Can Courts Really Stop Populism? A New Book Tests the Theory Against 2026's Headlines
A recent comparative study published in Frontiers in Political Science tracks how, across Europe, the Americas and the post-Soviet space, elected governments are dismantling judicial independence — not by revolution, but through law itself, invoking reform, efficiency and popular sovereignty to justify measures that strip courts of their power to check the executive. The pattern has played out with striking clarity in 2026: in Poland, after the President refused to swear in four newly elected Constitutional Tribunal judges, the Sejm staged an alternative oath ceremony on 9 April bypassing him entirely — a move legal scholars have called constitutionally questionable. Weeks later in Hungary, opposition leader Péter Magyar, fresh off a landslide two-thirds majority, used his victory speech to publicly call on the presidents of the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Court and the National Office for the Judiciary to resign.
These episodes are exactly the terrain mapped by Raphaël Girard's new monograph, Populism and Courts in an Age of Constitutional Impatience. Girard challenges the comfortable assumption — held by many comparative constitutional lawyers — that courts reliably act as a bulwark against populist power grabs. Drawing on case studies from Armenia, Ecuador and the United Kingdom, he shows that the relationship between populism and constitutionalism is not uniform: sometimes courts stabilise, sometimes they buckle, and the outcome depends heavily on context, timing and what he calls "constitutional impatience" — a populist drive for temporal efficiency and spatial proximity that reshapes a legal order from within.
For law libraries and constitutional scholars tracking democratic backsliding in real time, this book offers the theoretical vocabulary that today's headlines are still struggling to find. It belongs on the shelf of anyone researching judicial independence, comparative constitutional theory or the limits of courts as guardians of democracy.
Explore more titles in our Law Catalogue or browse the full Law Collection.
Q&A
What is "constitutional impatience"? Raphaël Girard's term for a populist drive toward temporal efficiency and spatial proximity that reshapes a country's institutional and normative legal order.
Do courts reliably protect against populism? No — the book shows the relationship is complex and context-dependent, producing divergent outcomes across jurisdictions rather than a uniform protective effect.
Which case studies does the book examine? Armenia, Ecuador and the United Kingdom, offering perspectives beyond the usual Western canon.
Who should read this book? Constitutional law scholars, comparative law researchers, judges, law libraries and postgraduate law students.
Where can I buy Populism and Courts in an Age of Constitutional Impatience? Directly from CLNZ Books at clnzbooks.com. Price includes worldwide courier shipping, and payment is accepted by credit card or PayPal.