The Judgement of Liberty: An Analysis of the Symbiotic Relationship Between Judicial Independence and Democratic Society

Introduction: The Indispensable Arbiter

An independent judiciary is not merely an optional feature of a democratic state; it is a fundamental, non-negotiable pillar upon which the entire edifice of liberal democracy rests.

While the ideal of justice is often depicted as blind, its administration must be keenly aware and rigorously insulated from the political and social pressures that seek to sway its hand.

Without a judiciary free to render judgment based solely on fact and law, the core tenets of democracy—the rule of law, the protection of fundamental rights, and the accountability of power—decay into unenforceable promises.

The stark reality in nations experiencing democratic backsliding is that the initial target of aspiring autocrats is almost invariably the judiciary.

This is because a captured court can provide a veneer of legality to the systematic dismantling of democratic institutions.

As the American Bar Association warns, threats against the judiciary are not isolated attacks on individuals but assaults on “the very fabric of our democracy” itself.¹

This report provides a comprehensive analysis of the symbiotic relationship between an independent judicial branch and a democratic society.

It will demonstrate that this relationship is not merely correlational but constitutive; a society without a functionally independent judiciary fails to meet a core criterion of the modern definition of democracy.

The analysis begins by establishing the foundational principles, offering nuanced definitions of both democracy and judicial independence to reveal their intrinsic linkage.

It then proceeds to dissect the primary mechanisms through which an independent judiciary actively reinforces and sustains democratic governance: by upholding the rule of law, acting as a constitutional check on the other branches of government, shielding the rights of citizens and minorities, and providing a forum for impartial dispute resolution.

The report will then confront the central intellectual challenge to the judiciary’s role—the “counter-majoritarian paradox”—arguing that this seemingly anti-democratic function is, in fact, essential for the preservation of a constitutional democracy.

To ground this theoretical framework in reality, the analysis will present in-depth case studies that starkly illustrate the consequences of judicial capture and resilience.

The authoritarian playbook for subverting judicial independence will be detailed, followed by examinations of democratic backsliding in Poland, authoritarian consolidation in Venezuela, and democratic defense by the courts in Colombia.

Finally, the report will adopt a comparative perspective, analyzing how the dynamics of judicial power differ across presidential and parliamentary systems, as well as common law and civil law traditions.

The report concludes that judicial independence is a fragile condition, the maintenance of which requires constant vigilance from the legal community, political actors, and an engaged citizenry who understand that the health of their democracy can be measured by the strength and impartiality of its courts.

Part I: The Bedrock Principles: Defining Democracy and Judicial Independence

To comprehend why an independent judiciary is indispensable to a democratic society, one must first establish a clear and robust understanding of these two core concepts.

A superficial definition of democracy as simple majority rule, or of judicial independence as mere judicial isolation, fails to capture the profound and intricate connections between them.

A deeper examination reveals that the very definition of a modern liberal democracy contains, at its heart, principles that can only be realized through the functions of an independent judiciary.

Section 1.1: The Democratic Ideal: Beyond Majoritarianism

Democracy, in its contemporary understanding, transcends the minimalist conception of government by popular vote.

It is a comprehensive system of governance built upon four key, interlocking elements: a political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections; the active participation of the people in political and civic life; the robust protection of the human rights of all citizens; and an unwavering commitment to the rule of law, where laws and procedures apply equally to all.²

First, at its core, democracy is founded on the principle of popular sovereignty.

Political power is vested in the people, flowing from the governed to the government, which holds power only temporarily and with the people’s consent.²

This consent is renewed through regular, free, and fair elections.

Such elections are not merely procedural; they must be administered by a neutral and professional body, allow all parties to campaign freely, and ensure voters can cast their ballots in secret, free from intimidation or fraud.²

Critically, this process itself relies on a judicial backstop; a core feature of a fair electoral system is the existence of an impartial and independent tribunal to resolve disputes about the results.²

Second, democracy is not a spectator sport.

It requires the active participation of its citizens in politics and civic life, whether through voting, engaging in public debate, joining political parties, or forming independent civil society organizations.²

These activities provide the vital link between the populace and their representatives, ensuring that government remains responsive to the needs and will of the people.²

Third, and most crucially for this analysis, a genuine democracy is defined by its protection of fundamental human rights for all citizens.²

These rights, such as freedom of speech, assembly, religion, and association, are not granted by the state and cannot be revoked by a simple majority vote.⁵

This principle directly confronts the potential for a “tyranny of the majority,” where a dominant group could use its electoral power to oppress minorities.³

A democratic system, therefore, must have institutional safeguards to protect minority rights and ensure that the fundamental dignity of every individual is respected.³

Fourth, all of these elements are bound together by the rule of law.

This foundational principle dictates that all citizens, including the government officials who make and enforce the laws, are equal before the law and must abide by it.²

The rule of law prevents the arbitrary exercise of power, ensures that rights are protected through established legal procedures, and provides the stability and predictability necessary for a functioning society.²

It is the mechanism that transforms democracy from a system of raw power into a system of ordered liberty.

The very possibility of the rule of law, however, is contingent on the existence of an institution capable of upholding it.

Section 1.2: The Architecture of Judicial Independence

Judicial independence is the institutional embodiment of the principle that justice should be administered impartially, based on law and fact, without being swayed by external pressures.¹

It is not a privilege for the personal benefit of judges, but a prerequisite for the rule of law and a fundamental guarantee of a fair trial.¹⁰

This principle is so central to justice that it has been enshrined in international standards, such as the United Nations’ “Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary,” which affirm it as an indispensable right that all states have a duty to guarantee in their constitution or laws.¹²

The concept of judicial independence is best understood through its two primary facets: decisional and institutional.¹⁰

Decisional independence refers to the individual judge’s state of mind and the freedom to render verdicts without fear of reprisal or hope of reward.

It is the capacity of a judge to make rulings based solely on their good-faith interpretation of the facts and the applicable law, insulated from any “restrictions, improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interferences, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason”.¹³

This insulation must protect the judge not only from the political branches but also from powerful litigants, commercial interests, media pressure, and shifting public opinion.¹¹

Institutional independence refers to the independence of the judiciary as a co-equal branch of government.

