Research framework and broader academic knowledge base
Serbia: documented application of the same framework
Does an election victory give the government the right to remove every constraint?
No. Election victory gives the authorities the mandate to make decisions within the rules that apply to everyone, not the right to remove the possibility of future defeat. Democracy implies that the majority governs, but also that the minority retains the basic rights, that the courts can stop the illegal decision, that the media can criticize and that the opposition has a fair chance to become a majority.
If the winner changes the election rules, courts, media or state administration so that they serve him permanently, then the mandate is used to abolish the conditions under which the mandate is democratic in general. The practical criterion is simple: can the new rule apply equally when the current government becomes the opposition, or is it designed to provide it with the advantage and protection?
Not every change of constitution or institution is an abuse. It is important whether the rule serves everyone or gives the current government a lasting advantage.
Works supporting this answer, with their evidence type and an explanation of how they relate to the claim.
critical review of more research
Przeworski, A. (2023), „Formal Models of Authoritarian Regimes: A Critique“, Perspectives on Politics 21(3): 979–988.
- Contribution to this answer
- Przeworski shows how many theories about authoritarian regimes can easily become too neat: often presuppose what the dictator wants, why people support him and how repression, propaganda or good effect work. His main message is that these assumptions should be proven, not taken for granted.
review more research
Ginsburg, T. i Huq, A. Z. (2018), How to Save a Constitutional Democracy, University of Chicago Press.
- Contribution to this answer
- Ginsburg and Huq show why electoral victory does not lift constitutional restrictions: democracy also depends on real competition, law and the rule of law, which must also limit the majority winner.
comparing several countries or cases
Landau, D. (2013), „Abusive Constitutionalism“, UC Davis Law Review 47: 189–260.
Landau, D. (2013), "Abusive Constitutionalism", UC Davis Law Review 47: 189–260.
- Contribution to this answer
- Landau shows how elected power can formally legal constitutional changes weaken the courts, opposition and other brakes, while calling for a democratic mandate. Procedural legality is therefore not the same as democratic legitimacy.
comparing several countries or cases
Varol, O. O. (2015), „Stealth Authoritarianism“, Iowa Law Review 100: 1673–1742.
- Contribution to this answer
- Varrol describes "stealth authoritarianism" - the use of legal mechanisms that formally resemble normal democratic practices, but which serve to increase the costs of opposition and protect the government from shift.
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 that the government can only claim to change the law within its mandate, while a number of such changes as a whole remove the restrictions that should apply to the winner of the election.
Is a relevant source missing? Send it to us.
Suggest a source or report an error in this answer →