Turkey’s Gerontocratic Constitutional Moment

In less than a year, Turkish politics has undergone a profound realignment. It began in October 2024 with a remarkable speech by Devlet Bahçeli, leader of the far-right Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) and President Erdoğan’s chief coalition partner. In one of the most cryptic U-turns of his career, Bahçeli—long a hardliner on the Kurdish question—proposed reopening the long-frozen peace process with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), the separatist armed group that has waged a decades-long insurgency against the Turkish state. In short, the tectonic plates of Turkish politics are shifting, and at the center of this transition stands a cast of aging men, each well past seventy.

Petro’s Schmittian Turn

On 11 June 2025, Colombian President Gustavo Petro issued a decree calling a national popular consultation on a package of long-stalled social reforms. The decree came after the Senate had explicitly rejected his formal request to hold such a vote – approval that is constitutionally required under Article 104 of the Constitution. This reveals something deeper and more dangerous: an increasingly Schmittian conception of democratic power, in which the president, claiming to represent a unified people, overrides institutional checks in the name of higher constitutional fidelity.

The NGO’s Guide to Authoritarianism

It appears that whenever expert civil society organizations release a legal analysis of draft laws that restrict fundamental rights and freedoms, authoritarian governments learn from their mistakes and avoid them in the next round. One could witness such a situation when the Foreign Agents Registration Bill was introduced in the Slovak parliament last spring, and the public watchdog and advocacy organization VIA IURIS tried to stand against this legislation. In one year, the Slovak parliament considered three versions of the Bill, with each version making it more challenging to fight in court.

Laboratories of Authoritarianism

In Mahmoud v. Taylor, the U.S. Supreme Court expanded the 1st Amendment Free Exercise Clause to grant conservative religious parents a constitutional right to remove their children from any classroom where a teacher includes LGBTQAI+ people in the curriculum. In effect, the Court has allowed public schools to discourage mutual tolerance, parents to opt out of Equal Protection, and fringe legal strategists to continue to use children’s constitutional rights as a test case for authoritarianism. In doing so, the erosion of children’s rights becomes the foundation upon which other rights are eroded.

The Liberal Litigation Trap

The progressive legal movement faces a harsh reality: its reliance on federal courts has become a strategic liability in an era of conservative judicial dominance. Rather than continue on its current path or abandon impact litigation entirely, liberal cause lawyers should embrace “resistance through restraint” – tactically starving conservative appellate courts of cases while redirecting their energy toward democratic organizing, state-level advocacy, and defensive litigation.

Haunted by Text

Slovak PM Fico renewed his attempts to amend Slovakia’s Constitution. The most controversial provisions are a “national identity safeguard” limiting the effect of international and supranational law, and a definition of sex as strictly binary. After securing backing from some opposition members, his cabinet has submitted the amendment to parliament for debate and a vote. While public mobilisation against the proposed amendment proposal is important, legal scholars and NGOs should avoid using language that might reinforce the perception that the formally powerful Constitutional Court lacks the authority to strike down or reinterpret such changes in line with constitutional values.

Standing in the Face of Illiberal Elections

Venezuela held local and parliamentary elections on May 25th which Maduro’s allies won with an overwhelming majority. Even though Maduro had severely tilted the playing field in his favor, the regime did not have to alter the results from what was evident in the exit polls. This was partly because an important part of the opposition called for a boycott of the elections. We argue that for a beleaguered opposition, the question whether to boycott an election should reflect both pragmatic and strategic considerations of the prospects for democratic resistance.

Legalising Authoritarianism through Pakistan’s Supreme Court

On 7 May 2025, Pakistan’s Supreme Court overturned its own previous judgment from October 2023 that had declared military trials of civilians unconstitutional. The newly constituted Constitutional Bench reinstated clauses of the Pakistan Army Act that allow for the prosecution of civilians in military courts. The ruling was justified on national security grounds, citing the need to prosecute attacks by civilians on military installations, a rationale that conflates dissent with terrorism and bypasses the safeguards of civilian legal processes. This decision not only reverses prior precedent but also marks a troubling endorsement of military jurisdiction over civilian matters, raising fundamental concerns about the erosion of judicial independence and the rule of law.

Beyond Legal Restoration

A recently published proposal by former Constitutional Court judge Béla Pokol suggests introducing a new emergency regime designed to defend Hungary’s illiberal system against potential re-democratization efforts by a future government. Together with international criticism of Poland’s judicial reform in its process of democratic renewal, this provokes a profound reckoning: traditional legal formalism may no longer serve the needs of constitutional recovery. It is time for a post-formalist approach to democratic reconstruction.

Delegitimierung als Strategie

Nach den Eilentscheidungen des Berliner Verwaltungsgerichts, das die Zurückweisung von drei Asylsuchenden an der deutsch-polnischen Grenze für rechtswidrig erklärte, wurden die drei beteiligten Richterinnen und Richter Ziel heftiger Diffamierungen und Bedrohungen im Netz. Dies mag zunächst nur wie polemische Kritik erscheinen, die – wie alle populistische Rhetorik – auf „das Volk“ rekurriert, das einer vermeintlich korrupten Elite gegenübersteht. Bei genauerer Betrachtung zeigt sich jedoch, dass Angriffe dieser Art Teil systematischer Bestrebungen sind, die Legitimität der unabhängigen Justiz zu untergraben.