It is a structural concept, rooted in the doctrine of separation of powers, which holds that the judicial branch must be distinct from and not subordinate to the executive and legislative branches.¹⁰

This requires that the judiciary has exclusive authority over matters of a judicial nature, control over its own administration, and that its decisions are not subject to revision by non-judicial bodies.¹³

A critical component of institutional independence is the duty of the state to provide adequate resources to enable the judiciary to properly perform its functions.¹³

To secure these two facets of independence, democratic systems and international standards have developed a set of practical, concrete safeguards.

These are the architectural pillars that support the entire structure:

• Merit-Based Selection: To guard against appointments for improper motives, persons selected for judicial office must be individuals of integrity and ability with appropriate legal training. The selection process itself must be non-discriminatory and designed to ensure impartiality.¹³
• Security of Tenure: Perhaps the most critical safeguard is guaranteed tenure. Whether appointed or elected, judges must hold their positions until a mandatory retirement age or the end of a fixed term, secured by law.³ This protection, championed by thinkers like Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78, is designed to foster an “independent spirit in the judges” by freeing them from the fear of being removed for making unpopular but legally correct decisions.¹⁰
• Guaranteed Remuneration: To prevent financial leverage, the salaries, pensions, and conditions of service for judges must be adequately secured by law and cannot be reduced during their term of office.¹⁰
• Fundamental Freedoms: Judges, like all citizens, are entitled to freedom of expression, belief, association, and assembly. This includes the right to form and join associations of judges, which can serve to represent their interests and protect their collective independence.¹³
• A Culture of Integrity and Impartiality: Independence is also sustained by a strong judicial culture and a rigorous code of ethics. Judges must conduct themselves with propriety, avoid conflicts of interest, and recuse themselves from any case where their impartiality might reasonably be questioned.¹¹

The definitions of democracy and judicial independence are thus not parallel but are deeply interwoven.

A core element of democracy is the “rule of law,” and the primary purpose of judicial independence is to “ensure the rule of law is respected”.¹

This creates a symbiotic and mutually constitutive relationship.

One cannot be fully realized without the other.

A government that subverts its judiciary is not merely weakening a single institution; it is attacking a definitional component of democracy itself.

Consequently, the erosion of judicial independence is not a precursor to democratic decline—it

is democratic decline in practice.

Part II: The Mechanisms of Democratic Reinforcement

Moving from definition to function, the indispensable role of an independent judiciary becomes clearer when examining the specific mechanisms through which it actively strengthens and sustains a democratic society.

It is not a passive institution but a dynamic force that translates abstract democratic principles into tangible realities.

An independent judiciary serves as the guardian of the rule of law, the ultimate constitutional check on state power, the shield of citizen rights, and the neutral arbiter of societal disputes.

These functions are interconnected, creating a virtuous cycle that builds the public trust and institutional legitimacy upon which a stable democracy depends.

Section 2.1: Guardian of the Rule of Law

The rule of law is the principle that a society is governed by established laws rather than by the arbitrary whims of individuals.

An independent judiciary is the primary institution responsible for breathing life into this principle.⁸

Its guardianship of the rule of law manifests in several critical ways.

First, it ensures equality before the law, mandating that everyone—from the most powerful government official to the most marginalized citizen, from the largest corporation to the smallest business—is subject to and accountable under the same legal standards.⁴

By interpreting and applying the law impartially, the judiciary prevents the state from wielding its power arbitrarily and ensures that its actions are legally justified and constitutionally sound.¹⁶

Second, the judiciary provides the legal certainty and predictability essential for social and economic stability.

A modern economy cannot function without the assurance that contracts will be enforced, property rights will be protected, and commercial disputes will be resolved according to established rules.⁸

Businesses and investors rely on the courts as a credible enforcement mechanism; without it, economic activity would be fraught with uncertainty and risk, grinding commerce to a halt.⁸

Third, by consistently and impartially upholding the law, the judiciary builds public trust and reinforces the legitimacy of the entire political system.¹⁰

When citizens believe they can receive a “fair shake” in court, their faith in the fairness of the democratic process is strengthened.¹⁰

This public confidence is the ultimate source of the court’s power, compelling both citizens and other branches of government to respect its rulings.¹⁰

Section 2.2: The Constitutional Check: Separation of Powers and Judicial Review

Perhaps the most profound democratic function of an independent judiciary is to serve as a check on the power of the legislative and executive branches.

This role is central to the doctrine of separation of powers, a concept articulated by the philosopher Montesquieu and embedded in constitutional democracies like the United States to prevent the concentration of power that leads to tyranny.¹⁷

Within this framework, the judiciary was famously described by Alexander Hamilton as the “least dangerous” branch, possessing “neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment”.¹⁰

Yet, its very independence makes it a formidable bulwark against the encroachments of the more powerful political branches.¹⁰

The primary tool for this checking function is the power of judicial review.

This is the authority of the courts to assess laws passed by the legislature and actions taken by the executive and to declare them unconstitutional—and therefore void—if they conflict with the nation’s foundational legal document.¹⁵

This power, while not explicitly enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, was asserted by the Supreme Court in the landmark 1803 case of

Marbury v.

Madison and was theoretically justified by Hamilton in Federalist No. 78.⁷

Hamilton argued that courts were designed to be “bulwarks of a limited constitution against legislative encroachments,” ensuring that the will of the people, as expressed in the constitution, would prevail over the temporary will of their elected representatives.²⁰

Through judicial review, an independent judiciary ensures that even a government with a strong popular majority cannot violate the fundamental rules of the democratic game.

It enforces constitutional limits on government power, safeguarding the long-term principles of the society against the short-term passions of a particular political moment.⁷

In doing so, it preserves the constitutional order and prevents the erosion of democracy from within.

Section 2.3: The Shield of the Citizen: Protecting Fundamental Rights and Minorities

While the constitution may guarantee a host of rights on paper, these guarantees “would mean nothing without independent courts to protect them”.¹⁹

An independent judiciary acts as the ultimate shield for the citizen, translating abstract rights into enforceable legal protections.

It is the forum where individuals can seek redress when their rights—such as due process, freedom from self-incrimination, or freedom of speech—are violated by the state or other powerful actors.³⁰

This function is often explicitly counter-majoritarian.

