The master thesis deals with the phenomena of authoritarian constitutionalism, which is for the purposes of this thesis defined as a regression of constitutional democracy towards authoritarianism. The thesis sketches the way the regression occurs on horizontal, vertical and diagonal aspects of constitutionalism, namely: rule of law, human rights, democracy. It is argued that the system of authoritarian constitutionalism breaches the rule of law principle, that court decisions often go unimplemented, or they are implemented symbolically, and that the principle of legality is often not respected. When it comes to human rights, the thesis covers freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of assembly. Governments with authoritarian tendencies tend to pursue libel lawsuits and criminal charges against media and NGOs, limit financing options to those institutions, and engage in institutional harassment of media and NGOs. In the field of democracy, the thesis argues, that authoritarian tendencies are seen in restricting both the right to vote, as well as the right to be elected. Furthermore, it shows how governments use referendums to legitimize their reforms and use elections to distribute spoils to the socioeconomic elites supporting them. The thesis shows that judicial review theories, especially militant democracy and unconstitutional constitutional amendments theory, are no longer suitable to safeguard democracy against regression, as the regression does not occur via violent means but through subtle changes to the law and legal practice. In the final part, the thesis concludes that long term stability of such regimes is hard to achieve, as the government has to balance the interest of the socioeconomic elites, as well as the interest of the wider population so as to ensure their wellbeing, and economic and political cooperation.
|
