In the realm of governance, conflicts between leaders and the judiciary are not uncommon. Countries like Brazil, Israel, Hungary, and Turkey have all witnessed challenging confrontations between their top officials and judicial systems in recent years. These episodes offer valuable insights into the delicate balance of power between branches of government.
###
“The United States is in a constitutional crisis.”
Political scientist Andrew O’Donohue underscores the severity of the situation facing the U.S., where President Trump’s administration has been pushing boundaries when it comes to respecting judicial decisions. O’Donohue warns that if this trend continues unchecked, it could spell disaster for American democracy.
### Lessons from Israel: The Power of Societal Mobilization
In Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attempted to weaken the judiciary in 2023 but faced significant pushback. Key to protecting judicial independence was a combination of robust societal protest and support from non-elected officials within the government structure. This dual-layered defense mechanism ultimately safeguarded the courts against executive overreach.
### Insights from Brazil: Elected Officials as Guardians of Justice
Former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro’s attempts to challenge the judiciary were met with resistance from legislators who refused to entertain impeachment threats against judges. Mayors and governors also played a crucial role by upholding court rulings at local levels during critical moments, showcasing how elected actors can reinforce judicial authority.
### Unpacking Turkey’s Experience: Court-Baiting as a Strategy
President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s prolonged efforts to influence Turkey’s courts exemplify a tactic known as court-baiting. By proposing popular yet legally contentious policies, Erdogan strategically framed court decisions as obstacles standing in the way of public will—a narrative that resonated with many citizens and enabled him to consolidate power over time.
### Hungary’s Slide Into Authoritarianism: Control Over Institutions
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban capitalized on constitutional changes early in his tenure to weaken checks on executive power systematically. By reshaping electoral rules and ensuring favorable economic conditions before elections, Orban secured an unlevel political playing field where control over institutions like courts became central to maintaining his grip on authority.
### Global Trends in Democratic Erosion
The surge in clashes between executives and judiciaries worldwide reflects broader trends undermining democratic norms. Factors such as weakened political establishments, strengthened judicial powers post-World War II, and evolving mechanisms of democratic decline have created fertile ground for leaders inclined towards autocratic tendencies to target courts as avenues for consolidating control.
Through these international case studies, we witness a recurring pattern wherein attacks on legal institutions serve as precursors to broader erosions of democracy. Leaders exploit vulnerabilities within systems designed to protect democratic values, highlighting the need for vigilant defense mechanisms encompassing societal mobilization, legislative oversight, and professional solidarity across legal sectors.
As we navigate these complex dynamics influencing global governance structures today, it becomes increasingly clear that preserving judicial independence isn’t just about upholding laws—it’s about defending fundamental principles that underpin democracy itself.