The judiciary is frequently called upon to protect the rights of individuals and groups who lack the political power to protect themselves, including “minorities of all types from the majority”.⁸

History is replete with examples of courts standing as the last line of defense for the vulnerable.

In the United States, landmark Supreme Court decisions were instrumental in advancing the cause of civil rights, expanding women’s rights, and securing the rights of criminal defendants, often in the face of significant public and political opposition.⁷

In a courtroom where justice is administered independently, “an individual citizen is equal to the most powerful people, the wealthiest corporations and even the government itself”.¹⁷

However, this protective power is neither absolute nor uncontested.

The ability of courts to effectively safeguard rights can be constrained by political pressures, the threat of court-curbing measures, and a judiciary’s own sense of self-restraint.³⁵

Furthermore, judicial decisions are not self-enforcing; they rely on the executive branch for implementation and on broad public legitimacy for their efficacy.¹⁰

This highlights the delicate balance the judiciary must maintain: it must be independent enough to challenge the majority but must also command enough respect from that majority for its decisions to be honored.

Section 2.4: The Neutral Ground: Impartial Dispute Resolution

At its most fundamental level, the judiciary provides a peaceful and orderly mechanism for resolving disputes.

By offering a neutral forum where conflicts can be adjudicated according to established laws and procedures, the courts underpin the basic social order and prevent grievances from escalating into violence or chaos.¹⁸

This function applies to all manner of conflicts, from civil disputes between individuals and companies to criminal cases brought by the state, to administrative challenges against government agencies.⁸

The cornerstone of this function is impartiality.

For the system to work, all parties must have faith that their case will be heard by a neutral arbiter who is free from bias, prejudice, or any external influence.¹⁰

Judges are expected to act with the highest levels of integrity, propriety, and diligence, basing their decisions strictly on the facts presented and the relevant law.¹⁸

This commitment to fair and impartial adjudication is what builds the public confidence necessary for people to voluntarily submit their disputes to the courts for resolution, rather than resorting to other means.¹⁰

These four functions are not discrete but are mutually reinforcing, creating a virtuous cycle that strengthens democracy.

When a court impartially upholds the rule of law in a commercial dispute, it builds the business community’s confidence in the legal system.

This accumulated legitimacy provides the court with the political capital necessary to render a difficult, counter-majoritarian decision that checks the power of the government.

When that ruling is accepted, it is because of the court’s perceived commitment to the law, not because of any coercive power it wields.

This act of checking power, in turn, may protect the fundamental rights of a minority group, further demonstrating the court’s role as a guardian and reinforcing its legitimacy in the eyes of the public.

A breakdown at any point in this cycle—for instance, a ruling perceived as corrupt or politically motivated—can sever these connections and begin a downward spiral of declining trust and eroding authority.

Part III: The Counter-Majoritarian Paradox

A central and enduring tension within democratic theory lies in the role of an independent judiciary armed with the power of judicial review.

This tension is famously encapsulated in the term “counter-majoritarian difficulty”.³⁸

The paradox is this: how can a system be considered democratic if a small body of unelected, life-tenured judges can invalidate the actions of the people’s democratically elected representatives?.⁷

This question strikes at the heart of the relationship between judicial power and popular sovereignty.

A thorough analysis reveals that this seemingly anti-democratic power is, paradoxically, one of the most crucial mechanisms for preserving a

liberal and constitutional democracy, which is a system of governance far more complex than simple majority rule.

The dilemma was articulated most forcefully by the legal scholar Alexander Bickel, who described judicial review as a “deviant institution in American democracy” because when a court strikes down a law, “it exercises control, not on behalf of the prevailing majority, but against it”.⁷

The argument is straightforward: in a democracy, legitimacy flows from the will of the majority.

When judges overturn a law passed by a legislature, they are substituting their own judgment for that of the people’s chosen representatives, thus thwarting the popular will.³⁸

This creates a fundamental problem for any theory of democracy that prioritizes majoritarianism.

However, this perspective rests on a narrow, procedural definition of democracy.

The defense of judicial review, and thus of an independent judiciary’s powerful role, rests on a more substantive understanding of democracy.

This defense reframes the judiciary’s counter-majoritarian actions not as anti-democratic, but as essential to the long-term health and stability of democracy itself.

The primary arguments in this defense are threefold.

First, when a court strikes down a law as unconstitutional, it is not simply opposing the will of the current majority.

Instead, it is upholding a higher, more enduring expression of the people’s will: the constitution itself.⁷

The constitution represents a pre-commitment by the people to a set of fundamental principles and rules of the game.

The judiciary, in enforcing these rules, ensures that the transient passions of a temporary majority do not override the foundational values that the society has collectively agreed to live by.¹⁶

Second, the counter-majoritarian role serves as a vital check against the “tyranny of the majority”.³

The framers of the U.S. Constitution, and the architects of many other constitutional democracies, were acutely aware of the danger that a dominant faction could use its power to oppress minorities or strip individuals of their fundamental rights.

Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 78, argued that the independence of judges was “equally requisite to guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals from the effects of those ill humors which the arts of designing men…sometimes disseminate among the people themselves”.²⁰

The judiciary is thus designed to be a “bulwark against public opinion” when that opinion threatens to violate core rights and liberties.³⁸

Third, the judiciary enforces the procedural rules that make democracy possible.

By ensuring that elections are fair, that speech is protected, and that all parties can compete on a level playing field, the courts act as umpires of the democratic process.⁴²

This function may require them to make decisions that are unpopular with the current ruling party, but in doing so, they preserve the integrity of the system for all future competitors.

This analysis reveals that the counter-majoritarian difficulty is not a design flaw, but a deliberately engineered feature.

It reflects a sophisticated, and arguably skeptical, view of raw democracy held by many constitutional framers.

They recognized that for a democracy to be stable and just, it must be self-limiting.

The independent judiciary is the institutional embodiment of this self-limitation—a built-in “emergency brake” designed to protect the democratic system from its own worst impulses.

It forces a crucial distinction between the fleeting will of a temporary majority and the enduring constitutional values that define the nation.

This power is not, however, unlimited.

The judiciary’s authority is ultimately rooted in its legitimacy and public trust, and its decisions are not self-enforcing.¹⁰

A court that consistently and radically departs from deeply held public values risks being ignored, having its jurisdiction stripped by the legislature, or facing a political backlash that undermines its independence.

