The Procedural Politicking Tug of War: Law-Versus-Management Disputes in Contexts of Democratic Backsliding

Abstract

Abstract The legitimacy of democracy and civil rights is based upon laws and administrative procedures. The presence of a legal framework and its application by bureaucrats in their daily decisions are prerequisites for the democratic rule of law. This explains why, in contexts of democratic backsliding, legal frameworks are under attack. Scholars observed the role of public administration in processes of democratic backsliding, but there is still a gap in understanding the disputes around the legal framework. Here, we analyze the conflicts between politicians and bureaucrats around the legal framework in a context of democratic backsliding. Analyzing the case of Brazil under Bolsonaro’s Government, we draw on 164 interviews with bureaucrats to understand how both bureaucrats and politicians dispute the legitimacy, uses, and interpretations of the legal framework to attack or protect democratic institutions and civil rights. On one side, bureaucrats defend themselves and their legitimacy through existing rules and procedures. On the other side, politicians change or reinterpret the rules to fragilize bureaucrats’ decisions. In this process, both politicians and bureaucrats learn how to improve their strategies around the uses of legal frameworks. These findings contribute to understanding how the dynamics around the legal framework explain processes of democratic backsliding.