Digital resources in the Social Sciences and Humanities OpenEdition Our platforms OpenEdition Books OpenEdition Journals Hypotheses Calenda Libraries OpenEdition Freemium Follow us

Category: Rethinking Democracy through Constitutional Adjudication

The purpose of the series is to explore how the concept of ‘democracy’ is imagined and practiced by selected constitutional courts. The vision of the series is to encourage the presentation of various approaches to studying the relationship between democracy as a concept and its invocation and engagement by constitutional courts. This theme has been underrepresented, because constitutional courts are typically invoked in connection with rule of law discourses, despite being a key institution in many democratic ecosystems. Moreover, the frequency of employing democracy as a concept, including for goals of power concentration and undermining transparency and accountability as it is visible in illiberal contexts globally, calls for critical engagement with the constitutional conceptions of democracy, which can be shaped by constitutional courts as key interpreters of constitutional principles.

This series is guest co-edited by Max Steuer and Raunaq Jaiswal. Max Steuer acknowledges funding by the EU NextGenerationEU through the Recovery and Resilience Plan for Slovakia under the project No. 09I03-03-V04-00240 (HARVEST).

Picture of the Supreme Constitutional Court of Egypt.

Islamocracy and Judicial Review in Egypt

By Mohamed ‘Arafa. In democratic societies, the relationship between democracy and religion can be harmonious, as democracy ensures the freedom to practice religion, while religious diversity can enrich public discourse. This post explores the intersection of democracy, judicial review, and Shārīe‘ā law, focusing on the tensions and possibilities that arise when religious legal principles interact with democratic governance. It discusses how Article 2 of the Egyptian Constitution, which asserts the supremacy of Shārīe‘ā law in certain legal contexts, interacts with democratic ideals and the practice of judicial review.

Picture of the US Supreme Court.

How Should Elected Politicians Behave? Constitutional Insights from the U.S. and Brazilian Supreme Courts

By Arthur Guerra Filho. Corruption scandals in political finance have shaken both the U.S. and Brazil, the two largest constitutional democracies in the Americas, forcing their Supreme Courts to deal with political finance issues. They share structural parallels—presidentialism, federalism, and multiethnic societies rooted in profound inequality—yet have charted different courses in regulating political finance. By deciding what kinds of financial influence are permissible, the respective apex courts approached the question of how elected politicians should behave.