The crisis faced by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1930s, when its opposition to popular New Deal legislation provoked President Roosevelt’s “court-packing” plan, serves as a historical reminder that judicial power must be wielded with prudence.⁴⁴

The judiciary must navigate a delicate path, acting as a check on the majority without losing the consent of the majority to be checked.

Part IV: The Judiciary Under Siege: Case Studies in Democratic Erosion and Resilience

The theoretical importance of judicial independence is most vividly illustrated by its real-world consequences.

When aspiring autocrats seek to dismantle a democracy, they do not begin by abolishing elections; they begin by capturing the courts.

A compliant judiciary is the essential tool for legalizing the abuse of power, neutralizing opposition, and consolidating authoritarian rule.

Conversely, a courageous and independent judiciary can serve as the most formidable line of defense for a democracy under threat.

The following case studies from Poland, Venezuela, and Colombia demonstrate this dynamic in action, revealing both the playbook for judicial capture and the strategies for democratic defense.

This comparative analysis shows that the judiciary is often the critical battleground where the fate of a democracy is decided.

Section 4.1: The Playbook of Autocracy: Capturing the Courts

The process of democratic backsliding is often a legal one.

Aspiring autocrats prefer to maintain a facade of legality, using the law itself as a weapon to deconstruct democracy from within.⁴⁵

To do this, they must first neutralize the one institution capable of stopping them: the judiciary.

A consistent pattern of attack, an “authoritarian playbook,” can be observed across countries where democracy is eroding.⁴⁷

This playbook involves a series of escalating tactics aimed at subverting both the institutional and decisional independence of judges:

• Legislative and Constitutional Attacks: The first step is often to use a legislative majority to change the rules governing the judiciary. This can include passing laws that alter the composition of courts, strip them of jurisdiction over politically sensitive matters, change the retirement age to force out existing judges, or create new disciplinary bodies controlled by the executive.⁴⁸ In more extreme cases, a government may bypass the existing constitution entirely by convening a new constituent assembly that it controls, as seen in Venezuela.⁵¹
• Court Packing and Politicized Appointments: The goal of these legislative changes is often to enable “court packing”—filling high courts with political loyalists who can be relied upon to deliver favorable rulings. This transforms the court from a neutral arbiter into a rubber stamp for the executive.⁴⁵
• Intimidation and Harassment: Public attacks on judges who issue unfavorable rulings are a common tactic. This can range from verbal criticism by political leaders to threats of impeachment or the initiation of politically motivated disciplinary proceedings, all designed to create a chilling effect and discourage independent judgment.¹
• Budgetary and Resource Control: The political branches often control the judiciary’s budget. By withholding or manipulating funding, a hostile executive or legislature can starve the courts of the resources needed to function effectively, crippling their capacity to administer justice.¹³
• Disregarding Rulings: The most blatant attack on judicial authority is simply to ignore or refuse to comply with court orders. When the executive branch demonstrates that it will not be bound by judicial decisions, the rule of law collapses and is replaced by the rule of force.⁴⁷

These tactics are not random or isolated; they are part of a deliberate and systematic strategy to eliminate one of the core checks on executive power.

The following table summarizes this playbook, drawing on examples from the case studies that follow.

Tactic	Description	Case Study Examples
Constitutional & Legislative Overhaul	Using legislative majorities to rewrite laws governing the judiciary or to replace the constitution entirely, altering the rules of the game to favor the incumbent.	Poland: The PiS government passed a series of laws to restructure the Supreme Court, the National Council of the Judiciary, and the Constitutional Tribunal.50	Venezuela: Hugo Chávez convened a Constituent Assembly in 1999 to bypass the existing constitution and legislature, effectively resetting the state’s legal framework.51
Court Packing & Politicized Appointments	Filling courts, particularly the highest court, with political loyalists to ensure ideologically favorable rulings and eliminate judicial opposition.	Poland: PiS unconstitutionally appointed judges to the Constitutional Tribunal to secure a loyal majority.56	Venezuela: The legislature, controlled by Chávez’s allies, packed the Supreme Tribunal of Justice (TSJ) with loyalists, expanding its size to do so.45
Jurisdictional Stripping & Disciplinary Control	Removing the courts’ authority to hear certain types of cases (especially those challenging the government) or creating new disciplinary bodies to punish and remove independent-minded judges.	Poland: A new, politically controlled Disciplinary Chamber was created within the Supreme Court to sanction judges who questioned the government’s reforms or applied EU law.57	Venezuela: The captured TSJ assumed powers belonging to the National Assembly, effectively stripping the legislature of its authority.55
Intimidation & Public Denunciation	Political leaders publicly attacking and delegitimizing judges and court rulings that are unfavorable to the government, creating a climate of fear.	Poland: PiS leader Jarosław Kaczyński described the Constitutional Tribunal as “the bastion of everything in Poland that is bad”.56	Venezuela: President Maduro and his officials routinely denounce judges and court decisions that challenge their authority, labeling them as part of a foreign-backed conspiracy.59
Non-Compliance with Rulings	The executive branch openly defying or refusing to implement legally binding court orders, rendering the judiciary powerless and signaling that the government is above the law.	Poland: The PiS government refused to publish and thereby enact multiple binding rulings from the Constitutional Tribunal that went against its reforms.56	Venezuela: The Maduro regime has systematically ignored rulings from the opposition-led National Assembly and has defied international legal bodies.55

Section 4.2: Case Study in Democratic Backsliding: The Polish Judiciary

The recent history of Poland under the Law and Justice (PiS) party, which came to power in 2015, provides a textbook case of a democratically elected government systematically dismantling judicial independence from within.⁵⁷

Viewed for years as a model of post-communist democratic transition, Poland’s trajectory shifted dramatically as the PiS government launched a multi-pronged assault on the country’s judiciary, justifying its actions with a political narrative that it was purging a corrupt, “post-communist” system.⁵⁶

The first target was the Constitutional Tribunal, Poland’s highest constitutional court.

Immediately after the 2015 election, the PiS-controlled parliament (the Sejm) and the PiS-aligned President, Andrzej Duda, refused to seat judges lawfully chosen by the previous parliament and instead installed their own loyalists.⁵⁶

Subsequently, the government simply refused to publish the official rulings of the Tribunal that declared these actions unconstitutional, preventing them from taking legal effect and effectively paralyzing the court as a check on power.⁵⁶

Having captured the constitutional arbiter, the government moved on to the rest of the judiciary.

