Manipulating Perceptions: The Role of Societal Actors in Shaping Public Support in Courts in Hybrid Regimes

Hybrid regimes occupy a precarious space between democracy and authoritarianism, blending the semblance of democratic standards with de facto autocratic practices. In these systems, courts and judicial institutions face unique challenges as they are frequently targeted by rulers who seek to undermine their independence in order to consolidate power, all the while maintaining the façade of legality. While the interplay between checks and balances plays an important role in shaping the political dynamics within these systems, many scholars overlook the impact of non-institutional influences. Thus, the role of the societal actors comes in as a potential, but so far under-researched element in the analysis of democratic backsliding, but also the sustainability of hybrid regimes. Against this background, this paper investigates the dynamics through which different societal actors can contribute to the erosion or amplification of public confidence and support for courts in emerging less-than-democratic contexts. On one hand, it argues that societal actors play a significant role in the struggle for the rule of law and judicial independence, as they may bolster public trust in judicial institutions by actively defending their independence and legitimacy. Through advocacy campaigns, public protests, and collaboration with judicial figures, certain actors expose governmental overreach and foster civic resistance to authoritarian encroachments. On the other hand, it demonstrates how other actors, often under the guise of independent NGOs, serve as instruments of the ruling elite to manipulate public opinion and entrench judicial dependence. Paradoxically, in some cases, these actors inflate public trust in courts to legitimize the judiciary’s role as a tool of regime control. In others, they deliberately foster distrust to justify further judicial reforms or purges, paving the way for deeper state capture. This duality underscores the complex and often contested relationship between societal forces, public opinion, and judicial institutions in hybrid regimes. This paper focuses on Poland as a compelling case study of these dynamics. Under the rule of the PiS party since 2015, Poland has witnessed a sustained campaign to politicize and control the judiciary. Framed as a necessary reform to modernize and democratize the courts, these efforts have included personnel changes, the politicization of judicial appointments and discursive strategies aimed at delegitimizing judges. Amidst this crisis, civil society organizations, judicial associations and grassroots movements have emerged as key defenders of the rule of law. At the same time, pro-regime actors, including state-aligned NGOs, have played a central role in discrediting judicial resistance, spreading narratives that aligned with the government’s broader agenda. By analyzing these opposing forces in the Polish context, this paper sheds light on the contested role of societal actors in shaping public trust in courts under hybrid regimes. It argues that understanding these dynamics is crucial to evaluating both the prospects for resisting authoritarian consolidation and the mechanisms through which hybrid regimes maintain control.