Hi, Ahmed,

What a fascinating question! I am an American who is fairly familiar with my country's history; and I cannot think of a single instance of what I believe your question contemplates: a group so enamored of power that it will resort to illegal means to stay in power.

America does have its Civll War, a war fought over the principle of whether a state, once it joined the federal Union, could withdraw from that Union at its election (four years of war and over 1/2 million dead later, the answer was determined to be, no). But, that historical event does not touch on your question -- at least I don't think it does.

America also had a President, Franklin D. Roosevelt, who served for more than two terms (he served from 1933 to 1945), but at that time, the U.S. federal constitution did not provide for term limits on Presidential officeholders, as it now does. So, that is not an analog to review.

As you recall, U.S. federal government has three branches -- legislative The lawmaker), executive (the law implementer), and judicial (the law interpreter) -- and they have not always agreed with each other's actions; however, there has been a basic respect for the institutions by those in power and by the overwhelming majority of the citizenry. Even one of the U.S.'s Presidents -- Andrew Jackson in the 1830s -- openly stated after receiving news that the U.S. Supreme Court had considered one of his acts to have been unconstitutional, commented to the effect that the court had spoken and now let's see if it can enforce its ruling but nonetheless came to his senses and abided by the ruling.

This is NOT to say that America's political parties, once they "control" the government (which is to say, once the citizens vote them into office, they have the legal authority, subject to judicial review, to further their political agenda through gaining enough votes in Congress to enact statutes and then implement them through the Executive Branch -- if in fact they acquired the votes from the citizens to place their candidate into executive office), do not try to stay in power: they certainly do; and they frequently issue misinformation as to the other party's intentions and "tailor" their messages to those who are favorably disposed toward them in order to keep voting for them. However, the American democratic institution focuses not on the party but on individuals running under a party's banner and -- theoretically -- platform. So, the citizenry votes for the individual who it believes best serves its interests. That said, though, I cannot think of a single instance of a political officeholder refusing to allow the individual whom the electorate chose to succeed him/her to the office in question simply because (s)he wants to remain in office. The only basis the incumbent would have to do so is if there were a legitimate dispute over which individual got more votes: the officeholder or the challenger; and the most recent example of how the American federal democratic system handles a dispute over which got the votes occurred in the 2000 Presidential, when there was a dispute over which candidate -- Bush or Gore -- won. Both political parties challenged the voting results and eventually the matter came to the U.S. Supreme Court for resolution.

I do recall that when I was a law student in the early 1970s, when the military assumed political control of Chile, I visited the Chilean consulate in New York City, seeking information on the basis in the Chilean constitution for the military's having replaced itself for a popularly elected President and was told that in Chile, the military was viewed as the ultimate guarantor of democracy and that its responsibility did not have to appear in the constitution. (Ultimately, after a prolonged hold on political control of the country, Chile's military returned the government to civilian control, which the country has enjoyed for the past roughly 20 years.)l Perhaps that is a thought that a political elite may have to justify its retaining power after being voted out of office. Such a rationale is difficult to justify in a country whose political structure places ultimate power in the citizenry.

I realize that I cannot provide you with an example of an instance you seek. However, your question is so thought-provoking that I felt compelled to offer a few thoughts.

Ahmed, interesting question. I want to look at it in a different angle. What if a democratically elected government unleashes force on its citizenry. This could be true in multi racial societies, where democratic process may not accommodate the views of all the diverse groups. In reply can these groups use force to protest against such government.

Again in a few countries like Pakistan for instance, the constitution has made a role for the army establishment in civilian governance. It required a civil society movement to restore civilian democracy there. The same constitution also made a specific provision that a legislative body and the government will disband themselves and decide by consensus a caretaker government once the tenure is over. The same instrument having two diametrically different provisions.

