The Weaponization of Technical Law Erodes Democratic Trust
The Weaponization of Technical Law Erodes Democratic Trust
Modern states enforce vast bodies of law. Much of this law regulates conduct that is technical rather than plainly harmful. Citizens face statutes written in complex language, enforced through procedures few understand. Within this structure, mistakes are inevitable. What matters is not whether errors occur, but how authorities choose to respond.
Technical law differs from common law crime. Theft, assault, and murder are universally known and inherently serious. By contrast, violations of mortgage rules, tax forms, or regulatory filings often arise from complexity rather than intent. They carry penalties as severe as traditional crimes, yet many who commit them are unaware they have done so. This gap creates space for discretion, and discretion is where power lies.
When prosecutors treat these violations as tools against opponents, the effect reaches beyond the accused. Citizens see that the law can be summoned selectively. They see that allies escape scrutiny while rivals face investigation. The lesson is not that rules matter, but that loyalty matters. Once that perception takes root, the law no longer appears neutral. It becomes an instrument of faction.
A society that tolerates such practice builds a cycle of retaliation. Each governing party inherits a precedent: use technical law to damage enemies. Each administration feels justified because the other did it first. This cycle expands over time, as more offices and agencies join the contest. What begins as targeted punishment evolves into systemic distrust, leaving institutions hollow.
Overcriminalization sharpens the danger. When statutes are so numerous and complex that nearly everyone is vulnerable, no citizen can feel secure. Any person can be charged if an authority decides to look hard enough. The result is a system where compliance does not guarantee safety. Safety depends instead on whether those in power choose to shield or to strike. That condition is incompatible with democracy.
Double standards erode trust faster than open conflict. Citizens recognize inconsistency when leaders condemn one group for conduct they excuse in another. The contradiction undermines legitimacy more than the conduct itself. If violations are common, but only opponents face punishment, the system signals that the law is not universal. The message is that law follows politics. Trust cannot survive under that message.
The defense of democracy requires restraint in enforcement. Technical law must be applied with attention to intent and harm, not as a pretext for political gain. Equal application, even when inconvenient, is the only ground on which legitimacy can stand. Without it, the government loses the credibility on which consent depends.
The temptation to weaponize the law is strong because the tools are readily available and the results can be immediate. But the long-term cost is greater than the short-term advantage. Each selective prosecution chips away at the belief that the law binds rulers as well as the ruled. When that belief is gone, trust is gone.
And without trust, democracy cannot endure.