Artificial intelligence in political communication and citizens’ perceptions of disinformation and democratic legitimacy in Ecuador

The constitutional status of non-heteronormative relationships presents a critical site for examining the interplay between human rights adjudication and constitutional theory. This paper interrogates whether the exclusion of LGBTQIA+ persons from formal legal recognition of marriage and attendant civil rights can withstand scrutiny under principles of equality, dignity, and personal liberty. Drawing on comparative moot-based arguments as an analytical lens, the study situates these claims within the broader framework of transformative constitutionalism and rights-expansive interpretation. Doctrinally, the paper argues that the rights to intimacy, family formation, and relational autonomy emerge as integral facets of the right to life and personal liberty, thereby necessitating a non-discriminatory extension of civil entitlements. It critiques binary statutory constructions of marriage as constitutionally suspect, insofar as they entrench structural exclusion and fail the tests of arbitrariness and proportionality. At the same time, the paper engages with the countervailing constitutional argument that courts must exercise institutional restraint, deferring to legislative competence in matters involving complex socio-cultural policy choices and the redefinition of foundational social institutions. Methodologically, the paper adopts a doctrinal and comparative approach, synthesizing constitutional jurisprudence with theoretical insights from constitutional morality, separation of powers, and the counter-majoritarian difficulty. It argues that the tension between judicial review and democratic legitimacy is particularly acute in cases involving minority rights that lack majoritarian support. The paper concludes that a principled commitment to constitutional morality requires courts to move beyond formalistic statutory interpretation toward a purposive, rights-oriented framework, while simultaneously articulating limiting principles to preserve institutional balance. In doing so, it contributes to ongoing debates on the scope and limits of transformative adjudication in plural constitutional democracies

ABSTRACT The afterlife of Nepal’s Hindu monarchy persists not as an institutional residue but as an affective force – resurfacing in chants, symbols, and populist imaginaries that seek to re-sacralise the secular state. This article examines the political resurgence of Hindu nationalism in post-2008 Nepal as a grammar of belonging that emerges precisely where democratic legitimacy is faltering. Rather than treating pro-monarchy mobilisations as episodic or nostalgic, it argues that they represent an affective reordering of sovereignty, one that fuses religious idioms with populist resentment. Drawing on recent rallies, political discourse, and symbolic invocations of sacred kingship, the article examines how the state becomes a site not only of governance but also of yearning – saturated with the promise of moral clarity and cultural restoration. The study, therefore, foregrounds the entanglement of memory, faith, and disenchantment to reframe Hindu nationalism in Nepal not as a return to the past, but as a mode of sacralising the present amid a democratic crisis.

ABSTRACT This article examines the contemporary transformation of political leadership in European democracies, arguing that democratic legitimacy is being reconfigured under conditions of algorithmic visibility. Drawing on a Sennettian framework and based on a comparative analysis of Instagram posts by Emmanuel Macron, Giorgia Meloni, and Robert Fico (January–February 2026), the study develops the concept of private relatability – the systematic displacement of political authority from institutional mediation toward regimes of affective proximity and staged ordinariness. The analysis reveals a structural asymmetry: while Macron oscillates strategically between institutional solemnity and mediated intimacy, Meloni and Fico integrate private relatability as a constitutive logic of their political personas. This suggests that populist leadership styles enjoy a structural, though not deterministic, advantage in algorithmically visible environments. The findings carry normative implications for democratic accountability, mediated contestation, and political equality in contemporary Europe.

