Insights
Modern political theory often assumes that institutions function as stabilising forces, creating order through rules, procedures, and predictable norms. Yet history reveals that institutions are not neutral frameworks; they shape behaviour by privileging certain values over others. The political scientist James March argued that institutions work not only through incentives but through identities, teaching individuals how to understand their roles and obligations. Citizens, officials, and leaders behave in ways that align with institutional narratives long before they calculate personal advantage.
This insight becomes crucial when examining how states respond to crises. Emergencies compress time, forcing governments to make rapid decisions while public scrutiny heightens. Institutions designed for deliberation struggle under pressure, and executive power expands to fill the void. The legal scholar Oren Gross describes this as the “extra-legal measures model,” where states temporarily step outside established norms to restore stability. Supporters see this as pragmatic; critics warn that temporary measures often reshape political culture more profoundly than the crises that triggered them.
Democratic societies face an additional tension. They depend on public trust, yet trust is vulnerable to both misinformation and institutional opacity. When citizens perceive decisions as predetermined or shielded from accountability, they withdraw into private concerns or gravitate toward populist rhetoric that promises direct representation without procedural complexity. Populism presents itself as a corrective to elite detachment but frequently replaces institutional constraints with charismatic authority. The shift from rules to personality alters governance even when formal structures remain intact.
Global interdependence adds another dimension. Migration, digital surveillance, and economic volatility require coordination across borders, but global governance lacks the legitimacy that supports domestic institutions. Bodies such as the United Nations or the World Trade Organization derive authority from treaties rather than democratic consent. Their decisions carry weight, yet they remain distant from ordinary citizens. This distance fuels scepticism and provides fertile ground for narratives that portray global institutions as unaccountable actors disrupting national sovereignty.
Political theorists increasingly argue that stability cannot depend solely on strengthening institutions; it must also involve cultivating the public capacities that institutions rely on. Deliberation, empathy, and reflexive judgment are not merely civic virtues but structural necessities. Without them, even well-designed institutions become brittle. Conversely, when the public engages with politics as a shared project rather than a transactional exchange, institutions acquire the resilience needed to withstand crisis. Political order develops not from the absence of conflict but from the capacity to negotiate disagreements without collapsing into coercion or fragmentation.