A key measure was a law that lowered the retirement age for Supreme Court judges, a move designed to force out over a third of the sitting judges, including the Chief Justice, and replace them with government appointees.⁵⁰

Perhaps the most direct assault on decisional independence was the creation of a new Disciplinary Chamber within the Supreme Court.

This body, composed largely of government-friendly appointees, was given the power to sanction, suspend, and even remove any judge for the content of their rulings, particularly for questioning the legality of the government’s reforms or for applying EU law over Polish law.⁵⁷

This systematic erosion of judicial independence did not go unchallenged.

Polish judges and lawyers organized mass protests, such as the “March of 1,000 Robes,” and continued to issue rulings based on their interpretation of the Polish constitution and EU law, despite facing disciplinary action.⁵⁸

They also sought recourse from European institutions, leading the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) to rule that the new disciplinary regime violated EU law.⁵⁸

The Polish case demonstrates how quickly and methodically a government can undermine democratic foundations by targeting the judiciary, and how the resistance to such backsliding often relies on the courage of individual judges and the support of transnational legal structures.

Section 4.3: Case Study in Authoritarian Consolidation: The Venezuelan Supreme Tribunal

The case of Venezuela under Hugo Chávez and his successor, Nicolás Maduro, illustrates the final stage of judicial capture: the transformation of the judiciary from a potential check on power into an active and essential instrument of authoritarian rule.⁵¹

The process began almost immediately after Chávez was elected in 1999.

Rather than working within the existing constitutional framework, he convened a new Constituent Assembly, which he controlled, to rewrite the constitution, effectively bypassing and neutralizing the existing Congress and Supreme Court.⁵¹

The new 1999 constitution created the Supreme Tribunal of Justice (TSJ).

In the years that followed, the Chávez-controlled legislature packed the TSJ with political loyalists, even passing a law to expand the number of justices to facilitate this takeover.⁴⁵

Once captured, the TSJ became a key weapon in the regime’s arsenal.

It systematically issued rulings that dismantled the remaining democratic checks and balances.

It approved the elimination of presidential term limits, allowing Chávez and later Maduro to remain in power indefinitely.⁴⁵

After the opposition won a majority in the National Assembly in 2015, the TSJ systematically stripped the legislature of its constitutional powers, eventually declaring it in contempt and usurping its functions, a move widely condemned as a self-coup.⁵⁵

Under Maduro, the TSJ has continued to provide a veneer of legality for the regime’s authoritarian actions.

It has validated fraudulent elections, disqualified popular opposition candidates like María Corina Machado from running for office, and upheld repressive laws used to persecute political opponents and shut down NGOs.⁵⁹

The Venezuelan case is a stark warning of how a judiciary, once captured, ceases to be a guardian of the law and instead becomes its abuser, turning the “rule of law” into “rule by law,” where legal institutions are used to enforce the will of the autocrat.⁶⁴

Section 4.4: Case Study in Democratic Defense: The Colombian Constitutional Court

In stark contrast to Poland and Venezuela, the Colombian Constitutional Court serves as a powerful example of an independent judiciary acting as a bulwark for democracy, even in a nation plagued by decades of internal conflict, deep inequality, and intense political pressures.⁶⁵

Since its creation in the 1991 constitution, the Court has established itself as one of the most activist and powerful courts in the world, building significant public legitimacy through its defense of the constitution and citizen rights.⁶⁵

The Court has repeatedly demonstrated its independence by checking the power of popular and powerful presidents.

In 2010, it famously ruled against a referendum that would have allowed then-President Álvaro Uribe, who enjoyed high approval ratings, to run for a third term, an act that was seen as a crucial defense against the erosion of term limits.⁴⁵

More recently, in 2025, the Council of State (Colombia’s highest administrative court) suspended a decree by President Gustavo Petro that was viewed as a potential constitutional breach, demonstrating the judiciary’s continued willingness to hold the executive accountable.⁶⁷

Beyond checking executive power, the Court’s most significant contribution has been its use of the acción de tutela (a constitutional complaint mechanism) to protect the fundamental rights of ordinary citizens.⁶⁵

Through a series of landmark “structural judgments,” the Court has addressed systemic failures by the state.

In its famous T-025/04 ruling, it declared an “unconstitutional state of affairs” regarding the government’s neglect of millions of internally displaced persons (IDPs) and ordered comprehensive policy changes.⁶⁵

Similarly, in a 2008 ruling, it mandated a sweeping reform of the entire national healthcare system to ensure more equitable access.⁶⁵

By taking on these difficult issues and providing tangible remedies for marginalized groups, the Colombian Constitutional Court built a deep reservoir of public trust and legitimacy.⁶⁵

This legitimacy, in turn, has been its primary defense, giving it the political capital to withstand the inevitable attacks and court-curbing attempts from politicians angered by its rulings.⁶⁶

The Colombian experience demonstrates a clear causal path: a judiciary that actively and courageously defends the constitution and the rights of its citizens can generate the popular support necessary to maintain its own independence, thereby creating a resilient democratic feedback loop.

Part V: Comparative Perspectives on Judicial Power

The fundamental principle that an independent judiciary is essential for democracy holds true universally.

However, the specific nature of the judiciary’s role, its relationship with the political branches, and the primary threats to its independence are shaped by the broader institutional architecture of the state.

Analyzing the differences between presidential and parliamentary systems, as well as common law and civil law traditions, reveals that while the goal of judicial independence is constant, the path to achieving and defending it is context-dependent.

Section 5.1: Presidential vs. Parliamentary Systems

The structure of government—specifically, the relationship between the executive and legislative branches—profoundly influences the judiciary’s position and function.

In presidential systems, such as that of the United States, the government is characterized by a strict separation of powers.

The executive (President) and the legislature (Congress) are elected separately and have distinct, independent spheres of authority.⁶⁸

In this model, the judiciary is designed to be a co-equal third branch, acting as a neutral arbiter of the constitution and resolving disputes that arise between the two powerful political branches.⁷⁰

Its independence is a structural necessity for the system of checks and balances to function.

