Kim Lane Scheppele Autocratic - Legalism |best|
Autocratic Legalism is a phenomenon where authoritarian regimes use law as a tool to maintain control, suppress dissent, and manipulate public opinion. This approach involves the strategic use of legal institutions, laws, and regulations to:
Scheppele’s signal contribution to political science and constitutional law is the concept of At first glance, the term seems like an oxymoron. How can legalism—with its connotations of due process, restraint, and predictable rules—serve autocracy? Scheppele’s genius lies in showing that the two are not opposites but partners. In a modern, interconnected world, the blunt force of a coup is a liability. It invites sanctions, capital flight, and internal rebellion. Autocratic legalism, by contrast, offers a clean, deniable path to authoritarian rule. kim lane scheppele autocratic legalism
According to Scheppele, autocratic legalism has several key features: Scheppele’s genius lies in showing that the two
Kim Lane Scheppele's work on Autocratic Legalism highlights the need for vigilance in defending democratic values, the rule of law, and human rights. As authoritarian regimes continue to use law as a tool of oppression, it is essential to recognize the dangers of Autocratic Legalism and to develop effective strategies to counter its spread. Autocratic legalism, by contrast, offers a clean, deniable
Kim Lane Scheppele, a renowned legal scholar, has written extensively on the rise of autocratic regimes and the erosion of democratic values. In her work, she introduces the concept of "Autocratic Legalism," which refers to the way authoritarian governments use law and legal institutions to legitimize and consolidate their power.
The rise of Autocratic Legalism poses significant threats to democracy, the rule of law, and human rights. Some of the implications and dangers include:
Scheppele traced this playbook most famously to Viktor Orbán in Hungary. After winning a supermajority in 2010, Orbán did not abolish the constitution; he wrote a new one, using legal procedures to cement Fidesz party rule. He did not ban the free press; he placed loyalists on media regulatory boards who slowly squeezed out dissent. He did not eliminate the judiciary; he raised the retirement age for judges overnight, forcing out dozens of independents and replacing them with allies. Every step was cloaked in the language of legality, reform, and national sovereignty. To an outside observer glancing at the statute books, it looked like democracy. To a Hungarian living through it, it was tyranny.
