Why do written constitutional protections not always guarantee judicial independence in practice?

Written constitutional protections often fail to guarantee judicial independence in practice because formal declarations cannot fully insulate courts from political and social pressures. While most nations include such protections in their constitutions, empirical research shows these documents are poorly correlated with actual judicial autonomy.12

The judiciary is inherently vulnerable because it lacks the power of the "purse or the sword," making it difficult to defend itself against other branches of government that may choose to ignore or thwart its decisions. Furthermore, even in systems with strong formal safeguards, courts are often subject to long-term political reshaping and may accommodate the wishes of durable political majorities.12

Ultimately, the effectiveness of judicial independence depends on exogenous factors—such as the presence of a stable, competitive democracy—rather than just institutional design. In some cases, courts remain captive to political elites or are susceptible to manipulation, as seen when governments dissolve or restructure high courts to ensure greater control. Achieving true independence requires more than just legal text; it requires a political environment that respects the judiciary's role as a check on power.13