The primary threat to judicial independence in such a system often comes from the politicization of the appointment process, where political actors seek to install judges who share their ideology to tip the balance of the court.¹⁹

The strength of this system is its formal protection of judicial independence; its weakness can be political gridlock and intense partisan conflict over the judiciary’s composition.

In parliamentary systems, such as those in the United Kingdom and India, there is a fusion of executive and legislative power.

The executive, led by the Prime Minister, is drawn from and remains accountable to the majority party or coalition in the legislature.⁶⁸

This fusion allows for more efficient governance, as the executive can typically count on the legislature to pass its agenda.⁷²

However, it also creates a concentration of power and a greater risk of “legislative supremacy,” where a strong government can dominate the political landscape with fewer institutional checks.⁷³

In such systems, an independent judiciary, particularly a constitutional court with the power of judicial review, becomes an even more critical—and sometimes solitary—bulwark against the potential overreach of a powerful majority government.⁷¹

The primary threat here is not necessarily ideological appointments but direct institutional attacks by a government that views the court as an obstacle to its political will, as seen in the Polish case.

The following table summarizes these key distinctions.

Feature	Presidential System	Parliamentary System
Relationship to Political Branches	Formal separation of powers; executive and legislative branches are distinct and independently elected.	Fusion of powers; the executive is drawn from and accountable to the legislature.
Primary Role in Checks & Balances	Acts as a co-equal branch and neutral arbiter in conflicts between the separate executive and legislative branches.	Acts as a primary check on the concentrated power of the unified executive-legislative majority.
Typical Vulnerability	Politicization of judicial appointments and inter-branch gridlock that can paralyze government functions.	Legislative supremacy, where a strong majority government can pass laws to curb the judiciary’s power and independence (“court-curbing”).

Section 5.2: Common Law vs. Civil Law Traditions

The legal tradition of a country also shapes the judiciary’s role.

The two dominant traditions are common law and civil law.

In common law systems, which originated in England and are found in countries like the United States and the United Kingdom, law is developed not only through statutes passed by the legislature but also through binding judicial precedents.⁷⁴

Under the principle of

stare decisis, decisions made by higher courts are binding on lower courts in similar future cases.

This gives judges a significant, active law-making role, as their interpretations can adapt the law to new societal circumstances not contemplated by the original legislators.³⁰

For an independent judiciary, this provides a powerful tool for protecting rights by establishing new, protective precedents.

However, it also opens judges to criticism of “judicial activism” and can make judicial appointments highly contentious political battles over interpretive philosophy.⁷⁶

In civil law systems, which are prevalent in continental Europe, Latin America, and elsewhere, law is primarily found in comprehensive, codified statutes enacted by the legislature.⁷⁵

The traditional role of the judge is not to make law but to investigate facts and apply the relevant provisions of the legal code to the case at hand.⁷⁸

The judicial role is often described as more inquisitorial than adversarial.⁷⁸

While this might seem to limit judicial power, modern civil law countries have increasingly incorporated strong constitutional courts that exercise the power of judicial review over the legislative codes themselves.⁷¹

In these systems, an independent judiciary is crucial for ensuring that the codes, as written and applied, conform to the nation’s higher constitutional principles.

These differing institutional frameworks do not determine whether a judiciary will ultimately be independent, but they do shape the political battlegrounds on which its independence is fought.

In a presidential, common law system like the United States, where the judiciary’s power of review is deeply entrenched, political conflicts tend to focus on the ideology of judicial nominees and their interpretive philosophies (e.g., originalism vs. living constitutionalism).

The fight is over who will wield the court’s accepted power.

In contrast, in a parliamentary, civil law system like Poland, the battle waged by the PiS government was not merely over the ideology of judges but over the institutional power and existence of the judiciary as an independent check.

The fight was an attempt to subordinate the judiciary to the will of the legislative majority.

This demonstrates that while the authoritarian impulse to control the judiciary is universal, the tactics employed are strategically adapted to the specific legal and political landscape.

Conclusion: Vigilance as the Price of Justice

The intricate and exhaustive analysis presented in this report leads to an unequivocal conclusion: an independent judicial branch is not a luxury of a mature democracy but a constitutive element of its very existence.

It is the linchpin that connects the promise of democratic ideals to the reality of lived experience.

By serving as the guardian of the rule of law, a constitutional check on the political branches, a shield for the rights of all citizens, and a neutral arbiter of disputes, the judiciary performs functions that are indispensable to a free, fair, and stable society.

The relationship is symbiotic; without an independent judiciary, the core tenets of democracy are rendered meaningless, and without the foundational principles of democracy, a truly independent judiciary cannot long survive.

The inherent paradox of its counter-majoritarian role, far from being a flaw, is a deliberately designed feature that protects constitutional democracy from its own potential excesses.

It is the institutional mechanism that ensures the enduring will of the people, as enshrined in their constitution, prevails over the transient passions of a temporary majority.

The stark case studies of Poland and Venezuela serve as grim warnings, illustrating the methodical playbook used by aspiring autocrats to capture the courts and turn the law from a shield into a sword.

Conversely, the resilience of the Colombian Constitutional Court provides a powerful testament to how a courageous judiciary, by actively defending rights and the constitution, can build the public legitimacy needed to withstand political attacks and preserve the democratic order.

A final, clarifying lens through which to view this relationship is the “insurance theory” of judicial independence.¹⁵

This political science theory posits that even self-interested political elites may support an independent judiciary as a form of insurance.

When in power, they may be tempted to interfere with the courts for short-term gain.

However, they recognize that they may one day be in the opposition.

An independent judiciary ensures that if they lose an election, they will not face political retribution from the new winners and that the fundamental rules of political competition will remain intact for them to compete again in the future.¹⁵

This theory powerfully underscores the judiciary’s role as the guarantor of peaceful political competition.

When this “insurance policy” is cancelled—when the judiciary is captured by one side—the stakes of political loss are raised from a temporary setback to an existential threat.

This encourages a zero-sum, winner-take-all mentality that is fundamentally antithetical to the democratic spirit of compromise and mutual toleration.

Ultimately, judicial independence is not a self-perpetuating state of being.

It is a fragile achievement, a political and cultural norm that is constantly under pressure and must be actively defended.

Its preservation is not the sole responsibility of judges and lawyers.

