Research framework and broader academic knowledge base
Serbia: documented application of the same framework
Can courts and parliament sometimes still stop an authoritarian government?
Yes, because authoritarian authorities rarely control every case, every judge and every MP alike. Courts and assemblies are easier to act independently in disputes that do not threaten the survival of the government, when the rules are clear, when there is public attention or when a part of the people in the government uses the institution to protect their own agreement.
Sometimes individuals take advantage of the remaining professional autonomy and make a decision against the interests of the top. Such moments can open up space to others, but one courageous verdict or a tumultuous session is not evidence that the system as a whole works independently. It is important whether the decision is repeated, whether it is really implemented and what happens to the people who made it. The institution limits power only when disagreement can survive the consequences.
One courageous decision does not prove full independence. It is important how often the court decides independently and what happens after such decisions.
Works supporting this answer, with their evidence type and an explanation of how they relate to the claim.
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 shows that courts under authoritarian rule can sometimes open up real space for legal resistance and limit certain regime moves, but also that power can retaliate when that space becomes politically dangerous.
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 authoritarian courts are neither completely powerless nor completely independent: they can resolve disputes, create rights and sometimes increase the price of arbitrariness, but operate within the political boundaries of the regime.
comparing several countries or cases
Gandhi, J. (2008), Political Institutions under Dictatorship, Cambridge University Press.
- Contribution to this answer
- Gandhi shows that parliaments in autocracy can be places of negotiation and concessions, because the government through them includes groups that might otherwise become opponents. This gives them some influence, but does not make them democratic control of the government.
comparing several countries or cases
Boix, C. i Svolik, M. W. (2013), „The Foundations of Limited Authoritarian Government“, Journal of Politics 75(2): 300–316.
- Contribution to this answer
- Boix and Svolik show that institutions can really limit a dictator when political allies have enough power to punish him if he violates a deal. Without such power, the formal rule alone is not enough.
review more research
Whiting, S. H. (2023), „Authoritarian Legality and State Capitalism in China“, Annual Review of Law and Social Science 19: 357–373.
- Contribution to this answer
- Whiting shows how legal institutions can maintain professional functions and certain limits of government even in an undemocratic system, but their range is politically limited.
Is a relevant source missing? Send it to us.
Suggest a source or report an error in this answer →