CRISIS OF MAJORITY REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY OR A TRANSITION TO JUDICIAL DEMOCRACY

Abstract

To what extent is the judiciary's interventionism in the legislative and executive branches through activism and judicialisation detrimental to democracy? This article seeks to understand how the judiciary has been reversing the traditional meaning of procedural and substantive democracy, which was once centred on parliament as the highest body of public consensus and endowed with representative legitimacy conferred by the people. In this sense, the article denounces how activism has been causing democratic atrophy in favour of a judicial monocracy, which has come to exercise the role of an extraordinary legislator, emptying the participatory role of the people. On the other hand, the article also analyses how the judiciary has contributed to judicialisation and activism for the democratic expansion of social rights, democratic stability and legislative supplementation in omitted matters. Finally, the article proposes a thesis that emphasises the limits of the judiciary's actions, so as not to contradict the basic foundations of democracy, which are the separation of powers, the rule of law, broad popular participation, etc., seeking to avoid abusive or authoritarian judicialism