One could think that the move from authoritarian rule to parliamentary democracy would be generally favorable to legality. There are certainly many cases of authoritarian rulers who have seen courts and legal processes as threats to their powers and insisted on subservient judges, willing to permit lawless actions as required. However, not every authoritarian regime has been hostile to legality and independent legal institutions. Indeed, Steven Holmes has argued that law and independent judges are often in the interest of authoritarian as well as democratic rulers because they permit the upward flow of information valuable to maintaining stable rule.

Whether that is so or not, it seems clear that the transition away from an authoritarian regime, insofar as it entails a break in the old legal order, can undermine the establishment of genuinely legal institutions. Many of the laws might be either new or, if old, of questionable pedigree. There may have been special deals or pacts – necessary to disband the old authoritarian system – aimed at protecting certain traditional elites from legal rules that apply to others. Moreover, judges might well have continued or at least been trained under the previous regime, so they may not have earned or deserved a high level of trust. One could hope, however, that as democratic or liberal institutions become more established, these conflicts would fade away. Perhaps; but the chapters in this volume provide reason to think that there remains a significant tension between law and democratic rule and judges are sometimes placed in a position where they must negotiate these difficult issues.