The Dark Side of Legalism: Abuse of the Law and Democratic Erosion in Argentina, Ecuador, and Venezuela

IF 2.3 2区 文学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL American Behavioral Scientist Pub Date : 2024-08-13 DOI:10.1177/00027642241268332
Benjamin Garcia Holgado, Raúl Sánchez Urribarri
{"title":"The Dark Side of Legalism: Abuse of the Law and Democratic Erosion in Argentina, Ecuador, and Venezuela","authors":"Benjamin Garcia Holgado, Raúl Sánchez Urribarri","doi":"10.1177/00027642241268332","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Why do some elected leaders use legalistic strategies to undermine democracy from within? And under what conditions do they succeed in the use of these strategies? In this article, we argue that the abuse of law is at the center of the toolkit of emerging autocrats. Executives use an ample menu of legal tools and mechanisms (laws, constitutional amendments, executive decrees, administrative resolutions, and regulations by federal agencies) to gradually dismantle each of the components of liberal democracy. We show how the co-optation of the judiciary by the executive helps create an appearance of institutional normalcy that enhances regime legitimacy. In an era of democratic backsliding, executives capture or coerce judiciaries to neutralize opposition threats, carry out their policy agenda, secure and distribute benefits among allies, and dismantle various components that make up liberal democracies. To understand how executives have different levels of success in using multiple legal tools and mechanisms to undermine democracy, we compare three Latin American countries with disparate regime trajectories: Argentina, Ecuador, and Venezuela. Our paper situates judicial actors at the center of the legal toolkit of emerging autocrats by studying how (and in what ways) courts become illiberal tools for legal reform and implementation to dismantle liberal democracy gradually. We show how, in these cases, “legal narratives” are used to legitimize the slow undermining of democratic rule.","PeriodicalId":48360,"journal":{"name":"American Behavioral Scientist","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Behavioral Scientist","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00027642241268332","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Why do some elected leaders use legalistic strategies to undermine democracy from within? And under what conditions do they succeed in the use of these strategies? In this article, we argue that the abuse of law is at the center of the toolkit of emerging autocrats. Executives use an ample menu of legal tools and mechanisms (laws, constitutional amendments, executive decrees, administrative resolutions, and regulations by federal agencies) to gradually dismantle each of the components of liberal democracy. We show how the co-optation of the judiciary by the executive helps create an appearance of institutional normalcy that enhances regime legitimacy. In an era of democratic backsliding, executives capture or coerce judiciaries to neutralize opposition threats, carry out their policy agenda, secure and distribute benefits among allies, and dismantle various components that make up liberal democracies. To understand how executives have different levels of success in using multiple legal tools and mechanisms to undermine democracy, we compare three Latin American countries with disparate regime trajectories: Argentina, Ecuador, and Venezuela. Our paper situates judicial actors at the center of the legal toolkit of emerging autocrats by studying how (and in what ways) courts become illiberal tools for legal reform and implementation to dismantle liberal democracy gradually. We show how, in these cases, “legal narratives” are used to legitimize the slow undermining of democratic rule.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
法律主义的阴暗面:阿根廷、厄瓜多尔和委内瑞拉的法律滥用与民主侵蚀
为什么一些民选领导人使用法律策略从内部破坏民主?他们又是在什么情况下成功使用这些策略的?在本文中,我们认为滥用法律是新兴专制者工具包的核心。行政官员利用大量的法律工具和机制(法律、宪法修正案、行政法令、行政决议和联邦机构的法规)来逐步瓦解自由民主的每一个组成部分。我们展示了行政部门对司法部门的收编是如何帮助创造一种体制正常的表象,从而增强政权的合法性。在民主倒退的时代,行政官员通过俘获或胁迫司法机构来化解反对派的威胁、执行其政策议程、确保并在盟友之间分配利益,以及瓦解构成自由民主的各个组成部分。为了了解执政者如何在利用多种法律工具和机制破坏民主方面取得不同程度的成功,我们比较了三个执政轨迹不同的拉美国家:阿根廷、厄瓜多尔和委内瑞拉。我们的论文通过研究法院如何(以及以何种方式)成为法律改革和实施的非自由工具,从而逐步瓦解自由民主,将司法行为者置于新兴专制者法律工具包的中心。我们展示了在这些案例中,"法律叙事 "是如何被用来使对民主统治的缓慢破坏合法化的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
3.10%
发文量
190
期刊介绍: American Behavioral Scientist has been a valuable source of information for scholars, researchers, professionals, and students, providing in-depth perspectives on intriguing contemporary topics throughout the social and behavioral sciences. Each issue offers comprehensive analysis of a single topic, examining such important and diverse arenas as sociology, international and U.S. politics, behavioral sciences, communication and media, economics, education, ethnic and racial studies, terrorism, and public service. The journal"s interdisciplinary approach stimulates creativity and occasionally, controversy within the emerging frontiers of the social sciences, exploring the critical issues that affect our world and challenge our thinking.
期刊最新文献
Satellite Political Movements: How Grassroots Activists Bolster Trump and Bolsonaro in the United States and Brazil Reading the Tea Leaves: Question Wording and Public Support for the Tea Party Movement Articulations of StrongMen: A Knowledge Cultural Sociology of Recognizing Autocratic Practices in Russian, Turkish, and Global Regimes Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing: The Autocratic Subversion of Brazil’s Fourth Estate Transforming the Legacy of Colonial and Racialized Inequities in Childcare Systems in the United States: (Re)Framing Futures Through Black Feminist Thought
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1