Scheppele argues that legalistic autocrats follow a predictable "script" to hollow out liberal democracies from within:
According to Scheppele, autocratic legalists are masters of "constitutional hardball." They rely on their parliamentary majorities to pass legislation that looks procedurally correct but is substantively anti-democratic. By the time the public realizes what has happened, the legal landscape has been reshaped to ensure the incumbent can never lose power. The Pillars of the Strategy autocratic legalism kim lane scheppele upd
Autocratic legalists use "reform" as a pretext to weaken independent agencies. This includes electoral commissions, central banks, and media regulators. These institutions are not abolished; they are simply staffed with "yes-men" who ensure that the government's actions are never questioned. 3. Subjugating the Media Subjugating the Media The core of Scheppele’s argument
The core of Scheppele’s argument lies in the distinction between "rule by law" and "rule of law." In a liberal democracy, the rule of law acts as a constraint on power; the law stands above the ruler. In autocratic legalism, however, the law is instrumentalized—it becomes a weapon for the ruler to consolidate power and neutralize opponents. courts—to entrench power
This is the foundational, most-cited article where Scheppele fully develops the concept. It explains how illiberal regimes (using Hungary and Poland as primary cases) use the forms of law—constitutions, statutes, courts—to entrench power, dismantle checks and balances, and undermine democracy without formally abolishing the legal order.
Legal and civic countermeasures