Autocratic Legalism Kim Lane Scheppele Upd -

In a 2021 interview with the Journal of Democracy , Scheppele was asked whether she was optimistic. Her answer was characteristically lawyerly: “Optimism is not a category of analysis. But clarity is. If we call autocratic legalism by its name—if we stop saying ‘democratic backsliding’ and start saying ‘legalized autocracy’—then we have a chance to build the defenses. Without the diagnosis, there is no prescription.” Kim Lane Scheppele’s journey from Penn to Princeton, from anthropology to law, from post-Soviet constitutional courts to the Hungarian parliament, has produced one of the most urgent bodies of political-legal thought in the 21st century. Autocratic legalism is her gift to the opposition—a concept sharp enough to cut through the fog of legal bureaucracy and reveal the strongman in the judge’s robe.

But autocratic legalism is not a Central European pathology. In a widely circulated 2020 essay, The End of the Trump Era and the Future of Autocratic Legalism , Scheppele turned her lens to the United States. She argued that while Donald Trump was a clumsy autocrat—more impulse than strategy—his administration had nevertheless deployed autocratic legalist tactics: a travel ban justified by statutory authority, the separation of migrant families under a literal reading of a 1997 consent decree, the rewriting of postal service rules before an election, and the relentless pressure on the Department of Justice to act as a personal law firm. autocratic legalism kim lane scheppele upd

Second, Critics from the Global South note that many post-colonial nations have always used legal forms to maintain oligarchic control—South Africa under apartheid, for example. Is autocratic legalism new, or simply a rebranding of “managed democracy”? Scheppele concedes the point in recent work, acknowledging that the Hungarian model borrows from earlier “electoral authoritarian” regimes in Russia and Singapore. However, she insists the term retains analytic value because it captures the performative hypocrisy of claiming liberal legality while destroying it—a hypocrisy that previous authoritarian legal forms did not bother to maintain. In a 2021 interview with the Journal of

Autocratic legalism sits in the treacherous space between them. It is, Scheppele writes, the use of liberal legal forms to achieve autocratic ends . The autocrat does not burn the constitution; he reinterprets it. He does not abolish parliament; he shrinks its quorum. He does not jail all opposition journalists; he passes a defamation law with such breathtakingly vague standards that only the government’s critics are charged. If we call autocratic legalism by its name—if