Democracy and Its Limits

Democracies usually don't collapse because of the shocks brought by authoritarian regimes or traumatic events. More often, they decay slowly, as they are hollowed out from within, when majority ruling is confused with absolute sovereignty, when constitutional limits are perceived as obstacles rather than guarantees, when disagreements between institutions and parties turn into mutual delegitimization. This observation informs Custodi della democrazia (Guardians of Democracy. The Constitution, the Courts and the Boundaries of Politics, Egea, 2025), the new book by Marta Cartabia, constitutional jurist and Professor of Constitutional Law at Bocconi, formerly President of the Italian Constitutional Court and Justice Minister. This book is not an academic monography, but an intervention in public debate which illustrates concrete cases, judicial decisions and institutional tensions to reveal a democracy under stress. The core of the argument is defending the role of constitutional courts as guardians of balance, because "democratic power must also be exercised within shared limits, if it is not to become arbitrary." In the following interview, Cartabia clarifies the meaning of this custodianship, which does not mean the preservation of what already exists, but with active oversight of the quality of democratic life.

When you speak of "guardianship of democracy”, you don’t seem to be referring to something that needs to be merely preserved. What does this role of guardian really mean today?

It means watching over a kind of balance that needs to be continually pursued. Contemporary constitutional democracy is based on a balance between powers, which is being subjected to new tensions and challenges. In many countries around the world, a creeping erosion is underway: democracy is progressively weakened from within, and then, from time to time, striking events occur that shock us. We must prevent the risk of democracy silently fading into oblivion by countering the growing intolerance for rules, plurality and limits on executive power. We must rediscover the idea that engaging in debate with others is not a waste of time.

What is the most obvious sign of this silent decay?

The reduction of democracy to a mere electoral investiture of rulers. The people have voted, and therefore those in office can do anything they want: this is the recurring subtext. But this is a caricature of democracy and also a dangerous illusion. The post-World War II constitutions were created precisely to state the opposite: that there must also be limits to democratic power: "Sovereignty belongs to the people and is exercised in the forms and limits set by the Constitution." This is how the Italian Constitution opens.

This conflict emerges very concretely in the relationship between politics and the courts.

Yes, and it emerges especially when the courts have to intervene on sensitive issues. I'm thinking, for example, of the rulings concerning electoral systems in Italy: interventions that reestablished a balance between governing and representation when that balance had been strained. In those moments, the courts are not acting as substitutes for political power, but rather to remind us that the rules of the game cannot be bent for the sake of partisan advantage.

One of the most delicate areas is the legislative process.

It is an emblematic example of what the courts can do, but also of the limits placed on their action. The systematic resort to decree legislation by Italian executive power, well beyond cases of necessity and urgency, has progressively shifted the focus of legislative production from Parliament to Government. The Constitutional Court has intervened several times to correct the most obvious distortions — from the reiteration of decrees to their inconsistency — but by itself it cannot reverse an established practice. Political will, as expressed by parliamentary chambers, is essential.

You clearly show that courts always come after the fact.

Exactly. Courts do not govern political processes; they react when limits are infringed. If Parliament accepts marginalization, no judicial ruling can restore its centrality. This is an uncomfortable but essential point: the protection of democracy cannot be delegated to a single institutional actor.

Your book also forcefully addresses the issue of freedom of information.

Because it is a precondition of democracy. It is not an ancillary right. Italian constitutional jurisprudence, since the first ruling of the Constitutional Court in 1956, has linked freedom of expression to the very possibility of a democratic life. And this thread runs through decades of judicial decisions: from pluralism in radio and television broadcasting to the most recent cases on defamation and the citizens' right to accurate, verified and unintimidated information.

Today, however, the problem is no longer just censorship, but disinformation.

This is a new, extremely powerful challenge. Manipulation campaigns through social media can alter public debate and even electoral processes. The case of the 2024 Romanian presidential elections is emblematic: the Romanian Constitutional Court annulled the results of the first round of the presidential election due to external information interference. When a constitutional court makes such a decision, it treads a very thin and delicate line, but it highlights a very real problem that we cannot ignore.

Is this a threshold that changes the role of the courts?

The Romanian Constitutional Court acted on the basis of powers expressly granted to it by the Constitution. However, intervening in the electoral process is always a solution of last resort, requiring solid evidence, rigorous procedures and absolute independence. Courts must also respect the limits set to their powers. But the alternative — accepting the outcome of formally free but substantially manipulated elections — would have been even more corrosive to democracy.

Here we return to the issue of limits, which you also address in a cultural context.

Yes, the problem is not just institutional. We live in a political culture that struggles to accept limits, especially when they slow government action. Yet, limits are what prevent force from becoming arbitrary, power from becoming domination. Constitutional courts exist to uphold these principles, even when they are unpopular. Respecting a sense of limits is a matter of freedom.

In this context, what sense does it make to talk about "collaborative constitutionalism"?

When political power and the judiciary present themselves as rivals, the result is mutual attrition. Collaboration does not eliminate conflict, but brings it back into governable institutional forms. It is the only way to prevent tensions from tearing apart the democratic fabric.

Your discussion does not seem to be addressed only to political insiders.

It cannot be. The courts play an essential role, but if democracy is not lived in the minds of citizens, it is destined to decline. Rights, freedoms and guarantees are not irreversible acquisitions. They need to be reasserted day by day. Thinking that they will maintain themselves is one of the gravest errors of our time.

If you had to point to a lesson that emerges from the analysis of actual constitutional cases, what would it be?

That democracy is not defended by invoking democracy, but by practicing it, in all its richness of meaning. And that every constitutional shortcut — even when it seems more efficient — always comes at a cost, sooner or later.