Guardians of democracy

"Democracy is so overrated" is one of the best lines uttered by the ruthless Frank Underwood in House of Cards, and yet if we take a quick look around the world democracy doesn't seem to highly rated at the moment. Terms such as democratic backsliding, democratic decay or democratic retrogression are constantly on the lips of political scientists and comparative constitutionalists. Using Samuel Huntington's famous description of the pattern of global democratization, many observers would argue that we are currently in the midst of a "reverse wave" with liberal democracies receding in favor of illiberal or hybrid regimes that often become fully fledged autocracies over time. Much ink has been spilt trying to elucidate the reasons for this backsliding, but of course there is no mono-causal explanation for this phenomenon and no one-factor cure. One explanation for the shift away from liberal democracy can possibly be found in a speech Viktor Orbán gave at Băile TuÅŸnad (TusnádfürdÅ‘) in 2014: "The defining aspect of today's world can be articulated as a race to figure out a way of organizing communities, a state that is most capable of making a nation competitive. This is why a trending topic in thinking is understanding systems that are not Western, not liberal, not liberal democracies, maybe not even democracies, and yet are making nations successful. I believe that our political community rightly anticipated this challenge. We are searching for the form of organizing a community, that is capable of making us competitive in this great world-race."

In essence Orbán and his emulators claim that liberal democracies are simply not competitive and therefore need to be superseded. Liberal democracies are slow and chaotic, while illiberal democracies (or should we simply say autocracies?) are fast and coordinated. Yet, what is interesting from a constitutional perspective, is that traditional, and expeditious, methods for regime change such as military coups have been on the decline. Constitutions and the law have become key instruments in building, consolidating and legitimizing the rule of autocratic leaders. In exploring the role of constitutionalism in illiberal regimes some comparative constitutionalists, such as David Landau, have developed the concept of "abusive constitutionalism" i.e. the use of the mechanisms of constitutional amendment to undermine democracy. Worldwide we have seen powerful incumbent heads of government and parties engineer constitutional changes so as to make themselves very difficult to dislodge and defuse the system of checks and balances. Often, however, these changes are not sudden and coordinated, but are made in a piecemeal fashion and there is no moment where one can say the regime has crossed the red line. In other words, democracy's erosion is sometimes imperceptible. But the warning signs are there if you know what to look for. Be wary of a leader who rejects, in words or actions, the democratic rules of the game, denies the legitimacy of opponents, tolerates violence or indicates a willingness to curtail the civil liberties of opponents, including the media.

Despite the ceaseless efforts of constitutionalists and political scientists, no constitutional design is totally immune to democratic backsliding, but we can all play a role in upholding the values of liberal democracy. One role that is often overlooked is that of the very institution we operate in. As Ron Daniels, President of Johns Hopkins University, argues In What Universities Owe Democracy (2021) we need to reestablish our place in democracy. As Daniels suggests, if we strive for greater social mobility, put citizenship education at the center of our curriculum, act as guardians of facts and foster a pluralistic community, we can make our liberal democracies less vulnerable to the whims of political leaders with autocratic tendencies.