One dimension of the Russo–Ukrainian war is the confrontation between authoritarianism and democracy in economic matters. Ukraine is currently engaged in a dynamic process of establishing the democratic legitimacy of public authority. This legitimacy requires public authorities to be economically efficient. This means that public authorities in Ukraine must ensure institutional stability and deliver effective governance. The legitimacy of public authority is a significant factor in achieving victory in wartime. The Russo–Ukrainian war is a convincing example of how resource mobilisation in wartime can only be achieved through societal unity and trust-based relations between the government and its citizens. Institutional trust arises from economic efficiency. War creates a situation that requires the stability of public institutions, as well as the ability to demonstrate economic effectiveness, mobilise resources, maintain public trust and ensure effective strategic management. Theoretical models of legitimacy, both classical and contemporary, need to be reconsidered in light of the specific economic processes that occur during wartime. Political democracy must be complemented by economic democracy. In wartime, the legitimacy of public authority is based on trust in key institutions such as the president, the government and parliament. While the government may resort to restricting certain democratic procedures in wartime (such as media censorship, banning threatening political parties and suspending elections), this should not undermine the fundamental principles of democracy and the rule of law. This article aims to determine the legitimacy of public authority under wartime conditions by examining the relationship between institutional trust and government economic performance. The focus of this paper is to define the economic efficiency of public authorities as the basis for their legitimacy and the trust placed in them during wartime. In the months following the outbreak of the Russo–Ukrainian war, public trust in most government institutions increased. This was driven by a recognition of the need for national unity in the face of an external threat. However, the level of trust in state institutions has declined over time compared to the first year of the war. While trust in many institutions remains higher than before the war, high levels of trust are primarily reserved for those directly responsible for the country’s defence, such as the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the National Guard, the State Border Guard Service and the Security Service of Ukraine. Trust in the President is higher than before the war, which is linked to his role as Supreme Commander-in-Chief. Trust in volunteer organisations and civil society, as well as in the banking system, has also increased since the war. Sociological studies consistently reveal an imbalance in institutional trust: the highest levels are found in the defence and security sector (the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the State Emergency Service, and volunteer organisations and defence formations), while political institutions of representation and governance (political parties, parliament, the government, the bureaucracy and the judiciary) are subject to chronic distrust. Between 2025 and early 2026, Ukrainian society will prioritise the state's economic effectiveness over electoral legitimacy.

ABSTRACT South Africa’s higher education system faces a deepening access crisis, as evidenced in the 2025 admission cycle when thousands of eligible students were excluded due to limited institutional capacity. With only 26 public universities serving a rapidly growing youth population, the mismatch between demand and available spaces has become a structural challenge with profound social and economic implications. This article interrogates South Africa’s higher education access crisis through the conceptual lens of the developmental state. It argues that while the state positions higher education as a key driver of development, the limited expansion of institutional capacity exposes tensions between equity objectives and the state’s developmental ambitions. Drawing on policy analysis, demographic data, and critical debates in higher education, the article situates South Africa’s experience within wider Global South struggles over access, capacity, and equity. The paper makes two contributions: first, it conceptualises higher education access not only as a matter of individual opportunity but as a question of state capacity, policy coherence and democratic legitimacy and second, highlights the policy implications of expansion and innovation debates for the future of higher education within South Africa’s developmental ambitions beyond 2030.

Efforts to combat corruption increasingly emphasize the dual importance of transparency and intergovernmental coordination. These two governance principles are closely intertwined. When effectively combined, they create а framework that not only strengthens democratic legitimacy but also prevents abuse of power. From а legal reform perspective, transparency is more thаn а procedurаl vаlue; it is а safeguard аgаinst corruption. Internаtionаl standards аnd obligаtions, pаrticulаrly those stemming from Europeаn Union аccession processes аnd globаl аnti-corruption frаmeworks, further reinforce the need for trаnspаrent аnd coordinаted governаnce. North Mаcedoniа offers а compelling cаse study. Аs а unitаry stаte undergoing decentrаlizаtion аnd grаduаl deconcentrаtion of centrаl power, its institutionаl аrchitecture relies heаvily on coordinаtion between ministries, regulаtory bodies, аnd locаl governments. The аctuаl Strаtegy for Trаnspаrency 2023–2026 reflects both domestic demаnd for stronger аccountаbility аnd compliаnce with international obligations. Yet, the effectiveness of these reforms depends not only on formаl commitments but аlso on how trаnspаrency аnd coordinаtion аre prаcticed within а complex political environment. The positioning of institutions, the role of their leаders, аnd the broаder politicаl dynаmics shаpe whether аnti-corruption objectives аre аchieved in prаctice. This pаper exаmines how transparency reforms in North Macedonia intersect with intergovernmental coordinаtion аnd legаl commitments, highlighting the challenges аnd opportunities of аligning domestic governаnce structures with international аnti-corruption standards.

