IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/ctwqxx/v46y2025i2p136-152.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Legalised resistance to autocratisation in common law Africa

Author

Listed:
  • Siri Gloppen
  • Lise Rakner

Abstract

Since the 1990s, African incumbents have engaged in forms of rule-bending that weaken democratic institutions. The democratic backsliding witnessed weaponises law through processes of autocratic lawfare. However, civil society and the opposition may challenge the incumbent’s attempts at autocratisation through the use of law and, in so doing, resist processes of democratic backsliding. We refer to processes where civil society actors and opposition politicians seek to defend pluralism through legal mobilisation as democratic lawfare. We explore the responses to autocratic lawfare by pro-democracy actors in five African common law countries: Kenya, Malawi, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Our analysis shows that across the common law system countries, court decisions have secured space for political debate and protest, particularly in relation to elections. In the countries with the strongest pluralist traditions (Kenya, Malawi and Zambia), court actions have often succeeded in preventing incumbents from tilting the electoral playing field and reigning in parliament. Even in the most autocratic settings, as the cases of Uganda and Zimbabwe, courts have provided some protection to opposition candidates. To understand resistance to autocratisation, it is necessary to analyse the opportunities inherent in the institutional context and the resources – organisational, strategic and normative – that different actors bring to these contests.

Suggested Citation

  • Siri Gloppen & Lise Rakner, 2025. "Legalised resistance to autocratisation in common law Africa," Third World Quarterly, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(2), pages 136-152, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:ctwqxx:v:46:y:2025:i:2:p:136-152
    DOI: 10.1080/01436597.2024.2433699
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/01436597.2024.2433699
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/01436597.2024.2433699?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:ctwqxx:v:46:y:2025:i:2:p:136-152. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/ctwq .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.