It is easy to think that a democracy ends when there is a military coup, a war, or another sudden event. But democracy can also become weaker slowly from inside the government. Poland is one example. In 2015, the Law and Justice party (PiS) won the election and formed the government. After that, PiS made several changes to the judicial system. These changes gave the government more influence over courts and made it harder for courts to check government power. The case of Poland shows how elected leaders can weaken democracy by changing democratic institutions from inside the system. 

One important part of democracy is checks and balances. Courts are one of the institutions that can check the government. Judges can check government actions and make sure that leaders follow the law. This is why judicial independence is important. Judges need to be able to make decisions without political pressure. A simple way to understand this is to think about judges as referees in a sports game. If one team can choose the referees, the game may not be fair. The same problem can happen in politics when the government has too much control over judges.

Freedom House reported on changes to judicial independence in Poland in 2022. The changes made by PiS show this problem clearly. In 2017, the government passed several judicial reforms. One reform gave the justice minister more power to appoint and remove leaders of lower courts. In 2018, another major change affected the National Council of the Judiciary (KRS), which plays an important role in choosing judges. Instead of judges choosing most of its members, Parliament became responsible for choosing 15 of the 25 members. This gave politicians much more influence over the institution responsible for judicial appointments. 

Freedom House’s 2023 report discusses the conflict over judicial independence in Poland. PiS also changed the retirement rules for Supreme Court judges. In 2018, the new rules lowered the retirement age, which forced 27 judges to leave the Supreme Court temporarily. The European Commission challenged this change, and the European Court of Justice later ruled against the measure. The judges were finally allowed to return. This example is important because it shows that the government did not completely control every part of the political system. There were still other institutions that could resist the government’s actions. 

These changes can be understood through the concept of ‘democratic backsliding’. Democratic backsliding does not always mean that a country suddenly stops having elections. Instead, democratic institutions can gradually become weaker. Poland still had elections, a parliament, courts, and other democratic institutions. However, changes to the judicial system made one important democratic check weaker. Freedom House reported that PiS used legal changes to increase political influence over the judiciary and weaken judicial independence. 

This case also connects to Ozan Varol’s concept of ‘stealth authoritarianism.’ Varol explains that leaders can use legal tools to increase their power instead of openly ending democracy. Poland’s judicial reforms show why this idea is important. Changing the rules for choosing judges may look like a normal legal reform. However, if these changes give politicians more influence over judges, they may make it harder for courts to check the government. This means that we should not judge a reform only by whether it follows legal procedures. We should also examine how it changes the balance of power between the government and independent institutions. 

Lührmann and Lindberg (2019) found that modern autocratization often involves gradual declines in democratic institutions and can take place through legal changes. Their research uses data from the V-Dem project to compare changes in political systems over time. This approach is useful for understanding Poland because it shows why we should examine more than whether elections continue. In the Polish case, changes to judicial appointments and court rules raise questions about whether courts could still limit government power. Therefore, the effects of these reforms on judicial independence are important when evaluating the quality of democracy. 

The effects of these changes were important for the rule of law. If judges are worried about political punishment or if politicians have too much influence over judicial appointments, courts may become less independent. This can make it harder for courts to hold political leaders accountable. Freedom House reported that Polish judges who questioned government actions were sometimes suspended, transferred, or investigated. The report also raised serious concerns about whether judges could remain independent from the government.

However, it would be too simplistic to say that PiS completely destroyed Polish democracy. There was still resistance. Polish judges challenged some of the government’s changes, opposition groups criticized the reforms, and European institutions took legal action. For example, the European Court of Justice ordered Poland to suspend its Disciplinary Chamber, which was criticized for threatening judicial independence. These examples show that democratic institutions and actors can still resist democratic erosion even when a government becomes very powerful.

The Polish case shows that democracy is more than simply having elections. Elections allow citizens to choose their leaders, but democracy also needs strong institutions that can check political power. Przeworski (2024) distinguishes between a minimalist view of democracy, which focuses on citizens’ ability to choose and remove governments, and a maximalist view, which also considers the values people expect democracy to protect. This distinction helps explain why continued elections do not answer every question about the quality of democracy. A country may continue to hold elections while important institutions become less independent. Huq and Ginsburg  also explain that democracy can weaken through gradual changes to important institutions and the rule of law. Poland’s judicial reforms show why these changes matter. When political leaders gain more influence over judges, courts may find it harder to check government decisions and hold leaders accountable. This can weaken the balance of power even when the government was elected by citizens. However, the resistance of Polish judges and European institutions shows that democratic erosion is not always impossible to challenge. These responses also show why independent institutions matter: they can limit political power and help protect democratic rules. Poland’s experience reminds us that democracy depends not only on how leaders gain power, but also on how they use it. Protecting democracy requires independent courts and other institutions that can hold political leaders accountable.