Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T18:11:28.577Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

6 - Distorting Democracy? The Constitutional Court of Mongolia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 July 2009

Tom Ginsburg
Affiliation:
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Get access

Summary

INTRODUCTION

In contrast with Taiwan's gradual transition, Mongolia presents a useful context for examining the position of a constitutional court created after a clear “constitutional moment.” Since 1990, Mongolia's democratization process has been unparalleled in socialist Asia and is as muscular as any postcommunist society in Europe. Several free and fair elections have been held, a new constitution with extensive human rights provisions ratified, and the formerly Leninist Mongolian People's Revolutionary Party (MPRP) has alternated turns in power with younger democratic parties. By any definition of the slippery concept of democratic consolidation, Mongolia has achieved it.

The new constitutional court, called the Tsets, initially played an important role in this process, constraining legislative majorities and building up a body of constitutional law in a society where socialist traditions of parliamentary sovereignty had previously held sway. As democratic institutions developed, however, the court was increasingly criticized for making overly political decisions. Ultimately, the court provoked a constitutional crisis and found itself increasingly politicized from outside.

Much of the controversy surrounding the court can be traced back to a single decision in 1996 that thrust the court into the center of heated political battle. This was the decision on the structure of government, issued immediately following the historic electoral victory of the National Democrat–Social Democrat coalition. That electoral victory had ended seventy-two years of continuous rule by the Mongolian People's Revolutionary Party (MPRP), the former communist party that had tried to steer post-1990 reforms.

Type
Chapter
Information
Judicial Review in New Democracies
Constitutional Courts in Asian Cases
, pp. 158 - 205
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×