How did legal changes consolidate power in authoritarian states?

Legal changes consolidate power in authoritarian states by legitimising the regime's control and suppressing opposition.

In authoritarian states, legal changes often serve as a tool for the regime to consolidate its power. These changes can take various forms, such as constitutional amendments, new laws, or reinterpretations of existing laws. The primary aim of these changes is to legitimise the regime's control over the state and its institutions. By altering the legal framework, authoritarian regimes can ensure that their actions are not only unchallenged but also perceived as lawful and necessary.

For instance, constitutional amendments can be used to extend the term limits of the leader or to grant them additional powers. This was the case in Uganda, where President Yoweri Museveni has repeatedly amended the constitution to extend his rule. Similarly, in Russia, President Vladimir Putin has used constitutional amendments to potentially extend his presidency until 2036. These changes not only allow the leaders to remain in power but also make it legally difficult for opposition to challenge their rule.

New laws can also be introduced to suppress opposition and dissent. These laws often target freedom of speech, assembly, and association, which are crucial for a functioning democracy. For example, in China, the National Security Law for Hong Kong has been used to crack down on pro-democracy activists and to erode the city's autonomy. Similarly, in Turkey, a series of legal changes under President Recep Tayyip Erdogan have led to the imprisonment of thousands of journalists, academics, and opposition politicians.

Reinterpretations of existing laws are another way through which authoritarian regimes consolidate power. By redefining what is legal and what is not, these regimes can justify their actions and suppress opposition. For instance, in Venezuela, President Nicolas Maduro has used the Supreme Court to reinterpret the constitution and to bypass the opposition-controlled National Assembly.

In conclusion, legal changes in authoritarian states serve to consolidate power by legitimising the regime's control, extending the leader's rule, suppressing opposition, and reinterpreting laws to suit the regime's interests. These changes not only undermine democratic principles but also create a legal framework that is heavily skewed in favour of the regime.