There is no concept of crime against democracy as a division of a crime against the state. It is almost a contradiction in terms. Crimes against the state are usually synonymous withs states without a democratic tradition or states with weak democracies. Many states that are mature democracies have governments that manipulate the democratic institutions, Britain is one of them. Even though Britain is a democratic state with a separation of powers at its heart the government/executive frequently tries to subvert that. The government ministers will challenge judicial rulings and parliament whenever they attempt to restrain the power of the executive.

The best model to consider when exploring any concept of crimes against democracy is where a state executive breaks the laws of its legislature in any way that threatens the rights of its citizens. The rule of law and established human rights protection is a firm measure of democracy and any organisation subverting that could be seen to be an offender against democracy even if not technically a 'democracy criminal'

The concept of state crimes against democracy, discussed in the symposium issue of American Behavioral Scientist, v53, n6, (2010) is a new formulation which attempts to capture situations in which state officials abuse their positions in order to achieve wrongful ends. Because the formulation is new and sexy, it may have pedagogical or shock value. But the notion of abuse of power is very, very old, and most states have laws that define and punish abuses of power. Michigan’s statute, MCL 15.342, is one example. The problem is not one of availability of legal instruments and doctrines to fight abuses of power. The problem is one of enforcement. In legal proceedings where powerful state officials have a strong enough interest in the outcomes of cases, they tend to exert improper influence over judges.

On this general subject, I recommend two books:

Mohandas K. Gandhi, The Law and the Lawyers, discusses the limits of remedies available in a legal system and gives advice on when it is better to seek change through social work rather than through the law.

Luther C. West, They Call it Justice: Command Influence and the Court Martial System, (1977), discusses the military court system in the United States and describes in detail how military commanders co-opt and intimidate military judges. The concept of “command influence” is intellectually fruitful. Volumes have been written about it in the context of US military law. The concept should be more widely explored and applied outside the narrow confines of US military law because corrupting pressures operate, and always have operated, in all legal systems, everywhere. The US military system is unique because practitioners in that system have put a name on the problem, and they constantly talk about it. In my view, “state crimes against democracy” cannot occur unless perpetrators expect immunity from punishment, and one way perpetrators engineer impunity is by exercising “command influence” over judges.

Dear Ahmad,

A wonderful question. Perhaps a day would come in the history of mankind when we would try our leaders for failing 'democracy'. Very noble and extremely possible.

When the Nuremberg Trials took place in 1945, most of humanity (in hindsight) thought that it was victor's justice. Today, we know that Nuremberg laid the foundation for Human Rights, as we conceive the concept.

In 1998, we expanded the concept of 'peace' by making aggression a crime under International law, along with crimes against peace and humanity. In fact after 1998, it was not legally correct for any country to talk about 'war', forget about aggression.

1998 also marked another great event in the annals of the evolution of International Human Rights Regime - the arrest of General Augusto Pinochet of Chile in London. The shield of immunity over heads of government was broken. Today, serving or retired, HOGs are subject to law.

The ICTR, ICTY, Sudan and the ongoing trials are yet another direction which eventually will lead to what you are dreaming for - making 'crime against democracy' punishable.

This was pep talk. But to tell you frankly, we already have the ICC and if we read Art 7 of the Rome Statute 1998, we will know that anyone who fails democracy can also be brought to trial. As of now, there is only one hurdle - "who will convince the Security Council to propose a resolution declaring that 'X' leader of 'Y' country has failed Democracy; let us bring him to justice!" . For your reference, here is the Art.7:

Article 7: Crimes against humanity

1. For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:

(a) Murder;

(b) Extermination;

(c) Enslavement;

(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;

(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;

(f) Torture;

(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;

(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;

(i) Enforced disappearance of persons;

(j) The crime of apartheid;

(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

A good question. Deserves lot of discussion.

Have a great day!

The legal instrument is the sovereignty of the state. Despite all the concepts of democracy, the state sets limits on the principle of maintaining the stability of the state. Many laws are formulated which are theoretically and realistically limited to the concepts of democracy