Autocratic Legalism Kim Lane Scheppele Upd • Fast

The keyword’s durability lies in its uncomfortable truth: Law is not automatically the friend of liberty. Law can be a weapon. Procedures can be parasites on principles. And the most dangerous enemies of democracy are not those who burn the courthouse, but those who quietly rewrite the rules of admission.

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. autocratic legalism kim lane scheppele upd

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. The keyword’s durability lies in its uncomfortable truth:

Thus, searching “autocratic legalism UPenn” will pull up not only Scheppele’s work but also related scholarship by Penn’s own David C. Williams, Eric Feldman, and the late Howard Lesnick—all of whom debated and extended her framework. The keyword “upd” is almost certainly a search engine fragment from “upenn dot edu” or a misspelling of “UPenn.” No theory goes unchallenged. Critics of autocratic legalism raise three objections. And the most dangerous enemies of democracy are

First, Some scholars argue that Scheppele’s framework risks labeling any aggressive, partisan use of legal power as “autocratic.” If a democratic majority packs a court (as FDR threatened), is that autocratic legalism? Scheppele answers with a distinction of entrenchment versus policy . FDR wanted to change policy; Orbán wanted to change the ability of future majorities to ever change policy again . The latter is autocratic legalism; the former is constitutional hardball within a still-competitive system.

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.

No scholar has done more to diagnose, name, and theorize this paradox than , the Laurance S. Rockefeller Professor of Sociology and International Affairs at Princeton University (and formerly a long-time affiliated faculty at the University of Pennsylvania ’s Law School—a frequent source of confusion given her deep ties to the Penn legal community). Her master concept— autocratic legalism —has become the indispensable keyword for understanding how modern authoritarians use the tools of law to kill the spirit of law.