Hostname: page-component-5d84bcc8dc-48r52 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-09-07T05:13:48.778Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Resisting democratic backsliding: An essay on Weimar, self-enforcing constitutions, and the Frankfurt School

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 March 2018

SUJIT CHOUDHRY
SUJIT CHOUDHRY*
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley and Center for Constitutional Transitions, Boalt Hall, Berkeley, CA94720-7200
*
*Email: suj@constitutionaltransitions.org
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

What, if anything, can constitutions do to resist democratic backsliding? The collapse of the Weimar Republic has led scholars of comparative politics to conclude that constitutional forms and institutions can do little to resist the breakdown of democracy and the rise of autocracy. This paper offers a constitutionalist response. The outlines of that answer can be found in decades-old policy documents produced by a set of German émigré scholars during and in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War: Franz Neumann, Herbert Marcuse, and Otto Kirchheimer. The secret reports root constitutional stability in the creation of a framework for bounded partisan pluralist contestation among political parties that track the principal social and economic cleavages, and that is rooted within, and does not seek to overthrow, the underlying political economy. Second, the secret reports highlight the importance of constitutional design in creating a constitutional infrastructure for bounded pluralistic political contestation, especially with respect to the role of political parties. Third, the secret reports suggest a counter-narrative of the German Basic Law as creating a framework for political contestation that reinforces constitutional stability instead of undermining it.

Keywords

constitutional designdemocratic backslidingpolitical partiesWeimar

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Global Constitutionalism , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , March 2018 , pp. 54 - 74
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 Stefan Foa, R and Mounk, Y, ‘The Danger of Deconsolidation: The Democratic Disconnect’ (2016) 27(3) Journal of Democracy 5Google Scholar.

2 Linz, J and Stepan, A (eds), The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD, 1978).Google Scholar

3 Lowenstein, K, ‘Autocracy Versus Democracy in Contemporary Europe, I’ (1935) 29 American Political Science Review 571, 579CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a contemporary discussion of these concerns, see Issacharoff, S, ‘Fragile Democracies’ (2007) 120 Harvard Law Review 1405Google Scholar and Issacharoff, S, Fragile Democracies: Contested Power in the Era of Constitutional Courts (Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 Ibid 580.

5 Levitsky, S and Ziblatt, D, ‘Is Donald Trump a Threat to Democracy?’ New York Times (16 December 2016).Google Scholar

6 Neumann, F, Marcuse, H and Kirchheimer, O, Secret Reports on Nazi Germany: The Frankfurt School Contribution to the War Effort, edited by Laudani, R (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2013).Google Scholar

7 Issacharoff, S and Pildes, R, ‘Politics as Markets: Partisan Lockups of the Democratic Process’ (1998) 50 Stanford Law Review 643CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Mittal, S and Weingast, B, ‘Self-Enforcing Constitutions: With an Application to Democratic Stability in America’s First Century’ (2013) 29 Journal of Law, Economics and Organization 278CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Also see Levinson, D, ‘Parchment and Politics: The Positive Puzzle of Constitutional Commitment’ (2011) 124 Harvard Law Review 657Google Scholar.

9 Lowenstein, K, ‘Law and the Legislative Process in Occupied Germany: II’ (1948) 6 Yale Law Journal 994CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 Ibid 996.

11 Ibid 997.

12 Ibid.

13 Kirchheimer, O, ‘Remarks on Carl Schmitt’s Legality and Legitimacy’ (1933) 68 Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik 457 in Scheuerman, W (ed), The Rule of Law Under Siege: Selected Essays of Franz L. Neumann & Otto Kirchheimer (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, 1996) 64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14 Ibid 70.

15 Ibid.

16 Ibid.

17 Schmitt, C, The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1985)Google Scholar.

18 Ibid 5.

19 Ibid.

20 Ibid 49–50.

21 Kelsen, H, ‘On the Essence and Value of Democracy’ in AJ Jacobson, and Schlink, B (eds), Weimar: A Jurisprudence of Crisis (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, 2001) 84.Google Scholar For a helpful discussion of Kelsen’s views, see Y Mersel, ‘Hans Kelsen and Political Parties’ (2006) 39 Israel Law Review 158, 160–5.

22 Ibid 92 (original emphasis).

23 Ibid 92, 93.

24 Ibid 92 (original emphases).

25 Ibid 94 (‘Anchoring political parties in the constitution also makes it possible to democratize the formation of the will of the community within this sphere.’) (original emphasis).

26 Rawls, J, Political Liberalism (Columbia University Press, New York, NY, 1993).Google Scholar

27 Kirchheimer, O, ‘Legality and Legitimacy’ (1932) 9 Die Gesellschaft 8–20, in Scheuerman, W (ed), The Rule of Law Under Siege: Selected Essays of Franz L. Neumann & Otto Kirchheimer (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, 1996) 44, 44Google Scholar.

28 For a similar argument, see Almeida, F, ‘The Emergence of Constitutionalism as an Evolutionary Adaptation’ (2014) 13 Cardozo Public Law & Policy Journal 1.Google Scholar

29 Weingast, B, ‘The Political Foundations of Democracy and the Rule of Law’ (1997) 91 American Political Science Review 245, 262.Google Scholar

30 Ibid.