Studying Public Support for Courts in Polarized Societies

Courts worldwide are under pressure from political interference of formal and informal nature, especially under populist governments in polarized societies. Polarization is characterized by a division of society into two heavily opposed political camps. In such a society, those in power often try to withhold the other camp from power and, to achieve this, interfere with the independence and power of other institutions. The courts are among the first attacked by such power holders, as they are the institutions to guarantee horizontal accountability and could curb power holders’ illegitimate attempts to remain in power. As mostly unelected institutions, courts heavily rely on public support to defend against political attacks on their independence and power. Public support of courts is shaped by several factors, among these, individual partisanship or the subjective ideological (dis-)agreement with a political position has recently been identified as a central factor: Several authors argue that individuals who place themselves at a more extreme partisan position are more likely to accept political interference with the judiciary or court-curbing if they identify politically with the attacking actor. Hence, polarization would decrease the likelihood of elected officials being sanctioned by citizens if they attack the judiciary. The literature investigating the role of public support for courts in situations of polarization is small but growing. However, scholars use a variety of concepts and measurements and disagree on their evaluation of the role of partisanship for public support of courts. The paper will provide a review of the existing literature, compare and discuss concepts and findings, identify research gaps and propose avenues for future research.