Abstract When does legal mobilisation democratise institutions rather than instrumentalise them? Existing frameworks cannot answer this question: deliberative democracy theory evaluates political engagement without addressing legal mobilisation; socio-legal scholarship documents litigation’s effects without providing normative criteria. This article develops reflexive juridification as a framework for evaluating democratic legitimacy across institutional domains. Democratic legitimacy, I argue, requires movements to fulfil three copulative requirements: communicative translation, functional differentiation and identity preservation. These requirements – grounded in Habermasian discourse theory and operationalised through comparative analysis of Chilean and United States cases – specify procedural standards for assessing how movements navigate political deliberation and legal interpretation simultaneously. Comparative analysis reveals that instrumental juridification emerges symmetrically across ideological orientations: progressive movements through the judicialisation of politics (Chile’s Constitutional Convention), conservative movements through the politicisation of law (Dobbs). The framework advances interdisciplinary legal studies by providing normative criteria independent of ideological content, evaluating process rather than substance.

As a General-Purpose Technology (GPT), Artificial Intelligence (AI) is fundamentally reconfiguring state capacity, as well as the mechanics of global economic management. This systematic review examines current research studies (2018-2026) to assess the socio-political consequences of artificial intelligence-driven governance in three key dimensions - policy integration, economic consequences and democratic legitimacy. Following the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting of Items in a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA), the outcomes of this review show a structural shift from "street level" bureaucracies to "system-level" architectures that can be defined as the institutional division of "Artificial Discretion" to algorithmic infrastructures - with empirical evidence showing great gains in efficiency at routinised administrative tasks and fiscal forecasting, offsets by a growing "Efficiency-Legitimacy Paradox". The findings reveal the importance of the "black box" nature of automated systems, epitomised by the Australian 'Robo-debt' scandal, that undermines the democratic social contract and principles of procedural justice. Furthermore, the synthesis presents a stark geopolitical divide between the "AI Core" nations and the Global South; the latter group faces acute risks of "Digital Dependency" as well as eroded digital sovereignty. In order to alleviate these types of tensions, the review examines the effectiveness of visibility mechanisms, such as public algorithm registers or role-sensitive explainability, in regaining citizen trust. The study concludes that the sustainability of the algorithmic state rests on a movement from technocratic secrecy to value-based transparency that will ensure that AI- and human collaboration is founded on institutional accountability and algorithmic justice.

ABSTRACT Violent conflict is often assumed to undermine democratic legitimacy and increase public support for authoritarian alternatives. Yet, empirical evidence remains limited, particularly in the context of developing democracies. Using the case of Nigeria, Africa’s largest democracy, this study examines the effect of violent conflict on attitudes toward military rule. It employs an instrumental variable strategy that leverages proximity to international borders as a source of exogenous variation in conflict exposure. Contrary to conventional expectations, findings indicate that individuals exposed to higher levels of violence are significantly less likely to support military rule. These results are robust to alternative operationalizations of violent conflict. Further analysis reveals that reduced support for military rule among individuals exposed to violence does not automatically translate into greater support for democracy. This study hence contributes to broader debates on regime legitimacy and authoritarian attitudes in fragile states.

ABSTRACT ‘Trends in Election Denialism: the United States and Australia’ ‘Election denialism’ denotes the claim that an election has been ‘stolen’ or rigged either by private individuals or, more disturbingly, by election authorities. Although an increasingly common form of political disinformation, we tend to think of it as a problem largely confined to the US. But, as I show in this empirically-informed political theory paper, it is now also becoming an Australian problem. I lay out and compare the character and extent of the problem in the US and Australia, then show how election conspiracism can, does and may undermine democracy in both settings. I do so by enlisting a proceduralist conception of democracy and democratic legitimacy in order to assess its harms and to comprehend them in relation to the purpose and function of elections in representative democracies. A key theme is to understand why Australia has proved to be more resilient to disinformation about the authenticity of electoral processes and outcomes.

