Is anyone doomed to live under illiberalism?

Abstract

Are there contextual conditions that determine a people to live under illiberal constitutional identities? This article compares two different constitutional systems, Hungary and Brazil, intending to identify the main reasons for the endurance of the Fidesz political project in Hungary and the failures of Bolsonarism in Brazil. Under similar threats and challenges, we argue that constitutional identities can propel distinct environments for the survival and persistence of authoritarian and illiberal projects, with Hungary offering better conditions and Brazil presenting hurdles to their endurance. For the comparison, first, a difference between constitutional identity, a more vivid and open-to-interpretation concept, and the identity of the constitution, linked to a constitution’s textual design, is recognized and applied. Second, institutional factors are discussed alongside cultural perceptions of the values of constitutional democracy. In doing so, we find that cultural perceptions of the values of constitutional democracy seem more important for most Brazilian citizens than for Hungarians. Third, even in a constitutional history characterized by interruptions and the absence of a proper constitutional culture, democratic values can be linked to particular institutional features that avoid the permanence of new authoritarian and illiberal political projects. We conclude that constitutional identity is open to interpretation, has a tense relationship with cultural and institutional aspects, and is shaped by the conditions of the jurisdiction under analysis. Constitutional dentity can be thought of in a dynamic and tensioned way that demands contextual investigation of how its features can bar or foment illiberalism.