constitution can therefore be politically useful and a government that does not respect it democratically.
Is a relevant source missing? Send it to us.
Suggest a source or report an error in this answer →