The wave of street demonstrations in Indonesia in recent years has highlighted tensions between the state and civil society, particularly when representative institutions are perceived as no longer capable of engaging in deliberative communication with citizens. This study aims to analyze street demonstrations as a political practice of civil society in response to the weakening of trust in formal democratic channels. This study focuses on a series of protests demanding the dissolution of the House of Representatives on August 25–31, 2025. This study used a phenomenological approach to analyze the symbolic and moral meanings emerging from the demonstrations. Data were collected through an analysis of media reports, civil society organization reports, official state documents, and social media content. The analytical process followed the Miles and Huberman model through data reduction, presentation, and conclusions. The findings indicate that when communication between the state and citizens is disrupted and public trust weakens, street politics emerges as a space to articulate criticism and ethical demands. The escalation of violence, differing narratives regarding the victims, and high public dissatisfaction with the handling of protests highlight the tension between electoral legitimacy and moral legitimacy. This study suggests that democratic legitimacy is dynamic and continuously negotiated through interactions between the state and civil society, as well as non-electoral participation in the public sphere.

Abstract Legal cases in the policy area of religion—concerning religious exemptions, euthanasia, same-sex marriage, or religious education—are fiercely contested. Although democratic theory has long debated the role of religion in court, the normative challenges of religious strategic litigation have yet to be discussed. I conceptualize religious strategic litigation as a political practice in which groups take legal action based on norms concerning religion in order to pursue broader political agendas. Challenging the notion that religious strategic litigation is special, that is, that it raises particular concerns of democratic legitimacy, I argue that it shares its problematic features with strategic litigation in other policy areas. Democratic theory should focus on how strategic litigation in any policy area can potentially disempower citizens.

This study examines the relationship between electoral integrity and democratic legitimacy in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic (1999–2023), situating the analysis within the broader West African democratic landscape. Employing qualitative methodology and comparative review of seven electoral cycles, this paper investigates whether electoral integrity genuinely influences democratic legitimacy or remains a theoretical ideal disconnected from political reality. Findings reveal a paradoxical pattern where, despite periodic elections, persistent irregularities including vote buying, result falsification, and violence have undermined both electoral credibility and citizen trust. Notably, voter turnout declined precipitously from 52.3% in 1999 to a historic low of 26.7% in 2023, signaling a profound legitimacy crisis. The study concludes that while electoral integrity significantly impacts democratic legitimacy, institutional constraints and political interference have transformed this relationship into a contested myth, necessitating urgent institutional reforms to restore public confidence.

Abstract The postmodern turn in political theory represents a seismic epistemological and normative change of the certainties of modernist structures in the face of fragmented, contingent and discursively constituted view of politics. Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, and Jean-Francois Lyotard are also thinkers that undermine the conceptual grounding of universal truth, rationality and stable political subjectivity and thus reconfigure the conceptual landscape of power and legitimacy. This paper explores the ways in which postmodern political theory transforms the conceptualization of power into a diffuse, relational, and networked relationship between knowledge and discourse as opposed to being concentrated in a centralized position of the state or ruling elite. It also examines how discourse is involved in the production of political realities, identities and regimes of truth based on the discursive and hegemonic paradigm introduced by Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe. It is within this theoretical framework that the paper critically examines the new crisis with regard to democratic legitimacy in the modern societies. The weakening of the normative basis of the democratic consensus and public reason is due to the erosion of meta-narratives, the proliferation of rival truth claims, and the mediatization of politics. The legitimacy becomes volatile and disputed as democratic institutions are more and more likely to work in a terrain of fragmented identities, algorithmic communications and symbolic struggles. Postmodernism is a space that enables pluralism, marginal voices and critical resistance, but it is also a space that raises the threat of eroding the potential of shared norms and joint decision making. The article ends by suggesting a re-conceptualization of democratic legitimacy that balances postmodern lessons with the imperative to have normative foundations, participatory politics and institutional responsibility in a more complicated political order.

ABSTRACT Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 has generated the most significant challenge to European security since the end of the Cold War. The European Parliament (EP) emerged as the first EU institution to articulate a unified political stance and to advocate concrete measures in support of Ukraine, despite its limited formal competences in the field. This article examines how the EP asserted its democratic legitimacy and its parliamentary positioning within the EU’s geopolitical response during the war by analysing voting dynamics across the 9th and 10th terms. The study investigates a selected set of roll-call votes and amendments between February 2022 and August 2025, identifying the partisan, national, and regional factors shaping MEPs’ behaviour. Using cohesion indices and cluster analysis across economic, security, and value-related issues, it assesses how the evolving war context influenced alignments within and across political groups. The findings show that while the EP’s initial response was marked by broad consensus and high party cohesion, the war’s protracted nature generated declining ideological coherence, stronger national and regional clustering, and a more polarised divide between pro-Ukraine mainstream and more accommodationist forces. The EP’s role evolved from exceptional unity to a more differentiated and contested parliamentary landscape.

