Challenges in Upholding the Rule of Law Principle in the Face of Political Intervention Toward Constitutional Enforcement Institutions

Abstract

This study explores the growing challenges in upholding the rule of law principle in the face of increasing political intervention toward constitutional enforcement institutions. Using a qualitative approach through a library research method, the study critically examines existing literature to identify patterns, mechanisms, and theoretical frameworks related to the erosion of judicial independence and the manipulation of legal institutions by political actors. Drawing on ten key scholarly works and comparative case studies from jurisdictions such as Poland, Hungary, Indonesia, and the United States, the analysis reveals that modern democratic backsliding often occurs not through overt violations of law, but via legal and institutional tools that are subtly designed to consolidate political power. The findings indicate that mechanisms such as court-packing, politicized appointment procedures, and constitutional amendments have been strategically used to undermine the autonomy of constitutional courts. Theoretical contributions—such as abusive constitutionalism, juristocracy, and distinctions between formal and substantive rule of law—serve as analytical lenses to understand how legal frameworks can be used to mask authoritarian tendencies. Furthermore, the study highlights the limitations of formal legal guarantees when they are not supported by strong political culture, civic vigilance, and effective external oversight. The paper concludes that safeguarding the rule of law requires more than institutional design; it necessitates normative commitment, legal culture, and continuous public engagement. Future research is recommended to include more empirical case analyses and interdisciplinary perspectives that can inform both theoretical development and policy reform aimed at preserving the integrity of constitutional enforcement institutions.