Search results

Structural constitutional law regulates the workings of government and supplies the rules of the political game. Whether by design or by accident, these rules sometimes tilt the playing field for or against certain political factions – not just episodically, based on who holds power at a given moment, but systematically over time – in terms of electoral outcomes or policy objectives. In these instances, structural constitutional law is itself structurally biased. This Article identifies and begins to develop the concept of such structural biases, with a focus on biases affecting the major political parties. Recent years have witnessed a revival of political conflict over the basic terms of the U.S. constitutional order. We suggest that this phenomenon, and a large part of structural constitutional conflict in general, is best explained by the interaction between partisan polarization and structural bias, each of which can intensify the other. The Article also offers a typology of structural biases, keyed to the contemporary United States but potentially applicable to any system. To date, legal scholars have lagged social scientists in investigating the efficiency, distributional, and political effects of governance arrangements. The concept of structural bias, we aim to show, can help bridge this disciplinary gap and thereby advance the study of constitutional design and constitutional politics.

Research Objective: The article aims to analyse the concept of structural violence to outline its essential theoretical references.
The Research Problem and Methods: The main problem raised in the text is the distinction of structural violence against other forms of violence. The article uses the method of conceptual analysis supplemented with case studies.
The Process of Argumentation: The definition of structural violence proposed in the paper emphasizes the presence of intentional or unintentional systemic conditions that violate or limit the rights of individuals or groups. In the order of analysis, structural violence is first distinguished from other forms of violence: personal and legitimist. There are three forms of structural violence manifestation: social injustice, direct violence caused by an unjust social system, and a permanent threat embedded in the social system. In connection with the above, the possibility of identifying structural violence with theoretical tools developed by John Rawls to specify the conditions of structural justice is indicated. As a critical complement to this approach, a caveat is discussed that shows that however useful, Rawls's approach may not be sufficient. Finally, the issue of cultural and symbolic violence is analysed.
Research Results: The conclusion drawn from the presented analysis is that structural violence is inextricably linked with social structure. A significant difficulty in minimizing it is that its sources are often invisible, remaining somewhat outside the framework of the current social paradigm. Therefore, the fight against this type of violence requires far-reaching interventions at the level of public awareness.
Conclusions, Innovations, and Recommendations: Recommendations that can be derived from the above considerations focus on the need to conduct social campaigns that have the opportunity to gradually change social awareness and the often unconscious social status quo.