It requires a deep and abiding commitment from political leaders who must resist the temptation to interfere for partisan advantage.

Most importantly, it requires an engaged and informed citizenry that understands the judiciary’s vital role and recognizes that an attack on the courts is an attack on their own liberty.

Vigilance, indeed, is the price of justice, and the strength and independence of a nation’s judiciary remains the most reliable barometer of the health of its democracy.

Works cited

1. Independent Judiciary Resources – American Bar Association, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/independent-judiciary-resources/
2. What is Democracy? | Diamond Democracy, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://diamond-democracy.stanford.edu/events/lecture/what-democracy
3. Democracy – Wikipedia, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
4. Democracy – Parliamentary Education Office, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/how-parliament-works/system-of-government/democracy
5. Democracy – Manual for Human Rights Education with Young people, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.coe.int/en/web/compass/democracy
6. Democracy in the United States – USCIS, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/lesson-plans/Government_and_You_handouts.pdf
7. The Supreme Court . The Court and Democracy . Court History | PBS – Thirteen.org, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt/democracy/history.html
8. Rule of Law and the Courts – American Bar Association, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/rule-of-law/rule-of-law-and-the-courts/
9. www.americanbar.org, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/independent-judiciary-resources/#:~:text=An%20independent%20judiciary%20is%20necessary,solely%20on%20fact%20and%20law.
10. Protecting Fair and Impartial Courts: Reflections on Judicial …, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/protecting-fair-and-impartial-courts-reflections-on-judicial-independence/
11. Three Is: Independence, Impartiality and Integrity – Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/our-justice-system/three-is/
12. Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary | Office of Justice Programs, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/basic-principles-independence-judiciary
13. Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary | OHCHR, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/basic-principles-independence-judiciary
14. Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary – UN Peacemaker, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://peacemaker.un.org/en/documents/basic-principles-independence-judiciary
15. Judicial Independence across Democratic Regimes: Understanding the Varying Impact of Political Competition | Law & Society Review – Cambridge University Press, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/law-and-society-review/article/abs/judicial-independence-across-democratic-regimes-understanding-the-varying-impact-of-political-competition/C5DB7877EECC0A312650D0082D8D3D2C
16. An Independent Judiciary — Principles of Democracy, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.principlesofdemocracy.org/judiciary
17. Judicial Independence Protects Rights – West Virginia Association for Justice, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.wvaj.org/?pg=JudicialIndependenceProtectsRights
18. The responsibilities of the judiciary in strengthening the rule of law | UNODC, accessed on August 10, 2025, http://www.act4ruleoflaw.org/en/news/judiciary
19. What is Judicial Independence, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://judiciallearningcenter.org/judicial-independence/
20. Judicial Independence: Historical Documents, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.fjc.gov/history/talking/teaching-and-civic-outreach-resources-judicial-independence-and-federal-courts-2
21. independence and impartiality of judges – University of Minnesota Human Rights Library, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://hrlibrary.umn.edu/fairtrial/wrft-rae.htm
22. The Impartial Judge: Detachment or Passion? – Digital Commons@DePaul, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1788&context=law-review
23. Judicial Independence and the Democratic Order Jeffrey K. Staton1 Department of Political Science Emory University Christopher, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://law.utexas.edu/conferences/measuring/The%20Papers/ruleoflawconference%20statonJudicial%20Independence.pdf
24. UAE: Dubai Ruler Mohammed bin Rashid swears-in 35 new judges at Dubai Courts, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/middle-east/uae-dubai-ruler-mohammed-bin-rashid-swears-in-35-new-judges-at-dubai-courts/articleshow/123217862.cms
25. An Independent Judiciary Is Vital to Our Democracy – Nelson Mullins, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.nelsonmullins.com/storage/7VU0EnYjed9wl8nr0IRPYIGgAZHGxBBkwv2HLOIZ.pdf
26. Checks and Balances – Ben’s Guide, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://bensguide.gpo.gov/j-check-balance
27. Separation of Powers | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/separation_of_powers_0
28. Branches of the U.S. government | USAGov, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.usa.gov/branches-of-government
29. The Judicial Branch – Ben’s Guide, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://bensguide.gpo.gov/m-judicial?highlight=WyJjb25zdGl0dXRpb24iLCJjb25zdGl0dXRpb24ncyJd
30. The Supreme Court is Central to Protecting Civil Liberties – Bill of Rights Institute, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://billofrightsinstitute.org/essays/the-supreme-court-is-central-to-protecting-civil-liberties
31. The Judicial Branch | whitehouse.gov – Obama White House Archives, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/1600/judicial-branch
32. www.americanbar.org, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/rule-of-law/rule-of-law-and-the-courts/#:~:text=Often%2C%20the%20judiciary%20is%20called,people%20who%20cannot%20protect%20themselves.
33. Landmark Supreme Court Cases | Brennan Center for Justice, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/landmark-supreme-court-cases
34. The Role of an Independent Judiciary – U.S. GOVERNMENT > Introduction to the U.S. System > Democracy Papers, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://web-archive-2017.ait.org.tw/zhtw/DOCS/Demopaper/dmpaper6.html
35. Courts’ Limited Ability to Protect Constitutional Rights | The University of Chicago Law Review, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/print-archive/courts-limited-ability-protect-constitutional-rights
36. Why Does the Court Offer Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)? – Hawaii State Judiciary, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.courts.state.hi.us/services/alternative_dispute/why_the_court_offers_adr
37. Fair and Impartial Adjudication | Scholarship Archive, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/context/faculty_scholarship/article/4327/viewcontent/Merrill_Fair_and_Impartial_Adjudication.pdf
38. Counter-majoritarian difficulty – Wikipedia, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-majoritarian_difficulty
39. Political Ignorance and the Countermajoritarian Difficulty – George Mason University, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/files/publications/working_papers/03-47.pdf
40. The Counter-Majoritarian Difficulty | U.S. Constitution Annotated | US …, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-2/clause-1/the-counter-majoritarian-difficulty
41. Identifying, Protecting and Preserving Individual Rights: Traditional Federal Court Functions – eRepository @ Seton Hall, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3047&context=shlr
