Authoritarian constitutionalism, judicial capture or the ambivalence of modern law?

This paper explores the tension between ratio and voluntas in modern law. The work builds primarily on literature analysis to critically engage with two interrelated issues: (i) the notion of “authoritarian constitutionalism” and (ii) the ambivalences observed in judicature’s conceptual articulation and institutional structuration. Then, it presents Chile’s legal order as a study case, examining how the practice and decisions of its Constitutional Tribunal in specific periods exemplify the aforementioned interplay. Afterwards, it incorporates reviews of recent experiences of “democratic backslide” in selected Central and Eastern European countries for a broader comparative dimension. These cases, despite their distinct economic and historical-political contexts, support the paper’s suggestion of a universally observable yet contingently manifested conflicted duality in constitutional orders —oscillating between liberation and repression.