Research framework and broader academic knowledge base
Serbia: documented application of the same framework
What can prosecutors, election commissions, ombuds institutions, and other oversight bodies really do in such a system?
The Prosecutor’s Office, the Election Commission, the Ombudsman and other supervisory bodies can do as much as the powers, resources and willingness of others to implement their decisions. They can collect facts, publish findings, initiate procedures, cancel decisions or recommend change, but each of these bodies has a different job.
In the authoritarian environment, selective ability often arises: everyday cases are solved, while cases leading to the political summit are delayed, left without data or declared to be someone else’s jurisdiction. Therefore, they should not be declared worthless in advance or evaluated according to the number of statements. The right measure is what a specific body could and should have done, whether it tried in a politically sensitive case and what was the consequence of its actions.
The Prosecutor’s Office, the Electoral Commission, the Ombudsman and other supervisory bodies do not have the same job or the same powers. Everyone should be evaluated according to what he or she could and had to do.
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 in Egypt shows that the court can gain real space to act and open legal channels to challenge the authorities, but also that the regime can re-strain that space when it becomes too politically dangerous.
review more research
Moustafa, T. (2014), „Law and Courts in Authoritarian Regimes“, Annual Review of Law and Social Science 10: 281–299.
- Contribution to this answer
- Moustafa shows that institutions in autocracy are neither completely powerless nor completely independent: they can resolve real disputes and sometimes limit power, while the most politically sensitive cases remain under special pressure.
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 can simultaneously serve the governance and legitimacy of the regime and create limited spaces for rights and resistance. Their actual range depends on the political context.
comparing several countries or cases
Scheppele, K. L. (2018), „Autocratic Legalism“, University of Chicago Law Review 85(2): 545–583.
- Contribution to this answer
- Scheppele shows how the control institution can be weakened by changes in appointments, competencies and procedures, so the formal existence of the supervisory body does not tell how much it is really capable of reacting.
Detailed analysis of one or several cases
Laebens, M. G. i Lührmann, A. (2021), „What Halts Democratic Erosion? The Changing Role of Accountability“, Democratization 28(5): 908–928.
- Contribution to this answer
- Laebens and Lhrmann show that democratic erosion can stop various combinations of horizontal, diagonal and vertical responsibility. Supervisory bodies have the greatest effect when they are not isolated, but work alongside the media, civil society and electoral competition.
Is a relevant source missing? Send it to us.
Suggest a source or report an error in this answer →