42. 5. Courts, corruption and judicial independence, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.cmi.no/publications/file/5091-courts-corruption-and-judicial-independence.pdf
43. Countermajoritarian Institutions and Constitutional Stability – Yale Law School, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/Intellectual_Life/LTW-Weingast.pdf
44. What role do courts and judges play in democracy? – Brookings Institution, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-role-do-courts-and-judges-play-in-democracy/
45. The Need for Judicial Re-equilibration after Democratic Backsliding, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://oxfordpoliticalreview.com/2025/06/26/the-need-for-judicial-re-equilibration-after-democratic-backsliding/
46. Overruling the Executive: Judicial Strategies to Resist Democratic Erosion | Journal of Law and Courts – Cambridge University Press, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-law-and-courts/article/overruling-the-executive-judicial-strategies-to-resist-democratic-erosion/D94BE5ECB9C0636C50295A290CCD9DD2
47. The Legal Battle Over Liberal Democracy | ACS – American Constitution Society, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.acslaw.org/expertforum/the-legal-battle-over-liberal-democracy/
48. State Judges Must Guard Their Independence | State Court Report, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/state-judges-must-guard-their-independence
49. Full article: Eroded decisiveness in public administration? The …, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01442872.2025.2542331?src=
50. Democratic Recovery After Significant Backsliding: Emergent Lessons, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2025/04/democratic-recovery-after-significant-backsliding-emergent-lessons?lang=en
51. Lessons from Venezuela’s democratic collapse: how opposition movements can defy autocratic leaders | News – Keough School of Global Affairs, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://keough.nd.edu/news-and-events/news/lessons-from-venezuelas-democratic-collapse-how-opposition-movements-can-defy-autocratic-leaders/
52. Democratic Erosion in Venezuela, Representative Democracy in Brazil (Chapter 5), accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/state-crisis-in-fragile-democracies/democratic-erosion-in-venezuela-representative-democracy-in-brazil/8B5F1378F6A56DC11B68153BDDBC18D2
53. DEMOCRATIC BACKSLIDING AND AUTHORITARIAN RESURGENCE IN LATIN AMERICA – NORC at the University of Chicago, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.norc.org/content/dam/norc-org/pdfs/Democratic%20Backsliding%20Panel%20-%20Brief%20-%20English.pdf
54. Topic Guide: Judicial Corruption – Transparency International …, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://knowledgehub.transparency.org/guide/topic-guide-on-judicial-corruption/5305
55. Venezuelan Supreme Court Decision Greatly Undermines Democratic Institutions, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://2017-2021.state.gov/venezuelan-supreme-court-decision-greatly-undermines-democratic-institutions/
56. Hostile Takeover: How Law and Justice Captured Poland’s Courts …, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://freedomhouse.org/report/analytical-brief/2018/hostile-takeover-how-law-and-justice-captured-polands-courts
57. The Crisis of Democracy: the Case Study of Democratic Backsliding and the Rise of Populism in Poland – ISU ReD, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://ir.library.illinoisstate.edu/etd/1421/
58. Full article: Judges as activists: how Polish judges mobilise to defend the rule of law, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21599165.2022.2092843
59. The Destruction of one of the Last Guardrails of Democracy in Venezuela, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://democratic-erosion.org/2025/04/18/the-destruction-of-one-of-the-last-guardrails-of-democracy-in-venezuela/
60. “Chávez Vete Ya”: The Erosion of Democracy in Venezuela (Chapter 4) – Resisting Backsliding – Cambridge University Press, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/resisting-backsliding/chavez-vete-ya-the-erosion-of-democracy-in-venezuela/8A32EBE5784D74ACEFE274F8BD12CC70
61. Explaining Eastern Europe: Can Poland’s Backsliding Be Stopped? | Journal of Democracy, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/explaining-eastern-europe-can-polands-backsliding-be-stopped/
62. Populism, Constitutional Democracy, and High Courts – Lessons from the Venezuelan Case (Chapter 5) – Cambridge University Press, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/anticonstitutional-populism/populism-constitutional-democracy-and-high-courts-lessons-from-the-venezuelan-case/9D83E4DD6184046B0352CC23FAC2CB59
63. The Constitutional Chamber and the Erosion of Democracy in Venezuela – Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht (ZaöRV), accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.zaoerv.de/80_2020/80_2020_4_a_913_971.pdf
64. Courts and the Constitutional Erosion of Democracy in Latin America – V-Dem, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.v-dem.net/media/publications/uwp_31_final.pdf
65. Building a bridge between reality and the constitution: The …, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://academic.oup.com/icon/article/13/3/714/2450809
66. Beyond Judicial Independence: The Construction of Judicial Power in Colombia – DASH (Harvard), accessed on August 10, 2025, https://dash.harvard.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/3a38b3d8-358c-4f3c-afaa-2b9d04739240/content
67. Democracy in Colombia: Faltering or Prevailing? | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/2025/07/colombia-governance-snapshot-photos?lang=en
68. What Is the Difference between Parliamentary and Presidential Systems? | Intro to Political Science Class Notes | Fiveable, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://library.fiveable.me/intro-to-poli-sci/unit-9/2-difference-parliamentary-presidential-systems/study-guide/lD7DiFTccAvxsYSq
69. Difference Between Parliamentary and Presidential Form of Government – Testbook, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://testbook.com/key-differences/difference-between-parliamentary-and-presidential-form-of-government
70. Separation of Powers in Presidential and Parliamentary Systems: A Comparative Constitutional Analysis – ijrpr, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://ijrpr.com/uploads/V6ISSUE5/IJRPR45449.pdf
71. Parliamentary System – Annenberg Classroom, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.annenbergclassroom.org/glossary_term/parliamentary-system/
72. Presidential values in parliamentary democracies | International Journal of Constitutional Law | Oxford Academic, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://academic.oup.com/icon/article/8/2/207/700018
73. Parliamentary system – Wikipedia, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_system
74. Understanding Common Law: Principles, Practices, and Differences …, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/common-law.asp
75. Civil law (legal system) – Wikipedia, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system)
76. Judicial Democracy – LAW eCommons, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://lawecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2712&context=luclj
77. The Legal Systems We Live In Today – YouTube, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaJuFbtuK7E&pp=0gcJCfwAo7VqN5tD
78. Roles in Civil Legal Systems – Department of Justice, accessed on August 10, 2025, https://www.justice.gov/nsd-ovt/roles-civil-legal-systems