Autocratic Legalism Kim Lane Scheppele Upd -

No scholar has done more to diagnose, name, and theorize this paradox than , the Laurance S. Rockefeller Professor of Sociology and International Affairs at Princeton University (and formerly a long-time affiliated faculty at the University of Pennsylvania ’s Law School—a frequent source of confusion given her deep ties to the Penn legal community). Her master concept— autocratic legalism —has become the indispensable keyword for understanding how modern authoritarians use the tools of law to kill the spirit of law.

The keyword’s durability lies in its uncomfortable truth: Law is not automatically the friend of liberty. Law can be a weapon. Procedures can be parasites on principles. And the most dangerous enemies of democracy are not those who burn the courthouse, but those who quietly rewrite the rules of admission. autocratic legalism kim lane scheppele upd

Between 2010 and 2014, Orbán’s government enacted a new constitution (the Fundamental Law), reduced the Constitutional Court’s jurisdiction over fiscal matters, slashed the retirement age for judges from 70 to 62 (dismissing nearly 300 judges at once), installed a pro-government media council, and rewrote election rules to entrench the majority. Every step was legally taken. No tanks rolled. Yet by 2014, Hungary was no longer a liberal democracy. No scholar has done more to diagnose, name,

First, Some scholars argue that Scheppele’s framework risks labeling any aggressive, partisan use of legal power as “autocratic.” If a democratic majority packs a court (as FDR threatened), is that autocratic legalism? Scheppele answers with a distinction of entrenchment versus policy . FDR wanted to change policy; Orbán wanted to change the ability of future majorities to ever change policy again . The latter is autocratic legalism; the former is constitutional hardball within a still-competitive system. The keyword’s durability lies in its uncomfortable truth:

In the twilight of the 20th century, political scientists largely agreed on a simple, reassuring binary. Democracies had courts, constitutions, and the rule of law. Authoritarian regimes had show trials, secret police, and arbitrary edicts. The path from one to the other was violent and obvious—a coup, a revolution, a tank in the square.