{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014678899082568808, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.612121212121212, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Democracy and Authoritarianism

This chapter seeks to understand the relevance of democracy and authoritarianism to administrative law, but also to challenge the bivalent framing of these ideas that the title of this chapter implies. It therefore explores these questions first, by providing a general overview of democracy and authoritarianism as political ideas and a discussion of their contested nature, both in theory and practice. Second, the chapter considers the nature of the relationship between democratic and authoritarian regimes and both the rule of law and administrative law theory. Third, it considers three examples of tensions in the practice of administrative law that pull in democratic and authoritarian directions. Specifically, this chapter considers emergency powers and national security, evidence-based policy and public consultation, and transnational regulation and governance. In so doing, it challenges the bivalent framing of the assumption that political regimes and legal practices are either authoritarian or democratic or even shades of one or the other.