ABSTRACT How can national human rights institutions (NHRIs) contribute to the realisation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in a manner that harmoniously achieves its effectiveness and democratic legitimacy? While previous studies treated NHRIs’ contributions to different phases of this realisation separately, this study examines the combined effect of their continuous and seamless engagement in all the four realisation phases under the framework of ‘two-tiered bounded deliberative democracy’. The realisation phases unfold as follows: (1) interpreting and applying the ECHR through ‘bounded’ deliberations at the national level; (2) supplementing national deliberations and identifying ‘bounds’ by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR); (3) implementing ECtHR judgments through ‘bounded’ deliberations at the national level; and (4) supervising the execution of ECtHR judgments by the Committee of Ministers to promote implementation through ‘bounded’ deliberations. Moreover, while previous studies have not clearly distinguished between NHRIs and non-governmental organisations, and between A-status NHRIs and other NHRIs in terms of their roles in the ECHR system, the present study highlights the unique contributions of A-status NHRIs. Through these analyses, this study proposes how the procedures and practices of the ECtHR and the Committee of Ministers could be reformed to take advantage of NHRIs’ contributions.

ABSTRACT In times of crises, communicating citizen agency can stimulate engagement, support effective governance and legitimacy. Yet, little is known about how the European Parliament – as the only directly elected EU institution and a central site for contesting democratic legitimacy in the Union – constructs citizens’ roles in such moments. This article introduces a novel Actor’s Agency Model that maps agency along two dimensions and applies it to more than a decade of its crisis-related press releases and X/Twitter posts (2011–2025). Our findings show that while citizen visibility has grown, this has rarely meant attributing them a capacity to act in crises. Press releases overwhelmingly cast citizens as passive, instrumentalising them to sustain institutional self-legitimation. X posts more often assign active roles, but primarily through forms that do not amount to substantive participation. Such patterns risk undermining EU legitimacy by sidelining those whose involvement is essential to democratic crisis governance.

ABSTRACT This article discusses the potential of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) to issue structural remedies in cases concerning climate change and the probable legitimacy tensions that may arise. The article argues that the IACtHR has normative legitimacy to issue structural remedies. It further argues that, although in general terms, issuing broad agenda-setting remedies in climate cases provides more legitimacy to the IACtHR as it allows the State to decide how to pursue compliance, more specific remedies where the IACtHR formulates a policy could favour more impact in some occasions, particularly more effective protection of rights of those individuals that are usually not allowed to be part of democratic decision-making processes.

This study provides a comprehensive and multidimensional analysis of the role of women’s political participation in fostering and institutionalizing participatory democracy in Algeria. Drawing upon a combination of legal-institutional analysis, political sociology, and comparative democratic theory, the research examines how women’s engagement in political processes contributes to the transformation of governance structures, civic inclusion, and democratic legitimacy. The study integrates constitutional developments, electoral reforms, and international commitments—particularly those aligned with global gender equality frameworks—to evaluate the extent to which formal guarantees translate into substantive political empowerment. Empirically, the research analyzes patterns of women’s representation in elected councils, decision-making positions, and civil society organizations, highlighting both progress and persistent structural constraints. The findings reveal that, despite significant legal advancements—such as constitutional provisions promoting gender equality and quota-based representation— women’s political participation in Algeria remains limited by deeply rooted socio-cultural norms, institutional inertia, and the constrained autonomy of civil society actors. Moreover, the study demonstrates that participatory democracy in Algeria continues to exhibit predominantly formal characteristics, with limited effective citizen engagement in policy formulation and governance processes. The article argues that enhancing women’s political participation is not merely a question of representation but a fundamental prerequisite for achieving inclusive, responsive, and accountable governance. It further contends that the consolidation of participatory democracy requires a holistic approach that combines legal reforms with cultural transformation, institutional transparency, and the empowerment of independent civil society structures. By situating the Algerian case within broader theoretical and comparative perspectives, this study contributes to the ongoing scholarly discourse on gender, democratization, and participatory governance in transitional and developing political systems.